Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Guassa Community-Based Conservation Area Draft Management Plan ..2 I. 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION................................................................... 5 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Common Property Resource and Community-based Natural Resource Management ....................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Statement of the problems .......................................................................... 8 1.4 Objectives.....................................................................................................13 1.5 Methods ........................................................................................................13 1.5.1 Pre-appraisal Dialogue (Group Discussion) ......................................13 1.5.2 Key Informant Interviews .....................................................................14 1.5.3 Questionnaire Survey ..........................................................................14 1.5.4 Line transects........................................................................................14 2. The Guassa Area of Menz................................................................................16 2.1 Biophysical Resources of the area ............................................................16 2.1.1 Background Legend .............................................................................16 2.1.2 Location .................................................................................................17 2.1.3 Geology and Soil ..................................................................................18 2.1.4 Climate ..................................................................................................19 2.1.5. Hydrology .............................................................................................22 2.1.6 Vegetation Types ................................................................................22 2.1.7 Fauna.....................................................................................................27 2.2 Socio-Economic Description of the area ..............................................34 2.2.1 The Community/people living around the Guassa area (Demography) ................................................................................................34 2.2.2 Surrounding Land use..........................................................................34 2.2.3 The Economy ........................................................................................35 2.2.4 Cultural Features ..................................................................................37 3. Management Issues ..........................................................................................38 3.1 Common property resource management ................................................38 3.2 Enforcement of Rules in the Management of Common Property Resource ............................................................................................................39 3.3 Change in the Management of Common Property Resource: The Revolution ...........................................................................................................41 3.4 The Decline of the Qero System ................................................................43
Guassa Community-Based Conservation Area Draft Management Plan ..3 3.4 The Present Management of the Guassa Area ........................................45 3.5 Attitudes towards the Common Property Resource Management System ................................................................................................................47 4. The Present Community Resource Use Pattern ............................................53 4.1 Important Resources Harvested ................................................................53 4.1.1 Guassa Cutting .....................................................................................53 4.1.2 Firewood Collection ..............................................................................57 4.1.3 Livestock Grazing .................................................................................61 5. THE GUASSA AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................67 5.1 The Planning Process .................................................................................67 6. Guassa Area Purpose Statement ....................................................................71 6.1 Management Programmes .........................................................................72 A. Natural Resource Management and Ecosystem Health Programme ..........73 Objective 1. The communal and traditional natural resource management system in the Guassa Area strengthened to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources by the Guassa-users ...................................................................................................78 Target 1.1 Human impacts as a result of grass extraction monitored and minimized .........................................................................................................78 Target 1.2 Fuelwood extraction from the Guassa Area regulated. ......................79 Target 1.3 Grazing levels in Guassa is maintained at sustainable level. .............80 Objective 2: Threats to the long-term conservation and ecological viability of Conservation Targets mitigated ............................................................................81 Target 2.1. Pressure on natural resources in the Guassa area reduced ...............81 Target 2.2 Habitat degraded in the Guassa are will be stopped and areas already degraded will be restored ..................................................................................82 Target 2.3 Accidental killing and direct persecution reduced.............................83 Objective 3: Regular, management-orientated monitoring and assessment of key ecosystem values and processes strengthened .......................................................83 Target 3.1 Human use monitored and for feedback for ensuring sustainable natural resource ................................................................................................84 Target 3.2 The wildlife of the Guassa area monitored regularly.........................84 B. Guassa Community-based Conservation Area Management Programme .86 Objective 1. The Guassa area boundary agreed and demarcated with local communities .........................................................................................................86
Guassa Community-Based Conservation Area Draft Management Plan ..4 Target 1.1 The Guassa area demarcated in collaboration with the community ...86 Objective 2. The Guassa area legally recognised and its status appropriately ratified as a community managed conservation area in Ethiopia. .......................................87 Target 2.1 The Guassa area as a legally accepted Community-based conservation area. ..................................................................................................................88 Objective 3. The Guassa Area effectively managed and patrolled by community elected conservation council board and community scouts ....................................89 Target 3.1 Autonomous management body established to control and supervise the Guassa area .................................................................................................89 Target 3. 2 Community scours elected from the community and trained for controlling of illegal activity in the Guassa area ................................................90 C. Sustainable Development (Community Outreach) Programme ...................92 Objective 1. Visitor access and use enhanced in environmentally appropriate and sustainable way.....................................................................................................92 Target 1.1 Promotion of the Guassa area as a tourist destination in the country enhanced...........................................................................................................92 Target 1.2 Disturbance of key habitats, wildlife populations and other exceptional resource minimised. .......................................................................93 Target 1.3 Visitors facilities developed and expanded in consultation with stakeholders to provide an optimal experience ..................................................94 Target 1.4 Trained Guides to survey the visitors coming to the area. .................95 Objective 2. Awareness Creation and Environmental Education Activities are Strengthen ............................................................................................................95 Target 2.1 Community and school awareness creation programme enhanced and strengthen .........................................................................................................95 D. Action Plan ..........................................................................................................97 14. References ........................................................................................................ 2 Appendices .............................................................................................................. 7
I.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Introduction
The classic approach to conservation is characterised by a top-down approach that includes the establishment and expansion of protected areas, enforcement of legislation and the assumption of ownership of wildlife resources by the state. While these approaches have ensured the survival of populations of certain species and ecosystems, and contributed to foreign exchange earnings, they have been slow to integrate local people into resource management and decision-making activities. Local communities are faced with a rapidly diminishing natural resource base. Conflict between local communities and conservation authorities has escalated and law enforcement has become less practical and more costly. As the human population grows, demands on remaining resources have increased leading to environmental degradation and further conflict. Thus, it is important to examine as wide as a range as possible of viable options preventing biodiversity loss. Isolating areas from human impact and development lead to a policy of protected area establishment dominated by the American (western) model of protection. This model, sometime referred as fence and fine view of natural resource conservation, was based on the fact that consumptive use of resources should be absolutely prohibited. This approach began with the creation of Yosemite and Yellowstone National Parks in the United States 125 years ago, although the original concept had evolved from previous efforts to set aside areas as hunting preserves for the rich or royal (Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997; IUCN, 1998). While national parks make a crucial contribution to some of the universal functions of conservation, the American model of protection does not always translate very well in the tropics. In fact, it is difficult to find national parks in the developed or in the developing world that are effectively meeting all the functions for which they were designed. The management of protected areas in developing countries all too often entails huge social and ecological costs. A growing body of empirical evidence now
Common property management institutions are crucial for sustainable resource use and development. Above all, they are a reflection of the existing socio-economic, political and cultural situation of the community (Ostrom, 1991). Therefore, the effective functioning of a common property resource system depends on the existence of appropriate indigenous institutions. With many common property resource management systems, these institutions are local and informal, and community-based rather than government sponsored (Berkes, 1989; Ostrom, 1991, 1997). Community-based initiatives intentionally includes a range of activities practised in various corners of the world that directly or indirectly lead to conservation. The coexistence of people and nature, as a distinct form of protectionism is the central precept of community-based conservation (IIED, 1994; Western and Wright, 1994; Leader-Williams et al., 1996; Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997). Defining community-based conservation precisely is difficult, because of the difficulties of achieving a coherent definition of the term community. Should community be defined by ethnicity or traditions, by residency or by sense of a common purpose? Or, given the great influx and transition now seen in most societies, should it include immigrants, those in cultural transition and those with no ancestral ties to the land or to each other? In todays world, traditional communities are rife with internal conflicts and divergent interests and often split along economic, gender and social lines (Little, 1994). In general terms, communitybased conservation aims to involve rural people as an integral part of nature conservation policy. Community-based conservation has grown out of its own accord, but most importantly it recognises a neglected set of participants and acknowledges their significance in the conservation of the rural
The rhetoric of these conservation projects was that there should be local control over the projects, which were regarded as community-based conservation. However, the reality remained that the local people contributed little to conservation. Under the disguise of community-based conservation, the land that was in the hands of the community was turned systematically into government land, with the government setting policy that reduced land use options (Campbell, 1991). These projects, in the name of community-based conservation, in fact restricted local peoples access to highly needed land, which in turn has produced land shortage and over-use. Thus, conservation has worked against the people even if the rhetoric that accompanied the projects emphasised local participation and control by the community, and promised long-term benefits. It is clear today that much of the conservation effort carried out in the name of conservation has been wasted or counterproductive in the Ethiopia highlands. The short-term and long-term benefits of conservation activities are uncertain to many communities living adjacent to the different conservation areas and conservation projects. Many factors have contributed to the poor performance of conservation projects. Not least among these were the neo-Malthusian environmental policy narratives used by government conservation agencies and donors alike to justify their conservation efforts, with little regard to regional or local agro-ecological conditions, and above all, the rural community (Turton, 1987; Hoben, 1997). Most of the conservation activities were based on inadequate scientific and technical knowledge. Furthermore, implementation was top-down and authoritarian (Turton, 1995; Yeraswork Admassie, 2001). Also as a wildlife conservation initiative, the Ethiopian government in its effort to save representative areas of the highland biome has already established two conservation areas; one in the North-western Highland Massif (Simen Mountain National Park)
In the Central Highlands of Ethiopian, there are no officially protected areas, but there is a community where natural resources are protected for its sustainable use and for benefit of the entire community. In a country where most of the conservation efforts are failing, or in the process of doing so, it is notable that the community living near the Guassa area of Menz has been managing their natural resources in a sustainable way for at least the last 400 hundred years. Unlike similar areas in Ethiopia, the Menz community has managed the Guassa area for a wide range of purposes and has benefited from their sustainable management. Their protection of the natural environment has helped the survival of several endangered species of fauna and flora and has made the community self sufficient in energy requirement and also provided a resource extremely voluble during drought/famine times. This community management of natural resource has started out of its own accord and helped the Menz community resilient in the management of their common property resources, since a variety of cultural and political changes at different times has threatened the continuity of this indigenous community-based natural resource management system (Zelealem Tefera, 1995; 1998; 2001). Community-based conservation is now a widely used strategy to save remaining natural resources. It was increasingly realised that, without the co-operation of rural communities, conservation efforts would be doomed to failure. Conservationists came to realise that local people, who where commonly hostile to conservation particularly to wildlife conservation, had to be won over as supporters of their efforts. This was certainly true in Africa, where rural communities often viewed wildlife conservation as a misguided venture that put wildlife protection before human needs. A community-based approach can be effective because it harks back to pre-colonial African conservation practices that used community-led constraints to regulate resource use and is a means by which rural Africans will benefit materially from
1.4 Objectives
The over all objectives of these management plan is to support the sustainable management of the Guassa area with out fostering the decline of the biodiversity and existing regulated human use in the area. Specific objectives to describe the biophysical, social and cultural features of the Guassa area; to describe the current indigenous community-based conservation in the Guassa area; to indicate areas of development needed in terms of material and personnel to carry out effective management; to outline conservation activities in chronological order to be carried out in the implementation phase; to justify and introduce the concept of integrated sustainable rural development to reduce poverty and to suggest ways of achieving this with in the Guassa area of Menz.
