restoring ecosystems to sustain local communities · pdf filerestoring ecosystems to sustain...
Post on 06-Mar-2018
222 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
RESTORING ECOSYSTEMS TO SUSTAIN LOCAL COMMUNITIES Awash National Park
Ethiopia
ELD MOOC 2014Endangered species group
THE AWASH NATIONAL PARK
• LOCATION: central Ethiopia, some 200 km east from the country's capital Addis Ababa.
• AREA: 750 sq. km• WATER: Awash river is the park's southern
border. • VOLCANO: the dormant Filwoha mounts
above the dominating highlands. • Some rare animal SPECIES can be found in
Awash: leopards, cheetahs, lions, endangered species of antelopes and more than 460 bird species.
THE PEOPLE
AROUND 10 000 PEOPLE LIVING IN AND AROUND THE PARK
FEW ETHNIC GROUPS
EXISTING ETHNICAL PROBLEMS
NOMAD REFUGEES FROM OTHER REGIONS OF ETHIOPIA
ENTER THE PARK IN SEARCH OF BASIC NEEDS: WATER, FOOD, FIREWOOD
LACK OF MEDICAL AND VETERINARY CARE, ACCESS TO EDUCATION AND OTHER SOCIAL SERVICES
THE CASE
• LAND USE: agriculture (mainly grazing animals), nature conservation and research (under the national park) and tourism (recreation).
• DEGRADED LAND: 70% of the total area of the NP (because of overgrazing )
• PRESERVED HABITATS: only in the "core area" of the park (225 sq. km, where the populations of endangered and endemic species of flora and fauna can still be found)
• PROBLEMS: high number of grazing animals (mainly goats), high population density of the refugees from other regions of Etiopia, living in and around the park, the lack of alternative livelihoods for these nomads, which typical way of living is to move from place to place for searching of fresh grass and water for their cattle.
TWO ALTERNATIVES
Attribute Option 1
(current situation)
Option 2
(new scenario)
1 Area of the natural ecosystems of the
NP
225 km2 600 km2 (325 km2
restored in 3 years)
2 Employment in tourism, recreation
and conservation
120 persons 2500 persons
3 People working in agriculture (goat
and cattle grazing)
1890 persons 380 persons
4 Accessibility to education For 10 % of the local
people living within the 3
km park surroundings
For 70 % of the local
people living within the 3
km park surroundings
5 Grazing area 150 km2 low-quality
grazing area (525 km2
completely overgrazed
savannah within the
park)
300 km2 (restored
grazing area within the
park plus restored buffer
area outside the park)
6 Endangered and protected species
present
2 20
METHODOLOGY
METHOD: choice experiment survey conducted within several stakeholder groups from the NP and its surroundings.
AIM: to value the biodiversity and ecosystem services used by the local communities.
PARTICIPANTS:10 representatives out of 200 planned, randomly selected households between those located up to 3 km from the border of the park.
RESULTS: the new proposed scenario is decisively more preferred that the current situation. 90% of the respondents stated that the NP has a very important role in their everyday life (ex. source of food, water and wood) and/or for some other activities in the park.
WHY TO CHOOSE THE NEW SCENARIO?
-10000
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
year 1 year 2 year 3
USD
Cost-benefits analysis of endangered species value
benefits
costs
net benefits
WHY TO CHOOSE THE NEW SCENARIO?
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
year 1 year 2 year 3
USD
Cost-benefit analysis of grazing area value
benefits
costs
net benefits
WHY TO CHOOSE THE NEW SCENARIO?
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
year 1 year 2 year 3
USD
Cost-benefit analysis of employment in tourism and related services
benefits
costs
net benefits
THE RESULTS: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Option 2
year 1 year 2 year 3
Benefits 5806 5683 15162
Costs 478 1206 1261
Net benefits 5328 4477 13901
Option 1
year 1 year 2 year 3
Benefits 5806 4392 3796
Costs 12845 14466 15289
Net benefits -7039 -10073 -11493
! If the current situation continues, the costs increase every year, while the benefits decrease.
! If the new scenario will be implemented, the benefits increase 2,6x after the 3rd
year.
* Values in thousands of USD
THE RESULTS:NET PRESENT VALUE
year 1 year 2 year 3
Incremental net benefit 12367 14550 25394
Discount factor [8,5%] 1 0,9217 0,8495
Present value of INB 12367 13410 21571
Economic net present value 47348
* Values in thousands of USD
SUMMARY
To restore the degraded ecosystems
To create opportunities for alternative livelihood to the local communities
To limit the domestic animals grazing inside the NP
To engage local communities into tourism and recreation services development and conservation activities
To develop educational, healthcare and water supply infrastructure for the local communities
To increase the efforts in preservation of the species and habitats of the NP
To develop the tourism infrastructure of the NP
LITERATURE
Constanza, R. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, vol. 387, 15 May 1987.
OECD, 2002. Handbook of biodiversity valuation. A guide for policy makers.
Franks P., Kubsa A. and Gebreyes M. Awash conservation and development project. Phase II, Mid-term evaluation. Final draft, March 2003.
Tessema M. Community attitudes towards wildlife conservation in Ethiopia. Proceedings of the 2007 George Wright Society Conference , 287.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW/countries/ET?display=graph
http://www.wikihow.com/Do-a-Cost-Analysis
http://larissaswedell.org/filoha-site
Prepared by: Anna Stanewa
top related