1.5 Methods
1.5.1 Pre-appraisal Dialogue (Group Discussion) First we aimed to obtain a general overview of the historical background to common property resource management in the Guassa area. Hence, we undertook a preappraisal dialogue, using a group discussion method that has well documented advantages, and allows sensitive issues to be more freely discussed in groups, when individuals would not wish to discuss them alone with a stranger (Chambers, 1992). A group discussion took place in Amharic in each of the eight peasant associations that make use of the Guassa area. The size of group discussion meetings varied from 8 to 74 participants with an average of 35 participants. Open-ended questions
N
OT AM YAD
A
NGET ME W A UGI Y
DARGENY
Weld a Wu da me
G ore Jib
DIG
ichot Ch
KOR E T A
AGANCHT
Dij a
Murtin a
Am bo
i ka Ch
Ras Ketema
Te te r
FIRKUTA
Fo ke t
Amol e Di ngay
Boundary Rivers
YEHATA
Mofer Washa
YEDI
Regr eg
Road Trail
2 Kilometers
Fig 2.1 Map showing the Guassa area and its location in relation to Ethiopia. 2.1.3 Geology and Soil More recent rocks from the Mesozoic era overlie the pre-Cambrian rock in most parts of the Central Highlands. Volcanic activity during the Tertiary period resulted in the extrusion of large quantities of flood lava, which now cover most of the Central Highlands. These lava flows occurred in a series of layers to form the Trap series (Mohor, 1963).
2.1.4 Climate The climatic map of Ethiopia divides the country into three broad climate types, which are further subdivided into nine classes. The three main climate types recognised are: dry; tropical rainy; and, temperate rainy (Daniel Gemachu, 1990). Under this classification, the Central Highlands of Ethiopia are characterised as the temperate rainy climate type, with distinct dry and wet months. However, considerable variation occurs in the climate of the Central Highlands of Ethiopia as a result of variation in altitude and the size of the mountain blocks. The nearest meteorological station to Guassa is at Mehal Meda, some 17 km away, but information from this station is incomplete. A maximum-minimum thermometer was placed at the project station in Mehal Meda that was read once every 24hr. A hygrometer was also placed in Mehal Meda to record the relative humidity twice a day (0800hr and 01400hr) from 1996-1999. Rainfall data for the Guassa area were collected by a standard rain gauge comprising (a steel cylinder of 5-inch (12.7cm) diameter) during the same period other wise all metrological information are obtained for the meteorological centre in Mehal Meda.
Maximum Minimum
15 10 5 0 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Figure 2.4 Mean monthly temperatures in Mehal Meda. 2.1.4.3 Humidity No relative humidity records exist for the Guassa area but the relative humidity from nearby Mehal Meda is available (Figure 2.5). Values of relative humidity are highest in the wet season and lowest in the dry season. Humidity is generally lower in the dry months than in the wet season, lowest relative humidity recorded in the months of April, May and June (Figure2.5).
90 80 Relative Humidity (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. 0800hr 1400hr
H a b it a t T yp e s
E r ic a M o o r l a n d E u r yo p s - a lc h e m i ll a S h r u b l a n d E u r yo p s - fe s tu c a ( m im a m o u n d ) F e s tu c a G r a s s la n H i li ch r y s u m - fe s tu c a G ra s s la n d H y p e r i u c e m S h r u b la n d L o b e li a -fe s t u c a G r a s s la n d P la n ta ti o n F o r e s t S h o rt G ra s sl a n d S w a m p G r as slan d T h y m e - a lc h e m il la S h r u b la n d
K ilo m e te r s
2.1.5.1 Festuca Grassland (Guassa Grassland) Festuca grassland (Guassa grassland) occurs where the drainage is good and the soil is deep. It grows on steep to moderately steep slopes up to an altitude of 3500m asl (Figure 2.6). The species that are common in Festuca grassland are: Festuca abyssinica; F. simensis; F. richardii; F. macrophylla; Andropogon abyssinicus; Poa schimperina; Trifolium burchellianum; Trifolium multinerve; Alchemilla abyssinica; Alchemilla sp.; Senecio vulgaris; Thymus schimperi; Helichrysum formosissimum; and, Artemesia sp. This habitat is common on the hills of Ras Ketema, Sefed Meda, and in the southern hills of Yedi and covers 19.9% of the Guassa area. It is the most important vegetation
Figure 2.9 View of Euryops-Festuca Grassland (Mima Mound). 2.1.5.4 Helichrysum-Festuca Grassland This vegetation community is found on high ground and hilltops, where the soil is poor. The plants commonly found in this habitat type are: Helichrysum splendidum; H. gofense; H. formosissimum; Sencio vulgaris; Festuca abyssinica; F. simensis; Andropogon abyssinicus; Pinnisetum sp.; Alchemilla abyssinica; and Echnnops sp.. This habitat accounts for 4.4% of the total area of Guassa. This habitat is little used by humans, since the Helichrysum shrub produces lots of smoke when burnt.
2.1.5.5 Erica Moorland Erica moorland is commonly found on higher ground areas with shallow and welldrained soil. Plant species common in the Erica moorland vegetation type are: Erica arboria; Thymus schimperi; Trifolium burchellianum; Alchemilla abyssinica;
Helichrysum splendidum; kniphofia foliosa; Swerti abyssinica; Rubes abyssinicus; R. stedneri; and Urtica simensis. This habitat accounts for 10.4% of the total area of Guassa. The Erica shrub is collected for firewood mainly in the wet season.
2.1.5.6 Swamp Grassland The Swamp grassland is an area that is permanently or temporally inundated in the wet season. Common plant species of this habitat type are: Carex monistachia; Carex fischeri; Hydrocotyle mannie; Alchemilla spp.; Swertia shiperi; and, Kniphofia isoetifolia. This habitat accounts for 3.7% the total area. It is completely different from other habitats in species composition and was taken as an important habitat in this study. In terms of human use the swamps provides a year round green grass to cut and carry home. However, where coarse (Carex spp.) grass are dominant it is less desirable as a source of fodder.
2.1.7 Fauna
2.1.7.1 Mammals Small Mammals In the Guassa area, two shrews (Ayite-megot Amharic) and six rodent species of small mammals have been recorded. Crocidura thalia and C. baileyi are the most widespread of the endemic shrews in Ethiopia (Yalden and Largen, 1992). They are found on both sides of the Great Rift Valley above the ranges of 2700m asl to 3550m asl (Yalden et al., 1976) and are the common shrews in the Guassa. The rodents recorded in the Guassa area include: porcupine (Jart Amharic) Hystrix cristata; common mole rat (Filfel Amharic) Tachyoryctes splendens; the unstriped grass rat Arvicanthis abyssinicus; the harsh-furred rat Lophuromys flavopunctatus; the Abyssinian meadow rat Stenocephalemys griseicauda; and, the groove-toothed rat Otomys typus. Two of the rodent species (A. abyssinicus and S. griseicauda) are endemic. Some ecological study of the rodent community of the Guassa exists (ZelealemTefera, 2001; Zelealem-Tefera et al, 2004). The study of the rodent community of the
700 600
EA
FG
MM
Figure 2. 11 Mean biomass of the three diurnal rodents in the three main habitats. Habitat key: EA=Euryops-Alchemilla shrubland ; FG=Festuca grassland; MM=Mima mound
The North Shoa areas of Goshe-Meda-Ankober (3700m asl) and Kundi (3900m asl) used to have small Ethiopian wolf populations until recently. The last sighting of the wolf in these ranges of North Shoa was 1992 (Kenea Gaddisa Personal Comm.). At present the wolf population is locally extinct from these ranges. The Guassa area of Menz is a continuous area of suitable wolf habitat lying from 3200 to 3700m asl. The Ethiopian wolf is most active by day, when it feeds almost exclusively upon diurnal small mammals. In the Guassa area the Ethiopian wolf mainly feed on small rodents, which accounted for 88.1% by volume of the wolf diet. Sheeps wool and hair from Starks hares accounted for 4.1% and 5.8% of the prey volume, respectively. In the Bale Mountains, the Ethiopian wolf feeds primarily on the giant mole rat Tachyoryctes macrocephalus and other species of Murinae rodents (SilleroZubiri et al., 1995). Ethiopian wolves forage alone. Patches with abundant prey were checked carefully by walking slowly, with ears pointed and frequent pauses to investigate and to locate rodents by sound. Where prey was less abundant, wolves trotted rather than walked. In areas of high vegetation growth, the wolves moved slowly trying to detect movements of rodents in the grass. Wolves sometimes ran in a zig-zag across the field to stimulate the movement of rodents, thereby making hunting easier. The Ethiopian wolf captures its rodent prey by slowly moving towards it in a crouched position, stopping sometimes with its belly pressed against the ground, and moving forward slowly until it reaches a distance from where it can pounce to grab the prey. Ethiopian wolf home range in the Guassa area averaged 7.2km2, with some degree of overlap. A typical Ethiopian wolf pack may contain 3-9 individuals. Pack members come together at night for social greetings and to conduct patrols at dawn and evening. The Ethiopian wolf does not normally use dens for sleeping and to rest at night. Only pups and nursing females have been observed to use dens. Wolves
## SS # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # # S S S # S
## SS # S # # S S # S # # S S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S
# S # S
# S # S # # S S #S # S# S # S # S # ## S SS # S ## ### # SS # S S ## S# S S #S # SS # S # ## S S #SS # # S SS # S # S # # S S # S # # # # S S S S ## # # # SS S S S ## SS # S # S # #S S S# ## ## SS SS # ## # S SS S # S # S # # S # S # S S # S # S ## SS # # S S ## SS #S # S# # ## S# S S S SS # S # # S # S #S S# #S# #SSSSS # S##### S# S SS ## # S# S # S #S S S# # # ## S # #### # S SS# S SSS# S # # ## S # S #S # S ### SS##S S ## S S# # S# S SSS S S ## # # S S# SS S S # S # #S# S ## S # SS S # ## ## # ### # # SS S SSS S S #S #S# # SS S## S ### # SSS S SS #S# S# S # # ### # S SSSS S # # S### # S S ##### #S S #S # S S #S #S S S S# S # S S S ## S # ## S #S # S SS # S S # # ## S S #S # ## S S SS S S #SS# S# # # S S ## # ## # SS # S SS S S ### # # SSSS S # # # # S S S S ## # # # SS S S S # S # S S S # # S # # S # S #S # #S S #S # S # S S # S # S # # S S ## SS # # S S # # # S S S # ### # # S SSS# S S #S# S#S # ###S # SSS S # S # S ## # SS S # S S SS S # S # # ## # S # S # S ## SS # # S S # # #S S S S# S # ## S S# # S # S #S # S# # # # S SS S S S ### # SSS # S ## SS # S # S
S #
# S
# S
Figure 2.12 The distribution of the Ethiopian wolf in the Guassa area of Menz. Wolves were usually seen in the three main habitat types of Euryops-Alchemilla shrubland, Mima mound and Festuca grassland, which together accounted for 70.2% of wolf sightings (n=536). These three habitats alone accounted for 61.2% of the total
Gelada Baboon The gelada baboon is the only living member of the once wide spread genus Theropithecus and is only found in the highlands of Ethiopia. The present day distribution of the gelada is limited to the steep escarpments and gorges that border the eastern side of the Central Highlands which forms the walls of the Great Rift Valley. There are few records of gelada in the west part of the Guassa area, despite the apparent suitability of the habitat. The gelada baboon is a graminivorous primate predominantly feeding on fresh shoots of grass and to a lesser extent on roots and seeds of grasses. The gelada social system consists of a hierarchy of social groupings. The basic group is the reproductive unit that consists of breeding males (1-4) and females (1-10) and their dependant young, collectively called band. A single band of gelada may contain 2-10 reproductive units, plus one to three all-male groups, (non-breeding males of young ages), that shares a common foraging and sleeping area. The ranging areas of different bands overlap and can mix easily, without any aggression to form a big gelada troops (Dunbar, 1992). The population of gelada baboon in the Guassa area is stable and can be seen all year round. The population estimate of the Gelada from the transect data is 9.4animals/km2921-1200 animals for the whole of the Guassa area. The killing of adult male geladas for headdresses is a common practise in North Shoa and has been an important factor in the population dynamics of the gelada (Dunbar, 1992). However, this practice is not common among the people living adjacent to the Guassa area.
S #
S #
S # S #
SS ## S #
S # S # S # S # S # S # S #
S #
S #
S #
S S # # S #
Figure 2.13 The distribution of the Gelada Baboon in the Guassa area Record of other large mammal species in the Guassa area include: grey duiker Sylvicapra grimmia; klipspringer Oreotragus oreotragus; common jackals Canis aureus; spotted Hyena Crocuta crocuta; civet Viverra civeta; rattel Melivora capensis; Egyptian mongooses Herpestes ichneumon; and, serval cat Felis serval. Among the mammal species recorded in the Guassa area seven species are endemic to Ethiopia. Therefore, the Guassa area harbours 22.6% of the endemic mammal fauna of Ethiopia (Appendix III)
2.2
2.2.1 The Community/people living around the Guassa area (Demography) The population of Gera-Keya Woreda was estimated in 2002 to be 133,542 of whom 94% are rural. Mehal Meda, the capital of the Woreda (district), accounts for 85% of the urban population (CSA, 1995). 2.2.2 Surrounding Land use More than 80% of Menz is highland and the high mountain ranges with their steep and eroded slopes have to support the expanding population. The predominant land use of the area is farming virtually all land in Menz is farmed and only few places remain unframed, these include mainly the Guassa area and Amed Guya. Farmers have small grazing land which is in most case less than 0.25ha of grazing land.
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Dargegne
Chare
Quangue
Gragne
Gedenbo
Kuledeha
Tesfomentir
Kewla
Peasant Association
Figure 2.11 Mean of land holding (ha) per household among respondents in the peasant associations that make use of the Guassa area. There are two farming seasons in the area corresponding to the short and long rainy seasons. The highland population heavily relies on these two cropping seasons in a given year, unlike lower parts of the country where farming is a one season activity. The importance of the Belg (short rainy season) is strongly emphasised in Menz and all is good as long as the Belg crop is good. Belg harvest accounts more than 50% of the total harvest in most highland areas of Ethiopia, since most of the flat agricultural fields will be flooded during the long rains. However, the Belg rains recently have
Land is ploughed in January to February for the short rains (Belg) crop and in June or July for the main rainy season (Meher) crop. The main draught animals are oxen, although horses and donkeys are used sometimes, due to impoverishment and the consequent shortage of oxen. It will take a man and his oxen one day to plough a 0.25ha under normal conditions in Menz. All farming related activities of ploughing and harvesting are mens work. In contrast, domestic activity is almost exclusively the work of women. Livestock has been a key element of the economy in the mixed farming systems of northern Ethiopia. In Menz, the role of livestock in subsistence strategies has increased because of the unreliability of cultivation. It is nevertheless important to stress the close relationship between crops and livestock in the production system. Livestock need to be fed from the land and its products, while land needs to be cultivated with livestock. Livestock dung fertilises the land and the yield from the land is threshed using livestock. The livestock holding in Menz is low, compared to other parts of the country, and only a few households can keep different forms of livestock. The average household owns one cow, a pair of oxen and one donkey while some households own horses or mules. Sheep are the most common form of livestock in every household. Unlike most parts of Ethiopia, spinning of wool in Menz is an important household economy. Tradition holds that wool has long been spun in Menz. Until a decade ago, the main clothing was Bana or Zitett, blankets made out of wool as protection against severe cold. Woollen Banas or Zitett are worn by men and women in Menz as warmer alternatives to the more common cotton Gabi or Shemma, and other locally made cotton blankets worn in many parts of Ethiopia. Wool also contributes to the household economy as a readily marketable product.
2.2.4 Cultural Features The population is Amhara, which is one of the largest groups in the country, therefore it predominantly Amhara culture. Their language is Amahric, a Semitic language descended from Geez, the ancient and liturgical language of Ethiopia, which at present is only used in the Orthodox Church. The religion of the population is Monophysite Coptic Orthodox Christianity. The Menz area is the heartland of highland Christian Ethiopia, because it is in the geographical centre of the highlands. It was also an area in which the capitals of the kingdom were located in the old times and provided a large proportion of the governing elite. Most of the rulers of the country came from Menz, from the beginning of what is called the restored Solomonic Dynasty (1270 AD), until the over-throw of Emperor Haile Selassie I, who is the 254 emperor of the dynasty before the 1974 revolution which totally abolished the monarchy rule in the country. The household is a central concept in the area, in common with the rest of Amhara society. The area is perceived as having a homogeneous population, compared to the diversity of coexisting cultures elsewhere in Ethiopia.
3. Management Issues
3.1 Common property resource management
The Guassa are of Menz is one the few areas in the country where a common property resource management system is operating (Zelealem-Tefera, 2001; Zelealem-Tefera and Leader-Williams, 2004). The history of the common property resource is started in 17th Century by the pioneer fathers (Aqgni Abat) of Menz, Gera and Asbo, these two individuals started the indigenous management of the Guassa area. The pioneer fathers set the Guassa area aside for the primary purpose of livestock grazing and use of the guassa (Festuca) grass. The right to use the resources of the Guassa area depended on the land right and tenure system that prevailed in Menz, known as Atsme Irist. Atsme Irist was a right to claim a share of land held in common with other rightful landholders based on an historical ancestor. Those who can establish kinship through either parent may enter a claim to a share of the land from elders controlling the allocation. Hence, under Atsme Irist, the Menz people who could trace their descents from the pioneer fathers, Asbo or Gera, could use the Guassa area. To promote the rational use of resources in the Guassa area, the members of the land holding group (ristegna) in the Astme Irst land tenure system adopted an indigenous institution to manage the common property resources, known as the Qero system. The Qero system worked by choosing a headman (Abba Qera or Afero) who was responsible for protecting and regulating use of the Guassa area. The Asbo and Gera areas each had one Abba Qera (Afero). The Abba Qeras were mostly elected anonymously in the presence of all users of the common property resource. The terms of office of Abba Qera could last from a few years to a lifetime, depending on the performance of the office holder. The user communities of the Guassa were further subdivided at a Tabot or Mekdes (parish) level. Each parish had one headman esquire (Aleqa or Chiqa-shum) who was answerable to their respective Abba Qera.
The Qero system could entail the closure of the Guassa area from any type of use by the community as long as 3-5 consecutive years. The length of closure largely
3.4 The Decline of the Qero System The Guassa area shows what happens when the rules by which common property resources were traditionally managed suddenly collapse under pressure from modernising forces. The reason behind the Guassas demise, and the subsequent suffering of those who depend on its resources, is easy to pin-point. In Menz the undermining of the Qero system is no doubt the most debilitating impact of the 1975 Agrarian Reform. The transformation of land ownership from communal tenure into the state or public land tenure system, abolished the regularity of the Qero system. Thus, a common property regime that formerly provided assurance that the resources on which all rightful owners collectively depended would be available sustainably, is no longer fully functional. The same assurances cannot be provided by the adoption of different property rights, in this case state ownership, since the approaches for sustainability and equity are different. The common property resources of Guassa are now managed in theory by the newly formed peasant associations, which are the new state machinery for the administration in rural communities. The peasant associations are structured on the basis of geographical location rather than on the natural bonds that exist amongst the communities. Hence, the old system whereby communities were structured on the bases of kinship and parishes, both of which are tremendously important to communal belief and unity in rural Ethiopia, are no longer fully functional. The formation of peasant associations abolished the social structure under the pretext
Institutional failure due to changes brought by the 1975 Agrarian Reform was singled out as the most important factor in the decline of the Qero system. The change in the management of the resource resulted in the transfer of decision making from exclusive community-based protection to local government authority. The latter in turn passed accountability to the present resource managers, the Guassa Committee, without considering the size and concern of other communities who believe they are the rightful resource owners. Some of the present administrators of the common property resource were in fact previously marginalised from resource use in the Qero system as they are not the direct descendants of the pioneer fathers. Indeed, they are accused of being inefficient in enforcing the present protection law (afelama). The amount of time spent patrolling the Guassa area now is very minimal, and it has been shown elsewhere that illegal harvesting of resources can only be reduced by increasing detection rates through intensive patrolling (Leader-Williams and Milner-Gulland, 1993).
Two major and five minor redistributions of land have taken place since the 1975 Agrarian Reform in Menz. Other studies in the Central Highlands have found that 85.5% of households have less land than before the 1975 Agrarian Reform (Mesfin-Wolde-Mariam, 1991; Yeraswork-Admassie, 2000). Whenever land redistribution has taken place, this has also brought a partial or complete change of farmland. This repeated redistribution of land has decreased the size of private crop and grazing land holdings, which has ultimately increased pressure on the Guassa area for grazing and for encroachment as agricultural land. In turn, this has resulted in the inability of the community to be self-sufficient in food production, as well as to lose interest in land management practices.
Mean response
Natural heritage
Wildlife habitat
Water catchment
Aesthetic value
Source of rain
Figure 3.1 Mean + SE of values placed upon non-consumptive use of the Guassa area by all respondents.
Many users (66.1%) thought that the Guassa area had decreased in size over the last 20 years, but there was a marked difference of opinion on this matter between the peasant associations (2=68.62, df=7, p<0.001). Most respondents from Kewula (87.9%), Tesfomentir (78.3%), Kuledeha (78.1%), and Gedenbo (76.0%) have noticed a change in the size of the Guassa area. In contrast, most respondents from Qwangue (65.2%) and Dargegne (43.9%) thought that the size of Guassa area has not changed (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 Views of respondents from the eight peasant associations on the changes in size of the Guassa area
Peasant Association n Chare Dargegne Gedenbo Gragne Kewula Kuledeha Qwangue Tesfomentier Total 50 82 50 54 66 64 92 46 504
Decreased (%) 66.0 56.1 76.0 74.1 87.9 78.1 34.8 78.3 66.1
Not decreased (%) 34.0 43.9 24.0 25.9 12.1 21.9 65.2 21.7 33.9
The distance of the respondents villages from the Guassa was associated (2=52.18, df=3, p<0.001) with the assumption that size of the Guassa area has decreased over the last 20 years. Most respondents (52.0%) from areas near to Guassa assumed that the size of Guassa area has not decreased over the last 20 years, while more respondents living at greater distance believed it has decreased. Various factors have been indicated as reasons for the change in size of the Guassa area. Farming by the communities living adjacent to the Guassa area, plantation forestry in the southern side of the Guassa area by the Department of Forestry Ministry of Agriculture and, continuous encroachment by neighbouring Yifat Woreda, residents were singled out by the community as the main factors responsible for the reduction in size of the Guassa area. All of the respondents acknowledged the effectiveness of the Qero system in the management of the area and in protecting the resource from outside forces. Furthermore, almost all (99.6%) pointed out that protection was undermined following the 1975 Agrarian Reform in the country. Regarding the present day management of the Guassa area, most (57.7%) respondents believed the area is managed by the communities through the Guassa Committee. In contrast, 34.1% of respondents believed the Woreda Administration Council is responsible for the management and a few (8.1%) respondents attributed the present day management both to the Guassa Committee and the Woreda Administration Council. Most (98.6%) respondents acknowledged the current existence of a penalty for using the Guassa area in the closed season. However, most (60.9%) respondents thought that current management was ineffective. However, respondents from each peasant association differed (2=42.07, df=7, p<0.001) in their views of the effectiveness of current management. Most of residents from Dargegne (56.1%) and Qwangue (54.3%) considered current management as effective, whereas most respondents from the other peasant associations considered the protection ineffective (Table 3.2).
The distance of respondents villages from the Guassa was associated with different opinions (2=34.11, df=3, p<0.001) on the effectiveness of present day management. As distance from the Guassa to the villages increased, more respondents considered the Guassa management to be ineffective. The respondents thought that various factors were responsible for the ineffectiveness of current management. Most respondents strongly agreed that lack of ownership arising from the decline of the Qero system and drought were the most important factors (Figure 3.2).
5
Responce value
0 Lack of ownership (Decline of the Qero System) Drought Weak Increase in the Market demand enforcement of user law community Over exploitation Neighbouring Woredas
Figure 3.2 Problems identified by respondents as reasons for ineffective management of the Guassa area.
Table 3.3 Views of respondents from peasant associations on suggested future management options.
Peasant Association Chare Dargegne Gedenbo Gragne Kewla Kuledeha Qwangue Tesfomentir Total n 50 82 50 54 66 64 92 46 504
Community (%) 32.0 53.7 44.0 51.9 39.4 45.3 67.4 45.7 49.2
Qero System (%) 22.0 9.8 10.0 14.8 10.6 10.9 8.7 8.7 11.5
State (%) 28.2 23.2 20.0 16.7 19.7 10.9 12.0 23.9 18.7
Community & State (%) 18.0 13.4 26.0 16.7 30.3 32.8 12.0 21.7 20.6
The distance from the respondents villages to the Guassa was also important (2 =17.36 df=9, p<0.05) in determining views on the options for future management. Respondents living close to the Guassa mostly suggested that the community should be responsible for future management. As distance from Guassa increases, respondents increasingly favoured joint management by community and state.
Table 3.4 Views of respondents on suggested future management options for the Guassa in relation to distance. Distance (km) Community (%) Qero System (%) <5 6-10 11-15 >15 . 57.1 46.4 45.3 40.9 11.7 11.6 11.6 10.9 18.9 19.6 15.1 20.0 12.2 22.3 27.9 22.7 State (%) Community & State (%)
5 4 Mean value
3 2
1 0 Thatching Grazing Firewood Household Farm Marketable Medicinal Implements Implements Resource Plants Food Resource
Figure 4.1 Mean + SE of values the usefulness of different Guassa area resources to the user community.
Table 4.1 Resources used in the Guassa, divided into primary and secondary uses.
Primary uses Grass cutting (thatching) Grazing Firewood Secondary uses Household Implements Farm Implements Marketable Resources Medicinal Plants Food Resources
4.1.1 Guassa Cutting The main grass cut is the Guassa grass, which taxonomically comprises 4 species of the genus Festuca. However, the Menz community identifies two types of Guassa
Marketable product in urban areas for Torch plastering and as floor mat. Fodder Rain hut (Gessa) Brush (Mure) particularly used tp paint wall The Guassa user community differ (2=147.73, df =28, p<0.001) in their views of the importance of Guassa grass for various uses. Almost all respondents (>90%) from six peasant associations saw the Guassa area as a very important source of grass. However, slightly fewer (>70%) residents from Kuledeha, and even fewer (>40%) from Kewula, saw the area as a very important source of grass (Figure 4.2).
100 80 % respondents 60 40 20 0 Dargegne Chare Qwangue Gragne Gedenbo Kuledeha Tesfomentir Kewula
Figure 4.2 Degree of importance attached to the Guassa area as source of Guassa grass (Festuca grass) among eight peasant associations. The Guassa area is the only place where Guassa grass can be cut, during. At the moment no legal grass collection is allowed since it is a closed season, therefore it is difficult to estimate the current off-take rate, however according to the study conducted from 1997-1999 the density of Guassa grass collectors in the Guassa area showed a seasonal pattern (Figure 4.3). It was highest in early wet season months June and July with an estimated density of 2.4+0.5 /km2. In contrast, density of grass collectors was lowest at the height of the wet season in the months from August and September, with an estimated density of 1.3+0.4 grass cutters/km2. Mean density of grass collectors was found to be 1.8+0.4/km2. Based on the size of the area, this suggests a total estimate of 235+47 at the highest collection season, and 127+25 at the lowest collection season.
3 2.5 Density (n/km ) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 D ec.- Jan. Feb.- Mar. Apr.- May Jun.- Jul. Aug. - Sep. Oct.- Nov.
2
Figure 4.3 Seasonal change in the density of grass collectors in the Guassa area
In the household, materials like mattresses and different baskets are made from Festuca grass. Festuca can also be strewn on the floor as a loose-mat (Guzguaz), and both it and a mattress made from Festuca are believed to deter fleas. This may be due to the coarse nature of the grass when it dries, which makes the movement of fleas difficult. In the absence of kerosene for lighting in the evenings, young boys and girls make torches using the Festuca grass to provide light while the evening meal is served.
Another important use of the Festuca grass is its value as a marketable product that increases household income. The grass may be sold in markets far from the area, for example in Mollale market that is 45km from the Guassa area and Arb Gebeya, which is on the Yefat side 25km from the Guassa. Indeed Festuca grass from the Guassa area has been sold in markets as far as Debre Birhan and Debre Sina, which are 150km and 110km from the Guassa area, respectively. This distance selling is undertaken to avoid being seen by other members of the community who may report the incident to the local militia or to the Guassa Committee. The grass intended for market is carried inside a sack so that no one can see it. Sale of the Festuca grass takes place at night in the nearby towns or by having a regular customer who readily takes the grass without being seen. In the markets of Mollale and Arb Gebeya, a human load of Festuca grass can cost from 7-10 birr, whereas a donkey load costs 35-40 birr. According to our informants, the money is used to buy spice and barley when harvests of crops fail. This is why the community often refers to the Festuca grass as libsachin na gursachin (our cloth, butter and bread). The value of the Festuca grass as a survival resource for the poorer households during drought is of paramount importance, as a donkey load of Festuca can buy up to 25kg of barley in the nearby market.
Illegal collecting of Festuca grass takes place all year round but the peak is at the beginning of the rainy season in June and July. The increase in the numbers of people in these months corresponds with a decline in their stocks of grain. Households with no livestock to sell, or with no extra income, are more likely to engage in the sale of Festuca. However, the sale of Festuca grass was once regarded in the society as an inferior activity in which those with farmland were not expected to engage. However, declines in soil fertility, continued reduction of farmland due to frequent redistribution of farm plots, coupled with the increased frequency of drought, has tremendously affected the subsistence agriculture. Hence,
4.1.2 Firewood Collection Most respondents (84.7%) described livestock dung (Kubet) as the major source of energy in Menz. Dung is used in combination with woody vegetation to provide energy for cooking and, to a lesser extent, for producing heat in the cold months of the year. Dung is collected in the homestead area from the cattle pens and from livestock grazing areas. Women prepare the dung from individual pens, while children who are cattle herders collect dry dung from grazing areas to bring home in the evenings. Nevertheless, firewood is also an important resource collected from the Guassa area. Many (64.5%) respondents indicated that they collect shrubby vegetation in the Guassa area as firewood. The most commonly collected plant species is Cherenfi (Euryops pinifolius). Other species including: Erica or Asta, (Erica arboria); Nechilo (Helichrysum splendidum); St. Johns wort or Ameja (Hypericum revolutum); and, dry giant lLobelia or Gibra (Lobelia rhynchopetalum), are collected to a lesser extent. There is a change in the type of vegetation collected during the wet and dry seasons. Cherenfi is collected mainly in the dry season and piled to dry in the house for use year round. In contrast, Asta is collected mainly in the wet season to compensate for the shortage of fuel and due to its ability to burn while wet. The user community differed (2=425, df =28, p<0.001) in how they saw the Guassa area as a source of firewood. Most respondents from Dargegne (81.7%), Chare (84.0%), Qwangue (93.5%) and Gragne (79.6%) saw the Guassa area as a very important area to collect firewood. In contrast, All respondents (100%) from Kewula considered the Guassa area not an important for firewood collection (Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.4 Degree of importance attached to the Guassa area as source of firewood among the eight peasant associations.
Few (39.7% n=504) respondents had a private wood-lot, but among those people who did not use the Guassa area for firewood collection, 64.3% had private woodlots. The common species of trees planted in private wood-lots are Eucalyptus trees (Ecualyptus globules, E. camadulensis and E. saligna). However, these are used more frequently for construction purposes and only as firewood in the wet season, when drying Cherenfi and dung is difficult. Peasant associations differed (2=312.67, df=7, p<0.001) as to where they actually collect their firewood. Most respondents from Dargegne, Qwangue, Chare and Gragne collect firewood from Guassa while few from Tesfomentir and none from Kewla did so (Table 4.3).
Table 4.3 Percentage of respondents who use the Guassa area as source of firewood.
Peasant Associations Chare Dargegne Gedenbo Gragne Kewla Kuledeha Qwangue Tesfomentir Total n 50 80 50 54 66 64 92 46 502 Firewood from Guassa (%) 92.0 98.8 64.0 87.0 0.0 40.6 97.8 8.7 64.5 Not from Guassa (%) 8.0 1.3 36.0 13.0 100 59.4 2.2 91.3 35.5
The frequency of collecting firewood ranged from 1-10 times/month/household and mean collection frequency was 3.2+0.09 times/month/household. The frequency of collection significantly correlates with family size (r2=0.13, P<0.001). Households with larger family size collected more frequently than smaller households. Patterns of firewood collection varied seasonally (Figure 4.4). The density of collectors was highest in the early wet season months of June and July (4.5 +0.8), due to the need to accumulate enough fuel for the wet season. The density of collectors was lowest at the height of the wet season months of August and September, (1.1 + 0.3) and in the dry season of February and March (1.2 + 0.4). The mean density of firewood collectors in the Guassa area was 2.14 + 0.58 /km2. Estimate of firewood collectors in the high collection season was 440 + 49, and in the lowest collection season it was 78 + 19.
6 5 Density (n/km ) 4 3 2 1 0 D ec.- Jan. F eb.- Ma r. A p r.- Ma y Jun.- Jul. A ug. - S ep . Oct.- Nov.
2
Figure 4.5 Seasonal change in the density of firewood collectors in the Guassa area In Menz in particular and in Ethiopia in general vegetation biomass is a major source of energy. Rural households depend on wood, agricultural residues, and livestock dung as a source of fuel for domestic energy. Most of the natural forest in Menz has been cleared for a long time. The Central Highlands of Ethiopia have been an important centre of Ethiopian politics. In fact, it was the heart of the past political struggle and socio-political conditions caused the Ethiopian monarchs to roam permanently, which in turn forced the kings to change their capital after every few years. When moving to a new place, the king was followed by large number of soldiers and other attendants. Whenever such a crowd spent a few nights in one place, the need for firewood was huge. The area through which the monarchs travelled or settled with their multitude of followers must have been considerably
100 80 % respondents 60 40 20 0
Dargegne Chare Qwangue Gragne Gedenbo Kuledeha Tesfomentir Kewula
Figure 4.6 Degree of importance attached to the Guassa area as grazing area among eight peasant associations.
Peasant associations differed significantly in the number of months they used the Guassa area for grazing (F7,414 = 223.98, p<0.001). Most of residents from Dargegne and Qwangue graze their livestock for most of the year (10-12 months). In contrast, most respondents from Kewla uses the Guassa area for less than 4 months and some respondents from Kuledeha never uses the Guassa area for grazing (Table 4.4).
Table 4.4 Use of the Guassa area for grazing by different peasant associations.
Peasant Associations n Never uses <3 Months (%) Chare Dargegne Gedenbo Gragne Kewla Kuledeha Qwangue Tesfomentir Total 42 82 48 54 66 54 90 46 504 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 4-6 Months (%) 57.1 0.0 70.8 24.1 60.5 29.6 0.0 83.5 32.7 7-9 Months (%) 42.9 2.4 25.0 53.6 12.2 58.4 13.3 17.4 28.6 10-12 Months (%) 0.0 97.6 0.0 22.3 0.0 0.0 86.7 0.0 30.4
80 60 40 20 0 Dec.- Jan. Feb.- Mar. Apr.- May Jun.- Jul. Aug. - Sep. Oct.- Nov.
Figure 4.7 Seasonal change in the density of cattle in the Guassa area.
250 200
Density (n/Km )
150 100 50 0
Dec.- Jan.
Feb.- Mar.
Apr.- May
Jun.- Jul.
Aug. - Sep.
Oct.- Nov.
Figure 4.8 Seasonal change in the density of sheep in the Guassa area.
50 45 40
Density (n/km2)
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Dec.- Jan. Feb.- Mar. Apr.- May Jun.- Jul. Aug. - Sep. Oct.- Nov.
Figure 4.9 Seasonal changes in the density of equines in the Guassa area.
The highest density of cattle was recorded from February to July, while the lowest densities of cattle and equines were seen August to January (Figures 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9). In contrast low densities of sheep were seen from October to January and they showed a sharp increase and reached a peak density in months of June and July. Sheep are the most abundant livestock in the Guassa area, followed by cattle and equines (Table 4.5). Table 4.5 Livestock population estimates in the Guassa area.
Months Cattle December January February March April May June July August September October November 5472 + 796 7767 + 2250 8754 + 2185 1986 + 750 646 + 338 5132 + 1386 8209 + 1777 18843 + 2586 6385 + 1599 5463 + 1678 2301 + 366 2561 + 458 3990 + 1041 1268 + 338 520 + 191 776 + 275 Population Estimate Sheep 837 + 152 Equines 305 + 24
Guassa Community-Based Conservation Area Draft Management Plan ..70 5.2.1.4 Socio-Economic Values of the Guassa area
The Guassa Area is the critical natural resource for the people of Menz, providing Essential ecosystem goods such as fodder, fuel, building materials, farming and household implements for subsistence purposes; An element of livelihood stability, through diversification of livelihood options; Independence from the market and government, through self-reliance and the availability of many goods and services locally; and, A variety of products that can be bartered and sold in markets and thus cash income. In addition, the Area is a key water catchment area both locally and for the region. 26 rivers rising in the area drain into the Blue Nile and Awash River. Thus the mountain block provides year round water supplies for the people living adjacent to the area and downstream users, both people and livestock in the low-lying areas of Yifat, Merhabeti and as far as the Afar Region as well as the lower reaches of these important rivers. This ecosystem function is well recognised by the Guassa user groups. The main uses of the Guassa Area are fully described elsewhere (Section 4), but are the Guassa grass, firewood and grazing of livestock. Guassa Grass is used to thatch 98% of houses in the area (Kuachera grass) and also for plaster in houses (Naso grass), after being mixed with mud. Grass is also used to make ropes, household equipment, baskets, painting brushes, mattresses and shepherds raincoats. The Guassa Area also provides a prime grazing area for livestock population in Menz, being the second largest communal grazing land. With livestock a key economic activity in local communities, thus the Guassa Area is critical for livelihoods, for communities immediately adjacent to the Area and to those at a greater distance. Fuelwood is another key resource of the Guassa Area with Cherenfi (Euryops sp.) Asta (Erica arboria), Gibera (Lobelia rhynchopetalum), Ameja (Hypericum revolutum), and Abelbila (Kniphofia foliosa) all collected. Collection usually takes place in the dry season by males, and a large volume is required due to the low calorific value. Cattle dung is frequently burnt concurrently. Medicinal plants are also widely collected from the Guassa Area to treat human and livestock diseases, with traditional knowledge passed down through families, although some are widely known. Wild berries such as Rubes abyssinicys and Rubes Stedneri are also collected and thyme (Thymus schimperi) is used to make drinks and flavour food. The stinging nettles (Urtica slimensis) are used to prepare a stew during the fasting season.
To conserve in perpetuity the biodiversity, natural resources and water catchments of the Guassa Area in conjunction with its community-based sustainable natural resource management system, in order to support the local and regional economy and integrated rural development,.
The purpose statement is derived from the Guassa Areas Exceptional Resource Values (ERVs). Supplemental and complementary purposes of the management of the Guassa Area are: to empower and support communities for effective and sustainable natural resource management To stop environmental degradation and over-exploitation of natural resources To promote ecotourism and livelihood diversification in communities managing and using the Guassa area To promote the equitable sharing of benefits derived from the natural resources of the Guassa Area To support environmental education and research on the Afro-alpine ecosystems of Ethiopia. The fulfilment of this propose and the maintenance of the areas Exceptional Resource Values (ERV) are addressed in this management plan through three distance management programmes, described in the following sections; I. Natural Resource use and Ecosystem Health II. Management Operations; III. Sustainable Development
Programme purpose: To maintain and monitor ecosystem health and strengthen the sustainable natural resource use system in the Guassa Area. A. Ecosystem Health
This management programme seeks to ensure that the natural resource use of the Guassa Area is sustainable by supporting strengthening the current management system and ensuring that it can be adaptive by providing feedback on the state of the natural resources that are being used and the overall ecosystem health. It is, however, impractical for the Guassa Area Management to either monitor or manage every individual ecosystem component. To provide a more realistic framework for this programme, a planning process based on the Nature Conservancys (TNC) Conservation Action Planning, or 5-S conservation planning process, conservation targets has been adopted. This involves the selection of Conservation Targets for the Guassa Area, which includes ecological systems, ecological communities and individual species. The criteria for selecting species include those that are of particular conservation importance or whose conservation would not be guaranteed by conservation of their habitat. Together the conservation targets are intended to represent and encapsulate the unique biodiversity contained within the area. Focusing efforts on their conservation will also
Conservation Targets 1. Hydrological System (Water catchment) 2. Festuca Grassland 3. Euryops-Alchemilla Shrubland 4. Afroalpine Rodent Community 5. Ethiopian Wolf 6. Gelada Baboon
Level Ecosystem
Community
Species
Conservation Target
Hydrological System
Festuca Grassland
Habitat extent Mima mounds Rodent species diversity Rehabilitation of EA Species diversity
Afroalpine Rodent Community Soil development (Pedogenesis) Abundance and extent Change in habitat size Population size, distribution & structure Disease prevalence Ethiopian Wolf Genetic status Small size ( Demographic and environmental stochasticity) Wolf livestock predation (Human wolf conflict) Habitat extent Gelada Baboon Population size, distribution & structure Gelada crop raiding (Human Gelada conflict)
Conservation Targets
Ranking High Low Medium High Medium Medium High High High Medium Low Low High High High Medium Low Low High Medium Medium Low Low
Agricultural expansion Unsustainable fuelwood and grass harvesting Unsustainable grass cutting
Festuca Grassland
Euryops-Alchemilla Shrubland
Over grazing Drought Use of poison Disease Small population Genetic loss Road kills Direct persecution/Human conflict Hybridization Overgrazing Grass cutting
Ethiopian Wolf
Gelada Baboon
Fuelwood Fuelwood collection is one the major problem in the area. Collection of Charanfe, is very destructive since it frequently involves digging out the plant roots, thus destroying regeneration and removing habitat for wildlife such as rodents. Previous studies have shown an inverse correlation between rodent density and degree of firewood collection. Solutions to over collection of fuelwood include regulation of current extraction, the provision of alternative fuel sources, and an improvement in fuel use efficiency. Grazing Many households among the Guassa user community have very little private grazing land, but they keep on increasing their livestock size with all available means even if they do not have any grazing land. However, in the minds of every user the Guassa area is there to provide grazing for ever increasing livestock. This is a very dangerous move which changes the already established common property resource management system in to an open access resource, there by leading to the tragedy of the commons and at the end the complete degradation of the environment. Communities should be given a training how to grow fodder for their livestock as a package of sustainable agriculture in their land and depend on the quality of livestock rather than number. The protection and conservation of the Guassa area is not only the responsibility of the community and the Woreda committee, it should involve other stockholders as
Objective 1. The communal and traditional natural resource management system in the Guassa Area
Target 1.1 Human impacts as a result of grass extraction monitored and minimized
The Guassa area grass is an important resource to the community living around the Guassa area. However in the recent years the rate of grass cutting has increase to higher level. This was initialled by the demand in the adjacent urban centres and by increasing number of the Guassa user community. Studies conducted in the area indicated hat the total off take rate by the year 1997 -1998 was only 30% of the total harvestable grass biomass. However, by the year 2002 and 2005 the harvest total cleared the existing Festuca sp. Biomass and in some areas the grass species is total disappeared or dominated by other colonizers. This degradation of the Festuca grass in Guassa was accelerated by grazing high number of livestock after cutting the grass which was a regulated activity in the past.
Action 1.1.1 Strengthen resource protection by empowering community scouts patrol The first management action needed is to secure the area from illegal users by enforcing the bye-laws enacted for the protection of the Guassa area. As identified in the threat analysis cutting of grass is a one of the major threat to the Guassa area and biodiversity. Strict enforcement action should be taken on those cutting the grass during the closed season and a rewards system should be in place for those community scouts who catch such offenders. Action 1.1.2 Regulate areas and volumes of grass harvest in the Guassa Area At the moment the cutting of the Guassa grass is taking place every where in the area where the grass if found. System of harvesting in recent years is not sustainable; we have counted 134 donkeys load of Guassa grass harvested from the central areas of Ras Ketema and Dija Hill area only in one after noon. This type of harvest continued for nearly a month and what happened was the grass never managed to come to the original level and the area no is dominated shrubby vegetation. We recommend that there must be an allowable volume of grass to users households and areas where they should harvest. Action 1.1.3 Monitor the health of the Festuca stands by conducting research Research for better understanding of the ecology of the Festuca grass. Little is known about the growth rate of the Festuca grass and the effect of human use on the grass therefore a long-term study is needed to see the effect of grass harvesting on the grass it self and the associated biodiversity. Building of enclosures in Festuca grassland community for monitoring the dynamics of the grassland is very important. Information obtained will be feed into the management of the grassland community.
Objective 2: Threats to the long-term conservation and ecological viability of Conservation Targets mitigated
The desired future state of affairs in the Guassa is one where the threats to the ecosystem are minimized and essential ecological processes are maintained as near as possible to their pristine natural state. A series of management targets and associated actions have been devised that aim to reduce the identified threats to the Conservation Targets.
The pressure in the natural resource in the Guassa area recently came form the increase of human and livestock population in the area. Development projects designed in the Woreda to bring food security have increased the size of small ruminant at a household level. Any project designed in the Guassa area should look on to the holistic approach of environmental sustainability. Lack of guarantee in the past for tree tenure has been implicated as the main reason for people not to plant trees. Now the trend has been changed and we dont see many people plant trees. Therefore an activity to increase tree planting should be encouraged. Action 2.1.1 Community and household fuelwood lots developed Private fuelwood lots in private households and communities would reduce the pressure on natural resources in the Guassa Area. This will also improve
Target 2.2 Habitat degraded in the Guassa are will be stopped and areas already degraded will be restored
Habitat destruction as a result of resource harvested has been noted in the past, the collection of fuelwood is noted for destruction of rodent burrows and nests, exposing the rodents for predation by birds of prey and also providing an easy hunting access for the Ethiopian wolf. If this action is not regulated it will seriously affect the rodent community. The cutting of grass followed by high density livestock grazing has resulted on overgrazing in some area and has reduces the regeneration potential of the Festuca grass. Temporary cattle bomas constructed in different sites of the Guassa area are main concern as a source of environmental degradation during open grazing periods. They have resulted in the removal of vegetation cover and resulting in sheet erosion and in some areas formation of deep gullies have been noted. Therefore, restoration of the affect areas and regulation of resource use to sustainable level is important. Action 2. 2. 1 Regulation of resource use and establishment of enclosures to affected areas. The amount of the fuel wood to be collected has to be limited in each area and method should not result in complete removal of the shrub. Areas with
Objective 3: Regular, management-orientated monitoring and assessment of key ecosystem values and processes strengthened
The effect human use can be monitored through periodic (every three months) determination of the origin, density, seasonality and duration. The monitoring of human use in the area started in 1997 and should continue to get a good picture of the use pattern. The wildlife of the area should also be monitored in conjunction with the human use so that the management will have a clear idea of the size and distribution of the wildlife population.
Target 3.1 Human use monitored and for feedback for ensuring sustainable natural resource
The growing number of human and livestock population around the Guassa area requires to be monitored to keep the health of the ecosystem. The management of the area should know the sustainability of resource harvesting by the community living adjacent to the Guassa area. Human use should be descried and monitored temporary and spatially. Various human use have different effect on the ecosystem, fuelwood collection clear the bushy vegetation and exposes the rodent community to unnatural predation by birds of prey and Ethiopian wolf. Similarly the cuttings of grass with out allowing time for regeneration result in disappearance of the Festuca grass. Grazing following cutting has been seen to trampling the Festuca tussock and destroying it there by reducing the regrowth of the grass. Overgrazing is one of the major threats in the Guassa area; the number of livestock using the area has increase from time to time. Therefore the management has to regulate the use of the area by conducting regular monitoring. Action 3.1.1 Human use is monitored regularly Human use will be monitored using a Distance Sampling on already established transect lines on a quarterly basis. All user type will be record on a data base so that distribution and use type and pattern will be monitored on annual basis, This will provide information on temporal and spatial variation of use types in the Guassa area.
Action 3.1.2 Study the effect of use on the ecosystem of the area. Permanente enclosures will be built to measure the difference on the used and unused areas and there by determine changes on the species composition and biodiversity in general. It will also provide information on the effect of use on the resources used in the long term.
The Guassa Area Management Operation Programme seeks to develop the structures and mechanisms that are required to ensure that the Guassa area is legally protected under Regional and National legislation, in line with the Regional and National Policy and that this is translated to Management activities on the ground. This programme covers three main areas, described below.
Objective 1. The Guassa area boundary agreed and demarcated with local communities
Farming has expanded at the edge of the Guassa area, form all directions, due to human population growth, drought frequency, rural development activities and changes in rural land use policies at a national level, particularly following 1975 Agrarian Reform. In addition, uncontrolled grazing by livestock from a distant villages has increased s has fuelwood and Guassa grass collection reach a peak during 2002 2003 drought. This enormous pressure on the Guassa areas has been discussed at a number of farmers conferences at Kebele level and various workshops at a Woreda level. They have decided that the boundary of the Guassa area should be redemarcated.
Target 1.1 The Guassa area demarcated in collaboration with the community
Elderly representatives, who had good knowledge of the boundary prior to 1975 should be selected from the 8 framers associations and in collaboration with the Guassa
Objective 2. The Guassa area legally recognised and its status appropriately ratified as a community managed conservation area in Ethiopia.
In the past few years, a number of applications have been submitted to the regional investment office to turn the Guassa area in to a commercial sheep ranch. To date, environmental impact assessment and lobbying by the local community have stopped any development in the area. However, the community believes there should be a stronger legal framework for the conservation of the Guassa area, to provide additional protection and security. Moreover, whilst the local police and judiciary have been supportive of existing initiatives, fines have been unevenly implemented, thus further consultation and awareness within those sectors are required for a consistency of approaches. At present customary (bye-laws) underpins the management of the Guassa area by the user communities; the communities drew up and enacted bye-laws in 2003 and later amended in 2006 with the consent of the representatives of user groups. This was letter refined by discussion in each Kebele (Farmers Association). This customary law system of law enforcement is enforced using the local courts at a peasant association level the Mehaberawi Fird Bet and, in the case of repeated violations, at the Woreda court. It was letter learned that the penalty that was agreed was above the level that could be set by the local court. Therefore, bye-laws need to be checked and revised to deal with such discrepancies with the collaboration of the Woreda judiciary, police and prosecutor office to avoid ambiguity.
Target 2.1 The Guassa area as a legally accepted Communitybased conservation area.
According to the Amhara Regional Rural Land Administration and Use Proclamation Number 46/2000, Article 4, sub-Section 14; number 3 and 4 states that: Communal lands can be managed and used by customary laws as long as they do not contradict with the proclamation Protect trees, wild animals, swampy areas and other natural resource found on the common holding. Under this proclamation the Guassa area can continue being managed by the rightful owners of the area, the residents of the 8 Farmers associations of Dargegne, Tesfomentir, Gragen Gedenbo, Qwangue, Kuledeha and Kewla. However, at present there is no ownership certificate for the Guassa area and steps must be taken to gain this for the user groups as a common holding. A firmer legal status for the areas could be achieved by issuing a certificate of recognition to the community to manage the area for the purposive of nature conservation and sustainable utilisation of the natural resources. This would be ratified by the concerned authority at regional level, the environmental protection and Land Administration and land Use Authority. Following this the area should be gazetted by regional or federal government for its continued protection and to counter act the treat of competitive land use. The steps to achieve gazettement are laid out in the 3 year action plan. Action 2.1.1 The drafting of bye-laws by the community in line with the existing laws and proclamations for the protection of the Guassa area. The drafting of bye-laws is in the process and the first step of getting representatives of the community to draft the bye-laws has taken place and a draft bye-law has been prepared this bye laws has to be ratified by the whole user group and should be accepted as over riding bye-law for the protection of the Guassa area. The Woreda judiciary will have a major role in helping the success of this initiative together with the Woreda Administration.
Objective 3. The Guassa Area effectively managed and patrolled by community elected conservation council board and community scouts
A body responsible for the day to day management of the Guassa area should be elected by the communities who are making use of the area. This could be the top management for the protection and utilisation of the Guassa area resource. At the same time there is a need for law enforcement to ensure the fair and equitable sustainable use of resources. In the Guassa area, grass cutting, fuelwood collection and livestock grazing must be controlled in the closed season. The existing system of patrolling by the militias from the adjacent Kebeles of Qwangue and Dargegne has not worked efficiently, not least because the burden falls heavily on just 2 or the 8 user Kebeles and their human resources are insufficient to patrol the whole area. Thus patrolling must be carried out in a coordinated fashion by all Kebeles. In Dargegne, during a pilot scheme where a team of 5 community scouts were selected, the whole of the Kebele undertook all the activities including farming in the fields and they were additionally exempted from any type of communal work.
Target 3.1 Autonomous management body established to control and supervise the Guassa area
The Guassa area needs an autonomous body which is responsible for its day to day management. Otherwise it is very difficult to continue at the present situation where no one responsible for the management. The Woreda Administration is at present fill the gap and act as the over all management body, however the need to have a joint management of the Woreda Administration and the community who is making use of the Guassa area. What makes the Guassa area different form other conservation areas from
Target 3. 2 Community scours elected from the community and trained for controlling of illegal activity in the Guassa area
Community scouts should be selected by the community and training should be provided by the conservation office of the Woreda Agriculture an rural development office, Environmental protection office; Culture an tourism office, the police and the judiciary. Conservation projects working in the area could also contribute much in training and empowering the community scouts to be come an effective force for curbing an illegal activity in the Guassa area. Action 3.1.1 Community scouts selection and training Community scouts should be elected by the user community. Their reputation and discipline is important and the community should consider these elements during selection process. The scouts should be used to conflict resolution traditional process used by the community so that they can handle such situations when they arise. It is envisaged that 40 scouts (5 from each of 8 Kebeles) are elected to effectively patrol the Guassa area on a daily bases, but a patrol plan and training must be devised and carried out for this to be effective. Additionally, as most of the illegal activities are now reportedly taking place at night, the patrolling plan must take into account the timing of illegal activities.
The Guassa area could be become a significant contributor to the local economy through tourism. It must be realised that its attractions are the scenery, wildlife, as well as the wilderness appeal it provides to the visitor. The centuries old cultural features of the Menz people, which include churches, monasteries and other cultural features, are also as important as the natural environment.
Objective 1. Visitor access and use enhanced in environmentally appropriate and sustainable way.
The desired state of tourism in the Guassa area is where visitors can enjoy the wilderness character of the Guassa area and have the opportunity to observe the full diversity of wildlife in its natural habitats. The two complementary management targets to achieve this desired state are firstly to minimise visitor impacts and secondly to diversify activities, as described below.
Target 1.1 Promotion of the Guassa area as a tourist destination in the country enhanced
Tourism to Guassa will be promoted through liaison with the Regional tourism commission office and working with private tourist operators. The main objective of the tourism activity in the Guassa area is to make the community benefited from the tourism activity, through nature based pro poor tourism. Another added potential of tourism in the Guassa area is its proximity to Addis Ababa, which is the capital as well as the sit for the
Action 1.1.1 Production of tourist information materials for the promotion of the Guassa area Tourist guide books, broachers, maps and posters will be produced to increase awareness among tourist operators, tourists, the expatriate community and the general public. These information materials will be available to tourists through web sites or through tourist operators. For local tourists information material will be distributed in areas where they can easily be picked or seen. Action 1.1.2 Soliciting of private tour operator to overtake some tourist activity in the area This could take the form of bringing tourists and even construction of tourist lodges. The licensing some the tourist activity to private entrepreneur will make the tourist activity in the area sustainable. selected. Model areas exist else where in Africa and the best suited to the Guassa situation should be
Target 1.2 Disturbance of key habitats, wildlife populations and other exceptional resource minimised.
To minimize the negative impact of tourism in the Guassa area visitors should be encouraged to walk or trek in the area if not they should use horses and mules rather than driving around. Since construction of more roads reduce the extent of the habitat and increase the risk of wildlife mortality also need extra cost for construction and maintenance.
Target
1.3
Visitors
facilities
developed
and
expanded
in
The Guassa user community should provide horses and mules to tourists to be used on this trekking route on prior agreed price. Cooking utensils and other camping equipment could be made available at the community tourist centre or should be haired form members of the community. Communities also should be trained and encouraged on the production of souvenirs depicting the local wildlife, scenery and culture. A souvenir shop should be provided with the tourist facilities. This is just a basic facility regarding what can be done by the community with a little outside input.
Target 1.4 Trained Guides to survey the visitors coming to the area.
Guides should be selected and training should be given on the principles of guiding and environmental interpretation. Training should be given to members of the community on the management of the tourist centre and other facilities. Community guides should also be trained on the natural history of the area and how to deal with tourists. Guides should be well mannered and well respected member of the society, since they represent the community and serve the community as an ambassador to the external world. Guides should know the dos and the donts of nature based tourism. Action 1.4.1 Training of guides Guides will be trained for effective interpretation of the area for visitors. Their training should include interpretation skill on the physical and biological resources, cultural features and history of the area. The also should be conversant in the use of maps and guide books as well as communicate well with non-Amharic speakers. Training will be provided by projects operating in the area or though contracting of training institutions.
Target 2.1 Community and school awareness creation programme enhanced and strengthen
In collaboration with the local Kebele administration a regular farmers conference is needed to increase awareness of the community on the use and protection of the Guassa area. Regular school visits should be conducted and schools should be encouraged to form school environmental clubs.
D. Action Plan
Guassa Community-based Conservation Area 5 year Action Plan
Table 1. Natural resource management and Ecosystem health programme Management Management Actions/Activities Requirements Targets
Years
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Objective 1. The communal and traditional natural resource management system in the Guassa Area strengthened to ensure the sustainable use of natural Training, incentives xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1.1 Human impacts as 1.1.1 Strengthen resource protection by empowering xxxx
a result of grass extraction monitored and minimized community scouts patrol 1.1.2 Regulate areas and volumes of grass harvest in the Guassa Area 1.1.3. Monitor the health of the Festuca stands by conducting research 1.2.1 Regulation of fuelwood harvest by the community to scouts Study off take level Establish enclosure
xxxx
Strength community scouts patrol 1.2.2 Monitor the volume and type of fuelwood extracted fromStudy off take level the Guassa area & survey fuelwood requirement
xxxx
Objective 2: Threats to the long-term conservation and ecological viability of Conservation Targets mitigated
1.3 Grazing levels in Guassa is maintained at sustainable level
xxxx
2.1.1 Community and household fuelwood lots developed 2.1.2 Alternative livestock fodder developed
xxxx xxxx
2.2 Habitat degraded in the Guassa are will be stopped and 2.3 Accidental killing and direct persecution reduced
Control grazing xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Metal and few reflective sign boards Research xxxx
xxxx xxxx
2.3.2 Facilitation of study to ascertain the extent of crop raiding by gelada baboons,
Objective 3: Regular, management-orientated monitoring and assessment of key ecosystem values and processes strengthened 3.1 Human use Count or users xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
monitored and for 3.1.1 Human use is monitored regularly feedback for ensuring sustainable natural 3.1.2 Study the effect of use on the ecosystem of the area resource 3.2 The wildlife of the Guassa area monitored regularly 3.2.1 wildlife monitoring regularly conducted 3.2.2 Wolf monitoring regularly conducted along routes Transects & enclosures Transect walk Pack identification & watching known packs for longer period Live traps (Sherman) Raingauge, hygrometer, thermometer
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
3.2.3 Rodent monitoring regularly conducted 3.2.3 Metrological data collection established and maintained
xxxx xxxx
Management Targets
Management Actions/Activities
Requirements
1st 2nd 3
Years
rd
4th
5th
Objective 1. The Guassa area boundary agreed and demarcated with local communities
1.1 The Guassa area demarcated in 1.1.1 Demarcation of the Guassa Boundary collaboration with the community GPS, GIS software compass & various maps, Training
xxxx
Objective 2. The Guassa area legally recognised and its status appropriately ratified as a community managed conservation area in Ethiopia 2.1 The Guassa area 2.1.1 The drafting of bye-laws by the community xxxx Workshops & as a legally accepted in line with the existing laws and proclamations for consultation Community-based the protection of the Guassa area meeting
conservation area 2.1.2 The Drafting of the legal status of the Guassa area at Regional and national level for sustainable conservation of the Guassa area
xxxx
Objective 3. The Guassa Area effectively managed and patrolled by community elected conservation council board and community scouts
3.1 Autonomous management body established to control and supervise the Guassa area
3.1.1 The Guassa area management body established and supervising activities
xxxx
xxxx
3.1.1 Community scouts selection and training 3. 2 Community scours elected from the community and trained for controlling of illegal 3.1.2 Equipment provision and sustainability activity in the Guassa area
User Communities activity & Woreda Admin Uniform, waterproofs, torches etc
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
Management Targets
Management Actions/Activities
Input Requirements
Maps, brochures, Tourist books, tour operators Lobbing tourist operators
Years
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Objective 1.1 Promotion of the Guassa area as a tourist destination in the country enhanced
1.1 Promotion of the 1.1.1 Production of tourist information materials for Guassa area as a the promotion of the Guassa area tourist destination in the country enhanced 1.1.2 Soliciting of private tour operator to overtake some tourist activity in the area 1.2 Disturbance of key habitats, wildlife populations and other exceptional resource minimised 1.3 Visitors facilities developed and expanded in consultation with stakeholders to provide an optimal experience 1.4 Trained Guides to survey the visitors coming to the area 2.1 Community and school awareness creation programme enhanced and strengthen
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
1.2.1 Produce comprehensive and clear cod of conduct for visitors coming to Guassa
xxxx
xxxx
Farmers conference School EE kits & nursery equipments
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx xxxx
xxxx xxxx
xxxx xxxx
xxxx xxxx
xxxx xxxx
14. References Alcorn, J.B. (1994) Indigenous peoples and conservation. Conservation Biology, 7:424-426. Bailie, J. and B. Groombridge (1996) 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Azene Bekele-Tessema (2001) Status and dynamics of Natural Resource in Ethiopia. In Taye Assefa (ed.)Food Security through Sustainable Land Use. NOVIB Partners Forum on Sustainable Land Use. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Berkes, F. (1989) Cooperation from the perspective of human ecology. In Berkes, F. (ed.) Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-based Sustainable Development. Belhaven Press, London, UK. Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, and J.L. Lakke (1993) Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Chapman and Hall, London, UK. Campbell, J. (1991) Land or peasants? The dilemma confronting Ethiopian resource conservation. African Affaires, 90:5-21. Chambers, R. (1992) Rural appraisal: rapid and relaxed and participatory. IDS, Discussion paper, 311:1-90. Craven, I. and W. Wrdoyour (1993) Gardens in the Forest. In Kemf, E. (ed.) Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. Earthscan, London, UK. Conservation Strategy of Ethiopia (CSE) (1997) Federal Democtratic Republic of Ethiopia, The Conservation Strategy Vol., 1-3. Environmental Protection Authority. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Daniel Gamachu (1977) Aspects of Climate and Water Budget in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa University Press, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Daniel Gamachu (1991) Some patterns of altitudinal variation of climatic elements in the mountainous regions of Ethiopia. In Bruno, M. and H. Hurni (eds.) African Mountains and Highlands: Problem and Perspectives. African Mountain Association, Walsworth Press, Kansas, USA. Dunbar, R.I.M. (1992) The model of gelada socio-ecological system. Primate, 33:6983. Ethiopian Mapping Agency (EMA) (1992). Ataye (Efeson) map Ethiopia, 1:50,000. EMA. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. EWNHS (1996) Important Bird Areas of Ethiopia. Commercial Printing Press, Addis Ababa Ethiopia.
Appendices
Appendix I: People involved in the planning process Appendix II: Rivers from the Guassa area Appendix III: Resource inventory List of Plants List of mammals List of Birds Appendix IV: Boundary description Appendix V: Description of the Customary Bye Law of the Guassa Area Appendix VI: