Need Assessment to Enhance Effectiveness of Protected Area

Management in Five Project Sites

Final Need Assessment Study Report

Submitted to: The Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA) and

United Nations Development Program (UNDP)

Prepared by: Mekonnen Getahun Assegu, IC

Phone: +251912021016
Email: yalkenu@gmail.com

March/2019
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

|Page
Acronyms and Abbreviations

a.s.l Above Sea Level

BFF Born Free Foundation
CBD Conservation on Biological Diversity
EWCA Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority
FGD Focal Group Discussion
GEF Global Environment Facility
GIZ German International Cooperation
GWP Global Wildlife Program
HR Human Resources
IWT Illegal Wildlife Trade
KII Key Informant Interview
KM Kilo Meter
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
NFPA National Forest Priority Areas
NGO Non-Governmental Organizations
NP National Parks
PA Protected Area
PHE Population Health and Environment
Sq km Square Kilo Meter
ToR Terms of Reference
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNESCO United Nations Education Science and Culture Organization
WCPA World Commission for Protected Area

i|Page
 Table of Content

Contents Pages
Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ i
Table of Content ........................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................................................... vi
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... vii
1. Introduction and Background................................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Project Context and Background .................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Overview of Protected Areas and Biodiversity ............................................................................. 3
1.3. Protected Area in Ethiopia ............................................................................................................ 5
1.4. Major Protected Area Challenges/Gaps in Ethiopia ..................................................................... 6
1.5. Project Background and Rationale ................................................................................................ 7
1.6. Project Objective ........................................................................................................................... 8
2. Objectives of the Need Assessment Study ............................................................................................ 9
2.1. General Objective ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.2. Specific Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 9
3. Scope of the Need Assessment Work and Limitations ....................................................................... 10
4. Methodology and Approach................................................................................................................ 11
4.1. Description of Project Sites......................................................................................................... 11
4.2. Methodology and Approach........................................................................................................ 13
4.2.1. Overview of Approaches .................................................................................................... 13
4.2.2. Primary Data Collection...................................................................................................... 14
4.2.3. Secondary Data Collection.................................................................................................. 14
4.2.4. Field Sites Visit ................................................................................................................... 14
4.2.5. Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 14
5. Main Results of the Need Assessment ................................................................................................ 16
5.1. Biological Status of Each PA ...................................................................................................... 16
5.2. Major Challenges of Each PA for Management Effectiveness ................................................... 18
5.3. Protected Area Management System and Its Implementation at each Park ................................ 23

ii | P a g e
 5.3.1. Legal Status ......................................................................................................................... 23
5.3.2. Management Plan................................................................................................................ 24
5.3.3. Protected Area Management Effectiveness at Each PA...................................................... 24
5.4. Wildlife Trade, Poaching, and Trafficking and Key Drivers of the Trade ................................. 28
5.4.1. Wildlife Trade, Poaching, and Trafficking Trends ............................................................. 28
5.4.2. Key Drivers of the Wildlife Trade ...................................................................................... 29
5.4.3. Reversing Mechanisms to Wildlife Trade and Poaching Problems .................................... 30
5.4.4. Law Enforcement ................................................................................................................ 30
5.5. Capacity, Available Resources and Future Need ........................................................................ 31
5.5.1. Human Resources ............................................................................................................... 32
5.5.2. Financial Resources ............................................................................................................ 35
5.5.3. Infrastructural Development ............................................................................................... 40
5.5.4. Transport and Logistic ........................................................................................................ 42
5.5.5. Equipment and Tools .......................................................................................................... 43
5.5.6. Communications and Related ............................................................................................. 45
5.5.7. Utilities and related facilities .............................................................................................. 46
5.5.8. Training Human Resources Development .......................................................................... 47
5.5.9. General Needs for Protected Area Management Effectiveness .......................................... 48
5.5.10. Summary of Need Assessment ........................................................................................... 49
6. Conclusion and Recommendation ...................................................................................................... 52
6.1. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 52
6.2. Recommendation ........................................................................................................................ 54
7. References ........................................................................................................................................... 56
8. Annexes............................................................................................................................................... 58
Annex-1: Summary of Equipment and Tools Needs and Estimated Costs for Target PAs .................... 58

iii | P a g e
List of Tables
Table 1: Biological Status of each PA ........................................................................................................ 16
Table 2: Summary of the size of elephant populations in five protected areas in Ethiopia ........................ 17
Table 3: Threat identification and prioritization criteria ............................................................................. 18
Table 4: Criteria and Description ................................................................................................................ 22
Table 5: Legal Status of Target PAs ........................................................................................................... 23
Table 6: Indicators of Protected Area Management Effectiveness Evaluation Methodology .................... 26
Table 7: Human Resources in Each PAs .................................................................................................... 32
Table 8: Required Number of Scouts and Rangers as per the standard ...................................................... 33
Table 9: Minimum Human Resources Requirement for each PAs ............................................................. 34
Table 10: EWCA Annual Recurrent Budget Incremental Trend ................................................................ 35
Table 11: Financial Budget (Operational Budget) for 2011for for sample PAs ......................................... 37
Table 12: Future Estimated Average Budget Requirement per PA (ETH Birr) ......................................... 38
Table 13: PA infrastructural Development status and Future Need ........................................................... 40
Table 14: Vehicle and other logistics Status and Future Requirement ....................................................... 42
Table 15: Estimated Number of Office and Field Equipment and Tools.................................................... 44
Table 16: Communication Method and Tools requirement per PA ............................................................ 46
Table 17: Required Utilities and Facilities ................................................................................................. 47
Table 18: Future Training Need Assessment Summary ............................................................................. 48
Table 19: Summary Need Assessment Table ............................................................................................. 50

iv | P a g e
List of Figures
Figure 1: Wildlife in Ethiopia ....................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Protected Areas in Ethiopia ........................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Map of Mago and Omo National Parks ....................................................................................... 12
Figure 4: Map of Chebera Churchura and surrounding villages ................................................................. 13
Figure 5: Conservation Challenges and threats of wildlife ......................................................................... 19
Figure 6: Financial and Technical Support obtained from different parties ............................................... 21
Figure 7: Financial Support Obtained from Different Sources ................................................................... 23
Figure 8: Management Effectiveness Components and Status Response of PAs ....................................... 25
Figure 9: Human Resource gap analysis ..................................................................................................... 33
Figure 10: Budget Trend for 6 Years .......................................................................................................... 36

v|Page
Acknowledgement

This need assessment study report is finalized through involvement and support of various
individuals and institutions by providing the necessary data and valuable information. Most
important primary and secondary data and substantial critical information were collected from
different sources at federal, regional and protected area level in Ethiopia with kind support
obtained from these sources.

Special thanks goes to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and Ethiopian Wildlife
Conservation Authority (EWCA) for providing the financial resources to complete this valuable
need assessment as part of the Enhancement of Protected Area Management Project.

The consultant wishes to thank the following people and organizations from EWCA and in each
protected areas: Mr. Addisu Assefa and Mr. Arega Mekonnen for their unreserved support and
guidance in achieving this assessment. All protected area experts, wards, and senior technical
experts have contributed a lot in this work. Equally, I would like to thank the five PA Wardens,
namely, Zenebe Arefaynie, Ganabule, Nuru Mohammed, Adane Tsegaye, and Adem Mehammed.

In particular, special appreciations go to all those who made this report in its present form, starting
from its draft stage to the final document and provided unreserved support and valuable comments
that made the report more palatable. To mention a few, Heven Hailu, Mathios Seranie, Aschalew
Adugna, and Mrs. Admas Messele

vi | P a g e
Executive Summary

Ethiopia is home to some of the richest biodiversity and most iconic landscapes in Africa,
characterized by high levels of habitat and species diversity, endemism, ecological
interconnectedness, and globally recognized conservation hotspots. However, in Ethiopia illegal
poaching, wildlife products and live animals illegal trade continues to flourish because of high
demand from international community. Ethiopia has been identified as a key transit/source country
for wildlife products and live animals in east Africa. Thus, EWCA in collaboration with UNDP
designed this project seeking to implement solutions that will counter the threats to biodiversity
and overcome the barriers to effective management of protected areas and to combatting illegal
wildlife trade. It seeks to achieve the project’s objective to build Ethiopia’s capacity for
biodiversity conservation through increased effectiveness of protected area management and
implementation of measures to reduce Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT) and poaching.

This need assessment study report focused on five selected project sites currently managed under
protected area scheme in Ethiopia, namely are: Kafta Shiraro, Chebera Churchura, Mago, Omo,
and Babille Elephant sanctuary. The assessment was conducted from January 2018 to March 2019
with the objective to identify gaps for proper and effective protected area management and
recommend basic requirements.

This assessment report examined basic needs and critical gaps of each target protected area aimed
to enhance effectiveness of protected area management and hinder poaching and illegal wildlife
trade in five selected project sites. The report is prepared through vitalizing various data and/or
information sources - a review of available literature, internet sources and intelligence from and
interviews with knowledgeable individuals and agencies. The need assessment mainly focused on
understanding the main gaps and limitations of each target protected areas for proper management
of resources and its effectiveness in Ethiopia. Using the capacity and need assessment tools, the
approach to the assignment involved a combination of methods that enabled collection of data-
both primary and secondary at all level and sources.

More profoundly, the result section implicitly deals with the main findings of the need assessment
study conducted on each of the five project sites. It begins with the biological status of each
protected areas under consideration. Further, it tries to address existing and future gaps in human

vii | P a g e
resources, financial resources availability and limitation, infrastructural development and logistics.
In addition, the report covers the needs and requirements of equipment and tools and other base
factors which are indispensable for enhanced protected area management and effective anti-
poaching and anti-trafficking.

Assessment, analysis and documentation of this need assessment study report considered all the
requirements and formalities of the Terms of Reference, agreed between the UNDP and the
Consultant. Also, the concerns and views of stakeholders and consultative comments were
thoroughly inculcated within this report document.

The result of this assessment report revealed that human resources found inadequate in each park;
there is high scarcity of financial resources allocated (from external sources and EWCA);
infrastructural development is poor, transportation and logistics facilities are inadequate; high
shortage of equipment and tools; there have not been any training and capacity building scheme
and even protected areas have got limited or no problem solving support.

Apparently, each protected areas need infrastructural development, human resource development,
adequate finance, development of management system development, law enforcement, training
and capacity building, and facilities to effectively manage the national parks.

Therefore, to achieve the intended conservation objective, concerned and responsible parties
should institutional capacity building strategies, create synergy with potential stakeholder at
national and international level, mobilize sustainable resources to improve adequacy required
equipment and tools and design human development strategy to effectively manage the resources.

It is highly advisable to undertake regular patrolling and monitory and evaluation to know the
status of wildlife resources, identify challenges, and to know status of project implementation. by
undertaking monitory and evaluation helps to obtain valuable information, by which analysis of
collected data on need assessment gaps in the five project sites from managers/wardens and
EWCA/Project Management Units is crucial for facilitating the informed decision making process.

viii | P a g e
 1. Introduction and Background
1.1. Project Context and Background

Ethiopia is one of the hotspot of wildlife and it has highly important and valuable resources as a
protected area to conserve endangered wildlife in Africa. It has 1.104 million Sq km but only
16.5% (193,000 km2) of the area is designated as protected areas in order to increase protection of
the wildlife resources.

Ethiopia has several designated Protected Areas (PAs) including 15 national parks (20,833 km²);
three wildlife sanctuaries (9,532 km²), 11 wildlife reserves (24,810 km²) and 18 controlled hunting
areas (131,820 km²). The government has committed to designate over 193,000 km2 (16.5% of
the total area of the country) in order to increase the protection of the wildlife resources of the
country. Ethiopia has 58 National Forest Priority Areas (48,000 km²). Many more forests are now
designated as protected areas. Although the primary objective of NFPA is to conserve the country's
remaining forests, they are extremely valuable in sheltering large numbers of species, including
some that are not found in the wildlife conservation areas (CBD, 2012).

Even though only small portion of the land is considered as protected area, its conservation value
and number of wildlife inhabited in each protected areas and sanctuaries is very high.

The diverse habitat and variable topography and climate condition of the country have contributed
to diversity of species. The country currently possesses 320 species of mammals of which 36 are
endemic, 926 species of birds, 242 species of reptiles, 73 species of amphibians and 6862 species
of insect. Globally wildlife is highly threatened by various natural and anthropogenic factors. As
result, the loss of biodiversity in general and wild fauna in particular is a comprehensive global
environmental challenge. Habitat loss, over-exploitation of wildlife and forest resources and
climate change are major causes of biodiversity loss. The situation is most severe in the tropical
regions. Human population growth, particularly in developing countries, has intense effects on
consumption patterns of land and wild resources, which is considered as an indirect driver of
biodiversity loss (Mengistu et al., 2017).

1|Page
 (Source: EWCA)
Figure 1: Wildlife in Ethiopia

Even though Ethiopia has high wildlife potential and able to manage many protected areas in many
parts of Ethiopia, current protected area establishment effort and management effectiveness is poor
and most of the protected areas and sanctuaries are highly affected by many conservation
problems.

The major threats to the protected areas and its associated biodiversity are unsustainable utilization
of natural resources (over-harvesting), deforestation, conversion of natural vegetation to farmland,
expansion of commercial farm, forest fires, settlement /encroachment, invasive species, illegal
trafficking of domestic and wild animals, poaching, wetland destruction and climate change. These
threats can be broadly linked to the following categories: limited governmental, institutional, and
legal capacity; population growth; land degradation; weak management of protected areas. They
are largely interrelated and self-reinforcing, and it is therefore important not only to understand

2|Page
the individual threats but also to examine them in a holistic fashion that recognizes their
interrelation and can help to propose solutions to decrease the threats and mitigate their effects.
But most of these are related to the root causes of poverty, which are lack of alternative viable
livelihoods, increasing population pressure and inadequate awareness of the threats and possible
solutions at all levels (CBD, 2012).

To tackle this critical wildlife conservation challenges, EWCA and UNDP designed number of
projects in almost all parts of the country. Enhanced Management and Enforcement of Ethiopia’s
Protected Area Estate Project is one of the projects implemented by EWCA at five protected areas
with the objective of building Ethiopia’s capacity for biodiversity conservation through increased
effectiveness of protected area management and implementation of measures to reduce Illegal
Wildlife Trade (IWT) and poaching.

This need assessment report is intended to provide evidence based updated information capacity
gaps of each protected areas to EWCA, UNDP, policy and decision makers in the allocation of
conservation funds/budget to fulfill basic requirements for sustainable and effective protected area
management in target project areas in particular and in Ethiopia in general. In identifying the
protected areas’ critical gaps with the greatest need for attention, and the countries with the greatest
need to meet internationally agreed conservation goals, the aim is to encourage the more effective
allocation of conservation related annual budget, support, and other assistance to be allocated for
each PA. Thus as mentioned above, the objective of this assessment is to identify gaps and analyze
capacity limitation of each target protected areas and to indicate possible solutions for effective
protected area management in general for better future wildlife resource conservation in the
country.

1.2. Overview of Protected Areas and Biodiversity

Protected areas are essential for biodiversity conservation. They are the cornerstones of virtually
all national and international conservation strategies, set aside to maintain functioning natural
ecosystems, to act as refuges for species and to maintain ecological processes that cannot survive
in most intensely managed landscapes and seascapes. Protected areas act as benchmarks against
which we understand human interactions with the natural world. Today they are often the only
hope we have of stopping many threatened or endemic species from becoming extinct. They are

3|Page
complementary to measures to achieve conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity outside
protected areas in accordance with CBD guidelines such as the Malawi and Addis Ababa
Principles (CBD VII/11–12).

Most protected areas exist in natural or near-natural ecosystems, or are being restored to such a
state, although there are exceptions. Many contain major features of earth history and earth
processes while others document the subtle interplay between human activity and nature in cultural
landscapes. Larger and more natural protected areas also provide space for evolution and future
ecological adaptation and restoration, both increasingly important under conditions of rapid
climate change (www.iucn.org/pa_guidelines, 2019).

Protected areas in Ethiopia are highly important for biodiversity conservation and home for many
endangered wildlife in almost all corners of Ethiopia.

Therefore, the fight against biodiversity loss has become a priority for both governments and
nature conservation organizations worldwide, and various approaches are used to reduce
biodiversity loss in the past few decades. In situ conservation of viable wildlife populations in
natural ecosystems is fundamental requirement for the maintenance of biodiversity.

In addition to this, protected areas have been playing key roles in economic, ecological and social
structure of the community. Similarly, they have significant roles in conservation, recreation, eco-
tourism and employment. For instance, the direct and indirect annual economic values of some
protected areas are estimated at 1.5 billion USD. However, biodiversity conservation challenges
are evident in several protected areas in Ethiopia. Ethiopia root cause of biodiversity conservation
gaps are associated with lack of adequate capacity, commitment, organizational set-up and lack of
monitoring of the implementation strategy on the status & trends of threats. Furthermore, no
organized information is available on the current threatening factors against biodiversity in
protected areas of country in general and protected areas in particular. The lack of such information
is critically affecting the prioritization of conservation strategies and mitigation procedures to
address wildlife threats for better conservation of wild animals in protected areas (Mengistu et al.,
2017).

4|Page
 1.3. Protected Area in Ethiopia

The IUCN defines a Protected Area as "A clearly defined geographical space, recognized,
dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term
conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley, 2008).

In Ethiopia there are more than 15 nationally managed protected areas (National Parks) and many
protected areas controlled and managed by regional governments. In addition to this, there are also
some community conservation areas in different parts of Ethiopia. Ethiopia has so far established
several protected areas which include 21 national parks, 4 sanctuaries, 8 wildlife reserves, 20
controlled hunting areas, six open hunting areas, six community conservation areas and 58 national
forest priority areas (Mengistu et al., 2017).

These protected areas are home for many large mammals, endangered flagship mammals, and
endemic wildlife and others and sources of ecosystem services for many local people. In addition
to this, protected areas in Ethiopia are highly important for their ecosystem services and other
economic values equally since the history of the country.

Source: Adopted from EWCA MAP

Figure 2: Protected Areas in Ethiopia

5|Page
Even though Ethiopia has a number of protected areas and conservation sites, the management and
effectiveness of these protected areas is poor and ineffective.

Protected areas in Ethiopia faced a range of threats. However, little information is known about
the type, pattern, and extent of these threats. Understanding these issues is crucial in prioritizing
conservation strategies and to take appropriate mitigation measure for effective protection of
wildlife. This assessment study attempts to investigate capacity needs for effective protected area
management and tried to indicate possible solutions based on the findings of the assessment.

All of the protected areas are susceptible to most of the identified threats. Protected areas having
Acacia-Commiphora and scrub land a predominant ecosystem type and surrounded by settlement
and agricultural land uses practice were the most susceptible to the threat factors.

Babille elephant sanctuary and Yangudi-Rassa national park are the two most threatened protected
areas. 58% of the threats showed strong positive and significant relationship with protected area
relative threatened index. Thus, an involvement of multi stakeholders including local community
is essential to develop protected area management strategies by prioritizing the identified threats
to reduce biodiversity loss in eastern Ethiopia protected areas (Mengistu et al., 2017).

1.4. Major Protected Area Challenges/Gaps in Ethiopia

Globally recognized protected areas threats are Biological resource use, Agriculture and
aquaculture, Human intrusions and disturbance, Natural system modifications, Commercial
Development on protected areas, other major threats. Other very frequently mentioned level threat
includes, mining, quarrying and oil drilling (47%), pollution of various kinds (47%), invasive
species (45%), fragmentation caused by roads and other utility lines (40%) and severe weather and
climate change (30%) (Leverington et al., 2008).

More importantly, the overexploitation of natural resources in protected areas such as national
parks is of worldwide concerns nowadays. More sever particularly in less developing countries,
because there are considerable number of people that live in and around protected areas depending
on parks natural resources for their livelihood (Amend, 1993; Anemut and Bekabil, 2008).

Protected areas in Ethiopia face a number of challenges and threats; and biodiversity has become
degraded almost everywhere. This is because of Deforestation and Land Degradation, Agricultural
6|Page
Encroachment, Overgrazing, Climate Change, High population increment, lack of alternative
livelihood option, Hunting and poaching, Wildlife trafficking, poor management, lack of
community commitment and other can be mentioned as potential protected area threats. The most
important threats also include shortage of funding, increased investment growth, expansion of
invasive alien species, human wildlife conflict, and others. Ibid

Thus, globally, effective management of protected areas has been widely recognized as an essential
component of conservation strategies (Watson, 2014; Pressey, 2015). The objective of Enhanced
Management and Enforcement of Ethiopia’s Protected Area Estate project is seeking to implement
solutions that will counter the threat to biodiversity and overcome the barriers to effective
management of protected areas and combatting illegal wildlife trade in Ethiopia.

1.5. Project Background and Rationale

Driven by low risk and high profitability, the trade in wildlife products and live animals continues
to flourish. Ethiopia has been identified as a key transit (as well as source) country for wildlife
products and live animals. The proposed project is seeking to implement solutions that will counter
the threats to biodiversity and overcome the barriers to effective management of protected areas
and to combatting illegal wildlife trade. It seeks to achieve the project’s objective: to build
Ethiopia’s capacity for biodiversity conservation through increased effectiveness of protected area
management and implementation of measures to reduce Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT) and poaching
(Project Document, 2018).

The main purpose and aim of the need assessment was to achieve through the implementation of
four project components.

 Component 1: Protected area management and biodiversity conservation. This component is

focus on demonstrating how effective management of protected areas in Ethiopia can be
achieved by targeting a small number of protected areas, given that the selected pilot sites are
those protected areas in which key target species (elephants and big cats) are found.

 Component 2: Implementation of anti-trafficking measures. This component will focus on

improving different aspects of law enforcement so as to increase the deterrent to illegal wildlife
trafficking.

7|Page
 Component 3: Landscape approach to forest and agro-biodiversity conservation. This
component focuses on realizing the value of agro-biodiversity for the country and specifically
for people living in the vicinity of the protected areas targeted in Component one.

 Component 4: Knowledge Management, Gender Mainstreaming, and M&E: Lessons learned

from the project via active participation of all stakeholder groups in the project
implementation, gender mainstreaming and M&E will be made available nationally and
internationally to facilitate the fight against IWT.

Ultimately, the project will contribute to long-term impacts or global environmental benefits
including: i) the recovery of wildlife populations in project sites Ethiopia, specifically targeting
elephants, lions and cheetahs: these were selected as GWP flagship species to measure the success
of the proposed project, and ii) there is no loss of habitat and agro-biodiversity. This project forms
part of the GEF Programmatic Approach to Prevent the Extinction of Known Threatened Species,
and falls under the GEF Program Global Partnership on Wildlife Conservation and Crime
Prevention for Sustainable Development (9071). Under this programmatic framework, with the
coordination through the program steering committee, coordinated knowledge management and
cross-fertilization of the individual regional and national projects will be assured.

1.6. Project Objective

To build Ethiopia’s capacity for biodiversity conservation through increased effectiveness of

protected area management and implementation of measures to reduce Illegal Wildlife Trade
(IWT) and poaching.

8|Page
 2. Objectives of the Need Assessment Study
2.1. General Objective

The overall objective of the need assessment assignment was to undertake and prepare need
assessment to enhance protected area management effectiveness at five project sites in
collaboration with EWCA, UNDP, Park Staffs and other key stakeholders based on the key
management effectiveness principles and parameter such as consider relevance, efficiency and
effectiveness. The need assessment report is expected to provide sufficient information on the
intended variables as per the ToR. The assessment exercise and the finding of the assessment will
be useful to identify current available resources and critical gaps of selected parks/project sites,
and will help to provide practicable recommendations for future interventions regarding protected
area management effectiveness.

2.2. Specific Objectives

 To critically analyse how protected area management is performed and its effectiveness in
relation to law enforcement (e.g., anti-trafficking and poaching), tourism, research and
outreach activities using the existing resources and how the resources are being used.
 To assess available and capacity gaps as well analyse future capacities needed for proper and
effective protected area management and to recommend basic capacity requirements to
improve effectiveness of protected area management.

9|Page
 3. Scope of the Need Assessment Work and Limitations

Scope: The assessment covered four national parks and one sanctuary in four regions of Ethiopia.
The study sites are Chebera Churchura, Mago, Omo, Kafta Sheraro National Parks and Babille
Elephant Sanctuary.

I (the consultant) have exerted significant effort to work with EWCA and the five parks project
staffs and other regional and zonal partners/ stakeholders to gather data and information needed to
inform and support the preparation of need assessment study. The study was done within the
context of the prevailing policy and legal framework of the institution/EWCA and UNDP.

I tried to critically analyze how protected area management is performed in on law enforcement,
anti-trafficking, poaching using the existing resources and how the resources are being used.
Moreover, it has been tried to analyze the physical resource requirement, the additional human
resource needs including the required experience and profession. Finally, the consultant has come
up with recommendations on the future capacity/resources needs for each of the five protected
areas under consideration.

Limitation: The assessment was undertaken based on qualitative and quantitative data collected
from primary and secondary data sources. Majority of the primary and secondary data was
collected on the spot at each target national park. However, it was highly difficult to get up-to-date
information about each PAs, unable to contact park wardens, technical experts, scouts and other
staffs were unwilling to discuss. On top of this, due to the current security problem at almost all
study areas the consultant was unable to travel to some national parks and forced to collect
information with email and phone call from each respective protected areas.

10 | P a g e
 4. Methodology and Approach
4.1. Description of Project Sites
This need assessment study focused on capacity gaps analysis for effective protected area
management within current project sites of five project areas/protected areas located in in four
regions of the country. The study sites include Chebera Churchura, Mago, Omo, Kafta Sheraro
National Parks and Babille Elephant Sanctuary.

Kafta Shiraro National Park: It was established in 1997. Its area coverage is 500000 ha (5000
km2) inhabiting 42 mammals and 95 birds. The type of ecosystem belongs to Combretum-
Terminalia woodland and Savannah; this gives opportunity for game animals to inhabit. Under the
framework of UNESCO-IUCN motto, the Kafta Shiraro National Park has been managed through
trans-boundary management scheme by two bordering countries, Ethiopia and Eritrea (Schulze,
2008). However, since its establishment year there have not been reports showing the status of the
park.

Mago National Park: geographically, its UTM readings between 36.25 Long and 5.54 Lat. It
was established on 1/1/1971. The park area covers 216200 ha (2162 km2), the altitude ranges from
450 (minimum) to 2528 masl (maximum). This park has been under development since July 1978,
but it is not yet gazetted. The area was proposed for the conservation of its large number of plains
wildlife, particularly Buffalo, Giraffe, Grevy zebra and Elephant and it is of particular importance
for Buffalo and Oryx. At one time or another up to 81 mammal species and 237 bird species have
been recorded in the park.

11 | P a g e
 Source: Mursi Online
Figure 3: Map of Mago and Omo National Parks
Omo National Park: geographically, it lies between 35.76 Long and 5.92 Lat. It was established
on 1/1/1959. The Park covers an area of 406,800 ha (4068 km2), the altitude ranges from 450 (440)
to 1183 masl (maximum), characterized by three open grassy plains with scattered rocky ridges on
the west bank of the Omo River, Park is surrounded by hills. This park has been under development
since 1966 but has not yet been gazetted. The area was proposed for its extensive wilderness and
prolific plain wildlife. It is of special importance to Common Eland and Elephant. Some 29 larger
mammal species and 306 bird species have been recorded in the park. Under IUCN Category it is
type II, with unknown degrees of habitat loss. Physically, its climate is hot with the main rainy
season from April to July, representing desert and semi-desert scrubland. Its ecosystem type is
Acacia-Commiphora woodland and Combretum-Terminalia woodland and savanna.

Chebera Churchura National Park: Its geographic coordinates are located 36.77 Long and 6.92
Lat in UTM reading. It was established on 1/1/2006 with area coverage of 121500 ha (1215 km2).
The minimum and maximum altitude is 600 and 2000, respectively (Schulze, 2008). Elephant,
Buffalos and Hippopotamus are the dominant game animals inhabiting the Chebera Churchura
national park.

12 | P a g e
Figure 4: Map of Chebera Churchura and surrounding villages
Source: © IDOSI Publications, 2017
Babille Elephant Sanctuary: The EPA (2003) report indicated that the total area coverage of
Babille sanctuary to be 698200 ha (6982 km2). It is found within between borders of Somalia and
Oromia National Regional States of Ethiopia. Elephant is the dominant mammal habituating the
sanctuary, in that poaching and IWT to be the priority challenges.

4.2. Methodology and Approach

4.2.1. Overview of Approaches

Analyzing the assignment given in the Terms of Reference (ToR), information compiled on the
current status and trends of wildlife conservation and key factors and components for protected
area management effectiveness in Ethiopia. The assessment mainly focused on understanding the
main gaps and capacity limitations of each target protected areas for proper management of
wildlife resources and its management effectiveness in Ethiopia. Using the capacity and need
assessment tools, the approach to the assignment employed a combination of methods that enabled
collection of data-both primary and secondary at all level and sources.

Most importantly regarding budgeting and resources allocation plan in each target protected areas,
the consultant used incremental budgeting system based on the EWCA annual budget trend. In
addition to this, critical gap analysis for all parameters undertaken based on SWOT analysis result.

13 | P a g e
 4.2.2. Primary Data Collection
Focusing on factors and components of protected area management effectiveness, the primary data
were collected using FGD and key informant interviews (KII) of individuals from relevant
institutions which include Federal and Regional level implementers, Regional and woreda level
Police, Revenue and Custom Authority, Judiciary, EWCA (different Officers, wardens, scouts,
and local guides), and NGOs which supporting the law enforcement and anti-wildlife trafficking
activities At the initial stage, discussions were held with the staff of EWCA to identify key
informants from target institutions and areas for the stated purpose.

4.2.3. Secondary Data Collection

Secondary data were compiled and synthesized through desk review of relevant publications,
policy and strategy documents, management plan, reports, proclamations and analyses of relevant
documents at all level. Internet sources and media reports which include reports on law
enforcement activities and key species status reports prepared by EWCA, UNDP, PHE, GIZ, Born
Free Foundation (BFF), and IUCN were also used as a source of secondary data.

4.2.4. Field Sites Visit

The field visits targeted to five study areas considered as project sites where GEF supported project
is under implementation. The location of the project sites for conducting the need assessment are
distributed across the four different regions of the country: 1) Southern Regional State in Chebera
Churchura, Mago and Omo National Parks, 2) Tigray Regional State in Kafta Shiraro National
Park, 3) Ethio Somalia and Oromia Regions in Babille Elephant Sanctuary.

Considering the current security risk, budget and time allocated for field visit. The consultant
assumed that at least transportation and some logistic facilitation from EWCA and UNDP to
handle field visit. Thus fore, the number of sites visited were limited to two project sites Babille
Sanctuary and Chebera Churchura National park, identified as some of the hotspots of illegal
wildlife trafficking in the country. The consultant reviewed the seizure data and used experts’
recommendations to choose the two project sites for field data collection.

4.2.5. Data Analysis

Standard technical need assessment tools and international experience helped the consultant to
conduct a comprehensive gap analysis for protected area management effectiveness. These

14 | P a g e
technical assessment tools were used to evaluate five key components of management capacity
that are relevant to protected area management effectiveness in target areas: Human Resources;
Infrastructure; Logistics; Equipment and tools Training and capacity building. For each
component, currently available and future needs were assessed, and accordingly recommendations
were drawn for each protected area on the level (type, amount (quality and quantity) of capacity
needs to be fulfilled as soon as possible.

15 | P a g e
 5. Main Results of the Need Assessment
5.1. Biological Status of Each PA

Ethiopia is gifted with diverse biological resources. The diversity in wildlife is mainly because of
the diversity in habitat, climate and different topographic ranges. In Ethiopia protected areas help
to conserve wildlife and biodiversity in general. Even though the purpose of this assessment was
not to undertake detail study on biological status of each protected areas under consideration, the
consultant tried to assess what is available at each national park.

Biological status of each target protected area for this study is detailed in the following table. As
mentioned in section 4, information about biological status of target protected area obtained from
different secondary data sources is presented as follows, however, detail status presented under
section 4

Table 1: Biological Status of each PA

No Protected Areas Biological Status IUCN

Category
1 Kafta Shiraro National Park  42 mammals and No Info
 95 birds
2 Mago National Park  81 (mammal species and II
 237 bird species
3 Omo National Park  29 larger mammal species and No Info
 306 bird species
4 Chebera Churchura National Park  Elephant, Buffalos and Unset
Hippopotamus
5 Babille Elephant Sanctuary  Elephant No Info
Source: ETHIO GIS Shapefiles, 2012

In addition to the biological status of each park, it has been tried to assess the population size of
elephant in five protected areas as the project’s one main focus is elephant. According to IUCN
study in 2017, the number of elephant in each park is presented in Table 2 below.

16 | P a g e
Table 2: Summary of the size of elephant populations in five protected areas in Ethiopia
No Protected Areas Estimated Population Size References
1 Kafta Shiraro National 350 Ground estimate (EWCA
Park 2013)
2 Mago National Park 182 Aerial Survey (EWB 2014)
3 Omo National Park 410 Aerial Survey (EWB 2014)
4 Chebera Churchura 420 Ground count (CCNP 2012-
National Park 2014)
5 Babille Elephant 349 Ground count (EWCA 2014)
Sanctuary
Gross Total 1711

Most of the protected areas under this study were found highly affected by different conservation
problems and even managers and concerned bodies were found negligent about it. According to
information obtained from interviewed key respondents, due to a number of reasons such as lack
of motivational scheme, lack of regular support from EWCA and local government, lack or
limitation of training and capacity building support, limitation of working tools, equipment and
materials, financial resource limitation, inadequacy of skilled man power, technical staffs and poor
legal support hindered the management effectiveness of each protected areas. Most importantly,
almost all respondents said that staff salary and benefit package in target protected areas is not
attractive. In addition to the above mentioned challenges, the local community also lacks sense of
ownership for park management and has become reluctant to collaboration with respective PAs
for wildlife conservation.

According to the response from the local community, they believe that the local community is
unable to get benefit from the protected areas instead they have been blocked from free grazing
and use of natural resources. Due to this, community participation reduced from time to time and
this affects their willingness to cooperate with park management. Most of the local community
complain on PAs because, they believe that they loss their right of natural\ resources uses after the
establishment of the national park. They also explained that there is no any alternative means for
their livelihood, livestock grazing technology and project support as sustainable livelihood support
to reduce their dependency on nature.

On top of this, each protected areas are not working to increase the participation of the local
community for co-management. According to key experts’ opinion, there is no any specific
community support project package and the effort is too minimal to mobilize additional resources

17 | P a g e
for community support. In addition to this, each PAs have limited resources to promote co-
management and even there is limited skill and how-know regarding the benefit of co-
management. Even though co-management principles believed to help both the parks and the local
community to share benefit and management responsibilities regarding the respective protected
areas, each protected areas and EWCA were unable to promote co-management.

5.2. Major Challenges of Each PA for Management Effectiveness

It has been tried to get some sort of information about threats of target protected areas in particular
and general threats for all protected areas in Ethiopia.

The consultant was able to assess current and most important conservation challenges and threats
through key informant and expert opinion. Structured questionnaire was communicated through
email to get important qualitative and quantitative data about conservation challenges.

Based on the information obtained from respondents, key challenges and conservation threats have
been presented on Figure 5.

The consultant used the following criteria to evaluate each conservation threat identified in this
study.

Table 3: Threat identification and prioritization criteria

Criteria Description/Explanation
Agree  The respondents agreed on the list of the threat mentioned
 The problem is significant in influencing effectiveness,
 Believe to resolve the problem requires high effort and resources to tackle
Medium  The respondents agreed on the list of the threat mentioned but the problem is
no first priority
 The problem is significant in influencing effectiveness but not important
problem as others
 Believe to resolve the problems but requires some significant effort and
resources
Disagree  The respondents disagreed on the list of the threat mentioned

18 | P a g e
 Criteria Description/Explanation
 They believe that the problems are insignificant in influencing effectiveness,
 Believe to resolve easily in minimal efforts

Based on the above assumptions, the major conservation challenges and threats of wildlife in
Ethiopia were summarized and presented in this below Figure (5).

Conservation Challenges and threats of wildlife

6
5
4
# of PAs

3
2
1
0
Comptne Training
Infrastruc Law Support Effective
nt Human Limited Manage and Agree
ture and Enforcem from Monitori
Resource Finance ment Capacity
Equimnt ent other ng Medium
s Building
Agree 3 5 2 4 3 5 4 5 Disagree
Medium 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 1
Disagree 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1

Figure 5: Conservation Challenges and threats of wildlife

According to Figure 5, most of protected areas wardens and key respondents (more than 60%)
have agreed that technical staffs are highly limited, staff management skill and implementation
capacity is weak, resource is scares, there is poor infrastructural development, and there is poor
coordination, weak law enforcement/legal support and limited support from other parties on
resource mobilization, management and human resource development.

In connection to this, all interviewed respondents (scouts, wardens, and support staffs) highly agree
that training and capacity building for staffs is highly limited that hinders staff effectiveness in the
process of protected area management.

In addition to this, according to the information gathered from wardens and rangers, the
management system can’t allow the community to participate both in management and benefit

19 | P a g e
sharing. The reason behind is there is no clear co-management and benefit sharing strategies and
stakeholder engagement policies. There are no any motivational and promotional activities and
scheme done protected areas management team as well EWCA. Instead each target protected areas
tried to manage the park using limited number of scouts and rangers. Based on the assessment
result 78% of respondents contacted by the consultant explained that they have faced a challenge
in using natural resources after the establishment of the park. Most replied that legal ownership
shifts and restrictions imposed on them without any alternative option for human livelihood and
livestock grazing strategy considered as a burden to the community. The consultant confirmed
that, most of the local communities believe that protected areas are burden for the community and
have become unwilling in the conservation process.

Weak and limited technical support and monitoring from EWCA and Environmental management
agencies found very limited. According to the response from each protected area, protected area
management cannot be effective only by each PA technical and management team. The
involvement and active participation of all concerned stakeholders is very crucial.

However, let alone from other parties, technical support from EWCA and the public is very weak
and support from EWCA is not problem solving. Only few protected areas obtained regular
monitoring and technical support from other stakeholders such us Born Free, PHE, GIZ, and
UNDP. The figure presents how much of protected areas obtained support from different
stakeholders including EWCA.

20 | P a g e
 Received Financial and Technical Support from EWCA, Government,
Public

9%
10% Percentage of High Support
Percentage of Medium Support
Percentage of Low Support
23% 58%
Percentage of No Support

Figure 6: Financial and Technical Support obtained from different parties

One of the key challenges for each protected areas is financial resource limitation to operate and
implement management and other ordinary plans. Perceived Financial Support from Different
Sources and even budget allocated by the government and NGOs were very minimal. Because of
this, most of the protected areas are unable to construct infrastructures, facilities and unable to
provide conservation tools and equipment.

The consultant adopted the following criteria to undertake the analysis regarding financial and
technical support for each target protected areas.

21 | P a g e
Table 4: Criteria and Description

Support Category Criteria Description

High Support  Frequent/regular M&E support

 Significant amount of financial support up to 20%
of annual budget
 Provided capacity building tools and equipment
 Supported with day to day park management

Medium Support  Frequent/regular M&E support

 Significant amount of financial support up to 10%
of annual budget
 Significant capacity building tools and equipment
 Moderate supported obtained for day to day park
management

Low Support  Limited M&E support

 Little or no financial support up to less than 5% of
annual budget
 Little or no capacity building tools and equipment
received
 Limited support obtained for day to day park
management

No Support Parks with no any support from any stakeholder except

EWCA regular support

Based on the above information and employed criteria less than 35% of target protected areas have
obtained some kind of support from stakeholders. According to information from Kafta Shiraro,
the national park has been supported by the regional government, Babille obtained some sort of
technical support, and Chebera Churchura obtained technical support in developing management
plan by the regional government.

22 | P a g e
 Received Financial Support different sources

8%
8% Percentage of High Support
Percentage of Medium Support
15%
Percentage of Low Support
69% Percentage of No Support

Figure 7: Financial Support Obtained from Different Sources

According to the report from five protected areas, only few parks obtained some financial and
technical support from different sources such as UNDP, GIZ, Born Free, PHE. On the other hand,
even protected areas were found poor in resource mobilization for conservation and community
support services purpose.

Therefore, almost all target protected areas (project sites) are unable to manage the wildlife
resources properly because of the above mentioned challenges.

5.3. Protected Area Management System and Its Implementation at each Park

5.3.1. Legal Status

As we can see in the table below, all protected areas under this study are legally registered as
national park and wildlife sanctuaries, however, so far, only Kafta Shiraro was gazetted in 2007.

Table 5: Legal Status of Target PAs

No Protected Areas Established in
1 Kafta Shiraro National Park 1997 and gazzetted 2007
2 Mago National Park 1971
3 Omo National Park 1966
4 Chebera Churchura National Park 2006 (Regionally Administered)
5 Babille Elephant Sanctuary 1970

So far EWCA in collaboration with key stakeholders at local and national level, efforts have been
made regarding legal status of each protected areas.

23 | P a g e
 5.3.2. Management Plan

One of factors of protected area management effectiveness is the availability of management plan.
Regarding protected area management plan for this assessment only Kafta Shiraro has
management plan which was started in 2002 and finalized later. The other target protected areas
have no any management plan except operational annual plan and cascaded semi-annual and
quarter plans. However, Chebera Churchura national park started developing management plan
and expected to be approved by regional government and the national park for implementation.

According to the information from target protected areas, they believe that having management
plan help the national park to strategically manage the resources. However, due to limited
resources, capacity limitation and lack of support from government and donor organizations, so
far national parks in Ethiopia exerted little effort to develop management plan in each protected
areas.

However, EWCA, protected areas, NGOs and other donor organizations are working together to
develop protected area management plan in Ethiopia that make the future promising for wildlife
conservation.

5.3.3. Protected Area Management Effectiveness at Each PA

The management effectiveness assessment was structured in two sections. The first provides the
background information on the protected area (establishment details, biodiversity status, legal
status etc.) which detailed above and outlines threats to the target protected areas.

The second section focuses on the following six distinct parameters such as Resource Information,
Resource Administration, Management and Protection, Management Planning, Governance,
Human Resources and Financial and Capital Management.

24 | P a g e
 Management Effectiveness of Each PAs
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Resource
Administra Financial
Resource
tion, Manageme Governanc Human and Capital
Informatio
Manageme nt Planning e Resources Manageme
n
nt and nt
Protection
Very poor Mgt effectiveness (25%) 3 2 3 4 3 2
Poor Mgt effectiveness (25% 50%) 2 2 1 1 1 3
Moderate Mgt effectiveness (51%
2 1 1 0 1 0
75%)
Satisfactory / Good Mgt
0 0 0 0 0 0
effectiveness (76% 100%)

Figure 8: Management Effectiveness Components and Status Response of PAs

Results are presented as graphs comparing across parks and across different aspects of
management and areas of greatest strength and weakness are recorded. To understand the status of
each target protected areas/project sites’ management effectiveness, the consultant adopted
Management Effectiveness Evaluation Methodology (MEE) (Leverington et al., 2008) and
interviewed key management staffs including wardens and senior experts.

The result presented above obtained based on the qualitative information collected from key
informants interviewed during the assessment. Most of the target protected areas asked based on
selected 7 parameters and the qualitative information gather summarized above.

25 | P a g e
 Table 6: Indicators of Protected Area Management Effectiveness Evaluation Methodology
Category Indicator  Very poor management effectiveness <25%;
 Poor management effectiveness 25-50%;
 Moderate management effectiveness 51-75%;
 Satisfactory/Good management effectiveness 76-100%
1.1 Inventory: Physical Environment
1.Resource 1.2 Inventory: Biotic Environment
Information 1.3 Inventory: Cultural and
Archaeological Resources
1.4 Inventory: Social, Cultural, and Response from each interviewed key informants
Economic Context and experts opinion
1.5 Inventory: Resource Use and
Occupancy
1.6 Inventory: Tenures and Claims
1.7 Site Assessment: Conservation Target
1.8 Site Assessment: Systematic Threat
Assessment
1.9 Traditional Knowledge
1.10 Information Management Systems
1.11 Environmental Monitoring Activities
1.12 Functional Research Activities
2.Resource 2.1 Legal: Legal Status
Administratio 2.2 Legal: Boundary Survey and
n, Demarcation
Management 2.3 Legal: Registration, Permit, and
and Protection Approval Processes Response from each interviewed key informants
2.4 Tenure and Claim Conflict Resolution and experts opinion
2.5 Guidelines and Best Management
Practices
2.6 Protection: Surveillance Activities
2.7 Protection: Enforcement Activities
2.8 Visitor and Tourism Management
Activities
2.9 Visitor and Tourism Monitoring
Activities
3.Participatio 3.1 Communication Activities
n, Education, 3.2 Educational Activities
and Socio- 3.3 Dissemination of Knowledge and
Economic Information Response from each interviewed key informants
Benefits 3.4 Participation: Level of Participation in and experts opinion
Management
3.5 Participation: Local Actors Leading
Management
3.6 Participation: Volunteer Activities
3.7 Participation: Strength of Social
Capital
3.8 Participation: Capacity Building Work
3.9 Benefits: Socio-Economic Benefits
Program
3.10 Benefits: Extent of Local Economic
Benefits
3.11 Benefits: Recognition of Protected
Area Benefits
26 | P a g e
Category Indicator  Very poor management effectiveness <25%;
 Poor management effectiveness 25-50%;
 Moderate management effectiveness 51-75%;
 Satisfactory/Good management effectiveness 76-100%
4.1 Management Plan Implementation
4.Managemen 4.2 Operational Plan Implementation
t Planning 4.3 Regulation and Zoning
Implementation Response from each interviewed key informants
4.4 Guidelines and Best Management and experts opinion
Practices
4.5 Long Term Management Needs
Identification
4.6 Program Monitoring and Evaluation
5.1 Protected Areas Objectives
5.Governance 5.2 Co-Management Arrangements
5.3 Administrative Autonomy Response from each interviewed key informants
5.4 Operating Procedures: Advisory and experts opinion
Committee
5.5 Operating Procedures: Board
5.6 Inter organizational Mechanisms
6.1 Site Manager Preparation
6.Human 6.2 Site Manager Availability
Resources 6.3 Admin Staff Availability Response from each interviewed key informants
6.4 Technical, Scientific, and Professional and experts opinion
Staff Availability
6.5 Operations Staff Availability
6.6 Human Resource Surveys
6.7 Training and Development
7.Financial 7.1 Funding Adequacy
and Capital 7.2 Revenue Generation
Management 7.3 Financial Management
7.4 Infrastructure Adequacy Response from each interviewed key informants
7.5 Equipment Adequacy and experts opinion
7.6 Internal Access Adequacy
7.7 Signage Adequacy
7.8 Maintenance Adequacy
Source: Adopted from Leverington (2008)

Based on these categories above and international indicators for Protected Area Management
Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) Methodology, almost all selected protected areas are ineffective
and the management effectiveness is below the standards.

According to the information obtained from different sources and each park, almost all protected
areas and wildlife resources were improperly managed both by the park authorities as well the
community who lives in and around each parks.

27 | P a g e
 5.4. Wildlife Trade, Poaching, and Trafficking and Key Drivers of the Trade

Like any other trade, wildlife trafficking is driven by demand from consumers all over the world.
In Ethiopia wildlife trade and trafficking is increasing from time to time because of many driving
forces behind these illegal activities. The subsection below tried to elucidate the trends of wildlife
trade poaching, trafficking, and key drivers of the trade in illegally acquired wildlife parts, and
also examines the trafficking network in each target project sites in particular and in Ethiopia in
general.

5.4.1. Wildlife Trade, Poaching, and Trafficking Trends

Whilst the focus of the assessment is on critical gap assessment in five protected areas for effective
protected area management, the consultant also assessed wildlife trade, poaching and illegal
trafficking as a component focusing on elephant as it is also the focus of the project. Unlike other
conservation challenges, the negative effect of wildlife trade, poaching and trafficking on
conservation of wildlife resources is very significant.

The illegal wildlife trade (IWT) represents a major threat to the survival of many endangered
species across Africa. Recent years have seen wildlife poaching skyrocket – particularly for ivory
and rhino as well as live animals for pets. Between 2007 and 2014, the elephant population
declined by 30% (144,000) in sub-Saharan Africa, mainly killed for their ivory (Wittemyer et al.,
2014; Chase et al., 2016) (IUCN, 2017).

In Ethiopia, hunting of wild animals has been a common and socially acceptable practice since
time immemorial and was supported mainly for both subsistence and cultural reasons. Hunting of
elephant, lion, buffalo and other big-game was a traditionally accepted practice for the sake of
earning higher social status and respect among a community (IUCN, 2017).

According to the information from each park, while the overall trend in national park reflects a
decline in wildlife numbers as a result of a combination of encroachment, illegal hunting and the
reduction in availability of suitable habitat, and mismanagement, there is still promising number
of large mammals in target protected areas.

In addition to the conservation effort made by Ethiopian government to reduce the effect of wildlife
trade, poaching and trafficking, the Government of Ethiopia restructured its natural resources

28 | P a g e
conservation, administration of wildlife management and conservation approach many times,
resulting in the formation of different agencies and institutions in general and EWCA in particular
as the state corporate body in charge of overseeing the overall management of wildlife resources,
in collaboration with international and national donors and development actors.

EWCA initiated a strong paramilitary campaign against poaching and burnt government stockpiles
of ivory in 2016 with estimated worth of multimillion USD to send a clear message to the world
that Ethiopia would not tolerate poaching and illegal wildlife trade. This strategy had immediate
positive impact on elephant populations, particularly when it was coupled with an aggressive
resource mobilization campaign, recruitment of game rangers and careful cultivation of political
goodwill.

The re-emergence of increasingly sophisticated poaching in the 21st century threatens effort of
anti-poaching in Ethiopia. Illegal killing of wildlife in Ethiopia has also been abetted by weak
wildlife legislation with low penalties for poaching and trafficking, limited prosecution capacity
and poor co-ordination among law enforcement and Customs agencies at all level.

Even though efforts have been made by the Ethiopia government with the support of international
community, trends and proportion of illegally killed of Elephants in Ethiopia increases from time
to time.

The consultant was able to gather information on the possible solutions how to tackle this critical
illegal poaching and wildlife trade. Understand the root causes of poaching and illegal trade can
help to design possible mitigation strategies that can reduce its effect on wildlife conservation.
Thus, according to the information gather from key informants and PA staffs, major driver of
wildlife trade and poaching mentioned under the following section (5.4.2.) and possible solutions
to reverse the problem detailed under section (5.4.3) below.

5.4.2. Key Drivers of the Wildlife Trade

The main driving factors of poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking in Ethiopia can be categorized
in to two groups: (1) high consumer demand for illicit wildlife and wildlife products, and lack of
good governance and corruption which erode public trust, (2) poverty among the rural
communities living adjacent to key wildlife areas, lack of awareness among the general public
about wildlife laws, and impact of wildlife crime on socioeconomic wellbeing of local
29 | P a g e
communities and on the economy of the nation which creates a conducive environment for wildlife
criminals operating within and outside the nation (IUCN, 2017).

Most of the assessment areas have weak organizational structure, management strategy, and poor
synergy to implement ant-poaching and trafficking at park level.

Like-ways major divers of wildlife trade and trafficking in the study areas are high demand for
ivory, poverty, weak law enforcement, limited control and patrolling, and community awareness
and tradition aggravated the problem.

5.4.3. Reversing Mechanisms to Wildlife Trade and Poaching Problems

As it has been mentioned above high consumer demand, market availability, poverty, and weak
law enforcement and limited resources for wildlife conservation aggravated the problem. The
consultant was highly interested to discuss with key informants and the community how to tackle
these critical challenges.

According to the response obtained from key respondents and wardens, the following key
recommendation should be implemented to reduce wildlife trade and poaching in each protected
areas.

 Awareness creation and promote the importance of wildlife conservation

 Improve livelihood of the local community
 Promote improved livestock production technology and enhance local income generation
 Law enforcement, and coordination with national and international institutions
 Use fencing and modern electric technology
 Undertake regular patrolling and strengthen rangers and scout capacity
 Fulfill all necessary conservation tools and equipment

5.4.4. Law Enforcement

Law enforcement within each project site is inconsistent: Daily patrols are not possible because
almost all protected areas have no logistic for this purpose, limited number of rangers, road access
is limited, financial and human resource is highly limited, and lack of coordination with
stakeholders. Nevertheless, the site manager/chief wardens and rangers are tried to conduct
periodic patrols using the available resources.

30 | P a g e
Enforcement of the law entities in and around the park have been highly limited, additional
enforcement support was not provided periodically from police department, national military
operations and others. On the other hand, EWCA in collaboration with key stakeholders, tried to
create coordination and synergy to create effective law enforcement in Ethiopia.

5.5. Capacity, Available Resources and Future Need

Capacity building refers to the development of an organization’s core skills and capabilities which
enable it to perform its functions with effectiveness and sustainability. Effective protected area
management calls for capable management, which in turn depends on effective institutions, trained
professionals, and staff with multiple technical skills. The capacity strengthening process gives
institutions both at federal and regional levels the ability to achieve conservation results by
ensuring they have the technical and financial resources required to address the existing wildlife
conservation challenges.

From this analysis carried out, the current protected area management system is ineffective due to
weak institutional capacity, inadequate financial resources, inadequate managerial skills and
technical capacity, and lack of regular technical and resources support from EWCA and
implementing partners such as UNDP, PHE, Born free and local government, poor infrastructure
development and inadequate resource. Building the ability to foster greater interagency
cooperation, integration and coordination are also fundamental for a more strategic approach in
addressing conservation priorities and achieving effectiveness in each protected areas in Ethiopia.

In addition to this, in each protected area, there is poor management system development,
community participation and there are no socio-economic infrastructures that can be used for both
patrolling, tourist service and community services in each protected areas.

Based on the assessment result for this particular assignment almost all protected areas have
critical capacity limitation to effectively manage the wildlife resources. Detail gap analysis is
presented as follows. This capacity gap analysis is based on selected parameters such as Human
Resources, Financial Resources, Infrastructure development, Equipment and Tools, Training and
development.

31 | P a g e
 5.5.1. Human Resources
One of the key components and/or factors of effective protected area management are competent
and skilled man power and their involvement in the process of wildlife management. According
to the information from each target national parks, staffs are not adequate to properly manage the
national parks. In addition to the adequacy problem, there is no any capacity building and skill
development scheme. The table below presents current available staffs, required and gap in each
protected areas.

Table 7: Human Resources in Each PAs

No Description/Job Title Currently Required Gap Adequacy Rank

Available Amount
1 Kafta Shiraro National Park 69 159 99 43.40% 1
2 Mago National Park 51 165 114 30.91% 5
3 Omo National Park 52 163 111 31.90% 4
4 Chebera Churchura 71 170 101 41.76% 2
National Park
5 Babille Elephant Sanctuary 55 155 100 35.48% 3
Total 298 812 525

As it has been mentioned and presented in the figure below, the adequacy of staffs’ analysis
shows that all target protected areas acquired less than 45% of the required amount of technical
and park management staffs.

This amount also reflects both technical and support staffs, in reality most of the current staffs
acquired by the national parks are support staffs. Only very limited number of technical staffs are
available in each national park.

The gap was calculated based on EWCA total staff requirement and new proposal for each national
park and also the consultant reviewed the new EWCA JEG structure and come up with this number
of staff.

32 | P a g e
 Currently Available HR and Future Need
180
Number of Human Reseource

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Chebera Babile
Kafta Shiraro Mago Omo National
Churchura Elephant
National Park National Park Park
National Park Sanctuary
Staff Available 69 51 52 71 55
Required 159 165 163 170 155
Adequecy 43.40% 30.91% 31.90% 41.76% 35.48%

Figure 9: Human Resource gap analysis

In addition to the technical staffs, scouts and rangers are below the standard. According to the
standard each national park should acquire the following detail number of scouts.

Table 8: Required Number of Scouts and Rangers as per the standard

Available
Required Scouts
Square total No of
Protected Areas based on the standard Gap
Kilometers Scouts and
(1Scout:10km2)
Rangers
Kafta Shiraro National Park 5000 80 500 420
Mago National Park 2162 75 216 141
Omo National Park 4068 80 407 327
Chebera Churchura National Park 1215 60 122 62
Babille Elephant Sanctuary 6982 20 698 678
Total 19427 315 1943 1628

Based on the international standard, one scout can only cover 10 square kilometers for effective
According to table above. However, according to IUCN one ranger can cover only 6 square
kilometers. Taking the standard threshold requirements each protected area needs/demands of 1:10
ratio (1 scout: 10 km2) for effective protected area management.

Generally, availability of skilled and competent human resource in each protected area is key factor
for protected area management effectiveness. In this assessment, the consultant was able to know
33 | P a g e
the minimum estimated number of human resource need and type of jobs. Of course target
protected areas HR demand is much greater that what is presented in this assessment. However,
the consultant used minimum estimated number of staffs at east African standard.

Table 9: Minimum Human Resources Requirement for each PAs

Requirement Human Resource in Each PA

Chebera Sub
Position Mago Omo Babille
Churchura Totals
Kafta Shiraro National National Elephant
National
Park Park Sanctuary
Park
Chief Warden 1 1 1 1 1 5
Wardens 3 3 3 3 3 15
Ecologist 1 1 1 1 1 5
Biologist 1 1 1 1 1 5
Natural Resources
1 1 1 1 1 5
Management Expert
Tourism Expert 1 1 1 1 1 5
Wildlife Monitoring,
Planning and 1 1 1 1 1 5
Research Expert
Park supervision
and development 1 1 1 1 1 5
expert
Education officer 1 1 1 1 1 5
Junior wildlife
1 1 1 1 1 5
expert
Law Enforcement
2 2 2 2 2 10
Expert
Gender and
Community 1 1 1 1 1 5
Participation Expert
Finance and
1 1 1 1 1 5
Administration
Accountant 1 1 1 1 1 5
Cashier 1 1 1 1 1 5
Purchaser 1 1 1 1 1 5
Office
Administration and 1 1 1 1 1 5
Assistant
Revenue collector 1 1 1 1 1 5
Mechanic 1 1 1 1 1 5
34 | P a g e
 Requirement Human Resource in Each PA
Chebera Sub
Position Mago Omo Babille
Churchura Totals
Kafta Shiraro National National Elephant
National
Park Park Sanctuary
Park
Store keeper 1 1 1 1 1 5
Office clerk 1 1 1 1 1 5
Radio operator 1 1 1 1 1 5
Driver 5 4 4 4 3 20
Chief Scout 4 3 4 3 2 16
Scouts and rangers 80 75 80 60 20 315
Guards 4 4 4 4 4 20
Cleaner 2 2 2 2 2 10
Messengers and
1 1 1 1 1 5
office assistant
Total 121 114 120 99 55 509

5.5.2. Financial Resources

The second most important parameter for effective protected area management is the availability
and adequacy of financial resources. The consultant tried to assess the trend of the financial
resource allocation for operational activities.

The consultant use EWCA Annual Recurrent increased Budget in 6 years to know and estimate
the trend of target project site protected areas. According to EWCA’s annual budget report, annual
recurrent budget increment is almost the same with minor fluctuation, see table 10.

Table 10: EWCA Annual Recurrent Budget Incremental Trend

Budget Year Annual Recurrent Budget %age increased

2004 4,737,718.88 38.77

2005 3,771,792.17 27.51

2006 12,767,704.03 79.69

2007 11,301,752.37 48.54

2008 11,301,752.37 44.08

2009 12,710,643.60 48.33

35 | P a g e
 Source: EWCA Annual Budget

Annual Budget Trend

14,000,000.00

12,000,000.00
Increased Annual Budget

10,000,000.00

8,000,000.00

6,000,000.00

4,000,000.00

2,000,000.00

0.00
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
%age increased 38.77 27.51 79.69 48.54 44.08 48.33
Annual Increased Recurrent
4,737,718.883,771,792.1712,767,704.011,301,752.311,301,752.312,710,643.6
Budget

Figure 10: Budget Trend for 6 Years

Based on information collected from EWCA annual budget plan and response from chief wards,
EWCA allocated only less than 10% of the annual budget requirement of each parks.

For this study EWCA budgeting approach have been assessed, EWCA use incremental Budgeting
Approach (IBA). As indicated in Table 10, annual EWCA budget increment ranges from 37-48%
per annum. Therefore, based on this information obtained from EWCA, the consultant used
Incremental Budgeting Approach (IBA) and Zero Base Budgeting Approach for planning purpose.

Incremental Budgeting Approach (IBA) is a budgeting approach which uses last/previous year’s
budget as a base to allocate annual budget for target project for future project year. The consultant
tried to apply this budgeting system (IBA) for four national parks namely, Kafta Shiraro, Babille
Sanctuary, Omo National Park and Chebera Churchura National Park.

On the other hand, Zero Base Budgeting is a budgeting approach is used to start from zero without
considering previous year budget.

36 | P a g e
This budgeting system was applied to estimate annual budget for Mago National Park, as there is
no adequate information regarding the budget and related issues of this park. (Note that actual
budget covering only 10% of annual PA needs was assumed)

Table 11: Financial Budget (Operational Budget) for 2011for for sample PAs
Average Annual
Operational Demand
No Protected Areas Gap (Birr) Rank
Budget Allocated (Birr)
(Birr)
1 Kafta Shiraro National Park 3,558,435.41 5,551,159.24 1,992,723.83 1
2 Chebera Churchura National Park 1,650,000.00 2,574,000.00 924,000.00 5
3 Omo National Park 3,197,023.68 4,987,356.94 1,790,333.26 2
4 Babille Elephant Sanctuary 2,709,633.04 4,227,027.54 1,517,394.50 3
5 Mago National Park 2,500,000.00 3,900,000.00 1,400,000.00 4
Total (Birr) 13,615,092.13 21,239,543.72 7,624,451.59
Source: PA Annual Budget, 2011EC

As mentioned by each protected the above mentioned protected areas, the above allocated
recurrent budget covers only around 10% of the annual PA requirement. Based on this information
actual demand calculated using the information stated above. According to the above table most
of the time each national park was not able to get what they plan from EWCA. In addition to this,
even each park has no any other financial and material support from any external sources.

Based on the data and information obtained from EWCA and target PAs (table 11) annual budget
requirement (both capital and operational budget) was estimated and calculated using the 2011
budget as a base calculator. The budgeting system used was incremental budgeting approach and
zero based budgeting for these which lack of information regarding previous year annual budget.

The financial requirement categorized in to three main categories, capital, operational and
contingent budget. The purpose of capital budget will be for construction and fixed asset purchase
for each national parks. Operational budget will be used for salary, administration, training and
development, tools and equipment purchase, payment for utilities and to cover day to day routine
project activity costs both at head office and each outpost. On the other hand, contingency budget
will be used for any unexpected incidence and to cover under planning related cost, new plans and
to cover any incidental costs uncured.

37 | P a g e
Accordingly, the below table summarizes annual budget requirements of selected protected areas
as requirements of target protected areas. As mentioned above, this budget was calculated based
on base year budget (2018/19) budget. According to the incremental budgeting approach, the
consultant used 56% (four-year average budget increment trend) to estimate annual budget
requirement. However, according to the information gather from each park, this annual budget will
cover only 10% of annual demand to address all budgetary issues of each park.

Table 12: Future Estimated Average Budget Requirement per PA (ETH Birr)
Required Optimal
Protected Type of Budget Budget
Amount Amount Remark
Areas and Support Sources
Average Required

Calculated based on
GO’s &
Capital Budget 1,264,321.50 2,212,562.63 EWCA annual capital
Partners
budget trend

Kafta Shiraro Operational GO’s & Calculated based on

National Park Budget 5,551,159.24 partners current operational
9,714,528.67 budget allocation which
covers only 10% of the
actual PA demand
Others GO’s Calculated based on
(Contingent) 1,264,321.50 number of staffs, area
2,212,562.63 coverage

Total Per Year 8,079,802.24 14,139,653.92

Chebera Capital Budget 845,000.00 1,478,750.00 GO’s Calculated based on
Churchura and EWCA annual capital
National Park partners budget trend
Operational 2,574,000.00 4,504,500.00 GO’s & Calculated based on
Budget partner current operational
budget allocation which
covers only 10% of the
actual PA demand
Others 422,500.00 739,375.00 GO’s Calculated based on
(Contingent) number of staffs, area
coverage
Total Per Year 3,841,500.00 6,722,625.00
Capital Budget 1,217,297.90 2,130,271.33 GO’s Calculated based on
Omo and EWCA annual capital
National Park partners budget trend
Operational 4,987,356.94 8,727,874.65 GO’s & Calculated based on
Budget partner current operational
budget allocation which
covers only 10% of the
actual PA demand

38 | P a g e
 Required Optimal
Protected Type of Budget Budget
Amount Amount Remark
Areas and Support Sources
Average Required
Others 1,217,297.90 2,130,271.33 GO’s Calculated based on
(Contingent) number of staffs, area
coverage
Total Per Year 7,421,952.74 12,988,417.30
Babille Capital Budget 1,750,000.00 GO’s Calculated based on
Elephant 3,062,500.00 & EWCA annual capital
Sanctuary partner budget trend
Operational Calculated based on
Budget 7,397,298.20 GO’s current operational
& budget allocation which
4,227,027.54
partner covers only 10% of the
actual PA demand
Others Calculated based on
(Contingent) 1,568,969.73 GO`s number of staffs, area
896,554.13
coverage
Total Per Year 6,873,581.67 12,028,767.93
Capital Budget GO’s Calculated based on
& EWCA annual capital
1,875,900.00 3,282,825.00
partner budget trend
Operational Calculated based on
Mago
Budget GO’s current operational
National Park
& budget allocation which
3,900,000.00 6,825,000.00
partner covers only 10% of the
actual PA demand
Others Calculated based on
(Contingent) GO`s number of staffs, area
866,385.00 1,516,173.75
coverage
Total Per Year 6,642,285.00 11,623,998.75

Source: Need Assessment Report

The above budget requirement table is calculated based on the information obtained from EWCA
planning and budget directorate and from each target protected areas annual budget for year 2011.
The annual budget requirement for the rest protected areas is not different from the above listed
parks.

Generally, all target protected areas have limited financial resources and budget to run park
management project activities. Based on the information gathered from key interviewees there is
no any sustainable financial resources mobilization scheme to mobilize resources from external
sources. Therefore, the consultant believes that EWCA and UNDP should provide training on

39 | P a g e
resources mobilization and assist all PAs in designing palatable resources mobilization scheme at
local and international level.

5.5.3. Infrastructural Development

Infrastructural development and regular maintenance is a key factor to protected area management
effectiveness. Based on the information obtained from five protected areas there are limited or no
standard infrastructure in each protected areas. As it has been explained by each interviewee, even
though PAs usually plan to construct some infrastructure in the national park there is no any budget
for such program activities. Some also mentioned that there is no any capital budget allocated for
each PA instead the capital budget is administered by EWCA at head quarter level.

In this need assessment study the consultant consulted protected area management and senior
experts the status of infrastructural development and future needs at least East African standard
level. Based on information and suggestion gathered from each park infrastructural development
need presented under the following Table.

Table 13: PA infrastructural Development status and Future Need

Protected Description/Type of Currently Required Gap Optimal Remark
Areas Infrastructure Available Amount Amount
Required
Buildings
Offices 2 Blocks 3 1 3
Outposts/ Camp sites 5 12 7 12 5 Old and
unfurnished
outpost
Chebera Residence House 0 3 3 5
Churchura Information Center 1 1 1
Security House 1
Garage and shed 1 1 1
Workshop and Meeting 0 1 1 1
Hall
Store 0 2 2 2
Roads
All Weather Road (KM) 0 175 250 320 2Bridges
considered
Dry Season Road (KM) 111 300 380
Trail Road (KM) 8 160 150 190
Buildings
Offices 2 3 block 3 block
Outposts/ Camp sites 6 15 15
Residence House 0 5 7 7
Information Center 1 1 1
Security House 1
Kafta Shiraro Garage and shed 1 2 1 2
40 | P a g e
 Protected Description/Type of Currently Required Gap Optimal Remark
Areas Infrastructure Available Amount Amount
Required
Workshop and Meeting 1 1 1
Hall
Store 1 2 1 2
Roads
All Weather Road (KM) 175 230
Dry Season Road (KM) 215 275
Trail Road (KM) 85 115
Buildings
Offices 1 Block 3 block 3 block
Outposts/ Camp sites 3 7 4 12
Omo Residence House 3 4 5
National Information Center 1 1
Park Security House 2 1 1 2
Garage and shed 0 2 2 2
Workshop and Meeting 0 1 1 1
Hall
Store 1 2 1 2
Roads
All Weather Road 125 190
Dry Season Road 145 225
Trail Road 90 110
Babille Buildings
Elephant Offices 2 block 3 block
Sanctuary Outposts/ Camp sites 7 4 12
Residence House 4 5 5
Information Center 1
Security House 1 1 2
Garage and shed 1 2 2
Workshop and Meeting 1 1 1
Hall
Store 2 1 2
Roads
All Weather Road 170 210
Dry Season Road 140 250
Trail Road 130 170
Mago Buildings
National Offices 2 block 3 block
Park Outposts/ Camp sites 5 4 12
Residence House 2 4 5
Information Center 1 1 1
Security House 1 1 2
Garage and shed 1 2 2
Workshop & Meeting Hall 1 1 1
Store 2 1 2
Roads
All Weather Road 165 230
Dry Season Road 175 225
Trail Road 110 180
Sources: Each PA and Expert Opinion
41 | P a g e
The above table presents only estimated amount of infrastructural development requirements.
Therefore, the consultant recommended using the optimum amount of each infrastructure at least
to the east African park management standard.

5.5.4. Transport and Logistic

Resources management, regular monitoring and patrolling is unthinkable without transportation
and logistics facilities. Vehicles are highly important tools for wildlife management and
conservation to be undertaken regularly by protected area teams. In addition to the conservation
purpose mentioned above wildlife patrols, material and equipment supplies to each outpost, for
road construction and for infrastructure development purpose different type of vehicles are needed.
The vehicle availability in selected PAs and vehicles requirements are indicated below:

Table 14: Vehicle and other logistics Status and Future Requirement
Estimated
Protected Areas Currently Optimum Gap Cost
Type of Vehicle Available Requirement (Birr`000)
Toyota Pick-up 0 3 3 3300
Toyota Station wagon 1 2 1 2400
Chebera Churchura Truck 0 1 1 1500
Motor Bicycle 6 8 2 1600
Toyota Pick-up 2 4 2 4400
Toyota Station wagon 1 2 1 2400
Truck 0 1 1 1500
Kafta Shiraro
Motor Bicycle 2 6 4 1200
Toyota Pick-up 1 2 1 2200
Toyota Station wagon 0 1 1 1200
Omo National Park
Motor Bicycle 3 6 3 1200
0 2 2 2200
Babille Elephant Toyota Pick-up
Sanctuary Toyota Station wagon 0 1 1 1200
Motor Bicycle 0 4 4 800
Toyota Pick-up 0 2 2 2200
Mago National Park Toyota Station wagon 0 1 1 1200
Motor Bicycle 0 5 5 1000
Total 16 51 35 31500
Sources: PAs and Assessment Report

The vehicle, Toyota Station Wagon, will be used for staff transportation from head quarter to
different outposts for different park management purposes. It is good to transport many team
members at the same time and it will be also used for different office routine duties.

42 | P a g e
The Toyota Pick-up will be used for patrolling and regular wildlife monitoring services on rough
roads inside the park. The truck will be used to transport raw materials or supplies from the nearby
markets, base camp sites to the intended construction project sites. Motor Bicycle will be assigned
to do a one person patrolling and supervision works and give transport service to nearby camp
sites.

5.5.5. Equipment and Tools

Based on data and information obtained from the five PA's wardens and experts, the necessary
tools and equipment were found with a more or less similar situation now and in the future.

In line with the above the existing lists and number and their future requirements, together with
their purpose of usage were analyzed and summarized. For ease of understanding standard
guideline for sub-Saharan countries were used to fix and allocate each of the tools and equipment
necessary for enhanced PA management and effective anti-poaching and anti-trafficking.

Accordingly, the need assessment with respect to tools and equipment were classified in to three
major categories. Following this premise, existing and future needs were examined for three levels.
These were: office tools and equipment such as computer printer, field level tools and equipment
such as GPS and Binoculars, and Communication tools and equipment to be used by each protected
areas staffs. Apparently, as requirements vary per the levels this need assessment basis, the
requirements were determined through alternative ways which resources could be allotted for
specific purposes. At office level, one-in-one (warden and experts), including administrative staffs,
at field level, four-in-one (ecologists and scouts). In addition, the trans-usages were determined
through team leaders (ecologist, natural resource, scouts) lined with organizational structure and
current working conducts. Bear in mind that "the rules and regulation of property transfer or else
punishment for loss and abasement of tools and equipment", will be kept constant for all staffs.

The below Table summarized the existing lists and numbers, future requirements and respective
purposes for each of the five project sites.

43 | P a g e
Table 15: Estimated Number of Office and Field Equipment and Tools
Required Optimal
Lists of Equipment and Estimated Cost
Amount per Amount Remark
Tools (Birr)
PA Required

1. Office Equipment

Desktop computers 14 25 84,000.00 For all departments

For experts, mangers and

Laptop computers 15 25 180,000.00
team leaders

Color Printers 4 6 104,000.00

Black and White Printers 5 8 150,000.00 One per each team

One for chief warden

Fax (Tele Fax) 1 2 25,000.00 office the other for other
team members

Finance, warden and

Scanner 3 3 54,000.00
experts

2. Office Furniture 42 69 597,000.00 Sub-Totals

Managerial Tables 3 3 21,000.00 Warders

Managerial Tables 3 3 48,000.00 Warders

Expert Tables 8 12 32,000.00

Expert Chairs 8 12 24,000.00

At least two guest chairs

Guest Chairs 30 60 180,000.00
in each office

Office Shelf (wooden) 30 40 210,000.00

File Cabinet (metal) 30 30 75,000.00 For all departments

Store shelf (big) 6 10 36,000.00

3. Office Supplies 118 170 626,000.00 Sub-Totals

Copy Paper (Ream) 500 1000 125,000.00

Pen (Packet) 150 200 22,500.00

Paper Tray and Trash basket 60 60 12,000.00 For each experts

4. Field Tools 710 1260 159,500.00 Sub-Totals

Digital cameras 3 5 12,000.00

Binoculars 15 25 18,000.00

44 | P a g e
 Required Optimal
Lists of Equipment and Estimated Cost
Amount per Amount Remark
Tools (Birr)
PA Required

Compass 5 5 2,500.00

Camping gears Various Various 30,000.00

Park map 50 50 5,000.00 Per year

GPS 10 25 40,000.00

Bird guide book 5 10 2,500.00

Mammal guide book 5 10 1,000.00

Sleeping bags 40 75 60,000.00

Mattress 40 100 120,000.00

Tents 30 60 54,000.00

Rain coats 40 75 48,000.00

Total (Birr) 243 440 393,000.00 Sub-Totals

Grand Total Cost (Birr) 1,775,500.00

The above listed equipment and tools help to create good working environment at each protected
area and staffs comfortably perform their routine day to day project implementation. According to
the information and data collected from each target protected areas, almost all protected areas have
very limited equipment and tools to achieve their organizational vision and mission. Therefore,
fulfilling at least with a minimum office facilities increase staff effectiveness and efficiency and
by far improve wildlife conservation process at all level.

5.5.6. Communications and Related

Communication is basic for all project implementation and helps each protected area to channel
up-to-date information to all parties. Protected areas communicate up ward with headquarter
(EWCA) and other government office and with each outpost under its hierarchy. Thus, PAs use
walk talkies radio for easy communication with scouts, experts at field works and chief scouts at
each camp site. On the other hand, land phone will be used for office to office communication.

45 | P a g e
 Table 16: Communication Method and Tools requirement per PA
No Type of Communication Required Optimal Amount Remark
Devices Amount Required
1 Walk talkie radios 35 50 All scouts, wardens, and
key staffs should have at
least one
2 Land phone 10 25 All offices should have
land phone direct or
through LAN extension
3 Internet connection 2 (WIFI and All offices to be Full capacity with
Broadband) online and staffs moderate or high
can easily access capacity
internet)

This helps staffs to easily access updated information from international database and to upgrade
themselves on online short courses and training. Park management team able to search new natural
resource methodologies, access wildlife monitoring system, access new technologies and PAs will
have informed staffs. Based on the information, internet connection reduces time, cost and efforts
to deliver project deliverables and enable each PA to easily communicate with headquarters.

5.5.7. Utilities and related facilities

According to the result of this assessment study almost all protected area headquarters have no
sustainable water and power (grid) sources. Especially camp sites have no any power sources
except some solar system installed by EWCA. Thus, based on the information collected from each
PAs, these problems hinder the effectiveness of each park and affected protected area management
effectiveness in general.

Sustainable water and power access help each PA to operate effectively without any obstacles. In
addition to this, wildlife water point will help to maintain wildlife especially highly reduces cross
boarder wildlife movements. If possible, grid power system for all camps and PA head office will
be advisable; if grid power is not accessible solar power can be alternative sources. However, solar
power is recommended for all camp sites with regular maintenance.

46 | P a g e
Table 17: Required Utilities and Facilities
Type of Utilities Required Amount Optimal Amount Remark
per PA Required
Water for human All outposts, camp All outposts, camp
sites and headquarter sites and
headquarter
Wildlife water At least within 5 km At least within 5 km
point radius radius (Within
standard distance)
Wildlife Veterinary At least within 10 km At least within 10 In collaboration with
Services radius km radius Livestock Agency
Electric power For all facilities For all facilities In collaboration with EEP
Solar At let in each camp Camp site and bas
sites camps

Based on the information collected from each park, there is high problem on wildlife veterinary
services. So far all PAs have no any facilities to provide veterinary services for wildlife. Due to
this limitation, wildlife deaths increases and limit productivity of wildlife in protected areas. Thus,
the purpose of proposing wildlife veterinary service facility is to reduce wildlife disease and
enhance productivity of wildlife especially national flagship mammals.

5.5.8. Training Human Resources Development

One of the most important and enteral factors for effective protected area management is the
availability of qualified, competent and committed staffs. Training of PA staff is more and more
recognized as a vital component of efficient protected area management. As well as being an
essential tool at local, regional and national levels, capacity building for PAs now has a strong
international context and is being embedded into major global conventions and PA-related
decisions.

The principal goal of PA staff training is to raise the capacity of PA managers to adapt to new
challenges, power experts using innovative and creative approaches and updating all staffs on
natural resource sustainable and effective management.

To capacitate all wardens/managers, experts and support staffs EWCA and PA in collaboration
with key stakeholders should organize short and long term trainings. Based on the information
obtained from PAs, some future key training needs summarized and presented in the following
table.

47 | P a g e
 Table 18: Future Training Need Assessment Summary
List of Trainings No. of Estimate Remark
Training d
Participants Duration Estimated
(Days) Cost Training Center
5 wardens & 5
Environmental Senior experts
Management System 5 3 525,000.00 African Training
and Auditing Plan Institute, South Africa
Result Based Community
Monitoring and 25 5 381,250.00 Ethiopia, Training wardens and
Evaluation Center TBD experts
Leadership and 5 Chief wardens
Management 25 5 343,750.00 African Training
Development Institute, South Africa
20 experts, 10
Human Resource 25 2 150,000.00 Ethiopia, Training finance officers,
Development Center TBD and 10 wardens
5 tourism
Tourism Development 5 3 420,000.00 Kenya, KWS wardens, 5
and Management tourism expert
Community
Anti-poaching, wardens and
25 2 135,000.00
wildlife and Ethiopia, Training experts
ecological monitoring Center TBD
Community
25 2 150,000.00 wardens and
GIS & GPS Ethiopia, Training
experts
Center TBD
Ethiopia, Training Scouts
25 5 250,000.00
Rangers training Center TBD
Total (Birr) 2,355,000.00
Training and training material costs will be charged from operational cost, contingently budget
and mobilized from donor stakeholders. So the above summary table will only show which
trainings are more appropriate for effective protected area management instead on focusing on the
cost of training. Accordingly, each protected area will be expected to contribute at least
471,000.00 ETH Birr (Four Seventy-One Thousand Birr) for training. This amount of money will
be generated as mentioned above from different sources, such as UNDP and Government regular
operational budget.

5.5.9. General Needs for Protected Area Management Effectiveness

It is not just enough to have the above mentioned requirements for effective protected area
management. It is also equally important to get available all general needs both at PA and national
level. Some of key additional general needs (soft needs) are listed as follows:

48 | P a g e
 Management Decentralization: Decentralization enables each protected areas to decide on
resources and administrative issues that can increase decision making and management
effectiveness. According to the information, there are high centralizations which hinder
decision making at PA level.
 Resource management and resource mobilization: Design a strategies and promising
resources mobilization scheme and capacitate staff members for sustainable resource
mobilization. In addition to this increase community participation for their contribution in this
regard.
 Community involvement: For the purpose of co-management each PAs need to increase
community participation and involvement in all project activities of the national park. This can
create sense of ownership and increase effectiveness by sharing both the benefit and
management responsibilities.
 Technical support and supportive supervision of EWCA: Regular problem solving support
can help to capacitate staffs, management teams and the community towards successful park
management.
 Monitoring and evaluation and patrolling: It is highly advisable to undertake regular
patrolling and M&E to know the status of wildlife resources, identify challenges, to know
status of project implementation etc. by undertaking M&E information will be collected
analyzed and provided to managers/wardens and EWCA for informed decisions.

5.5.10. Summary of Need Assessment

For effective protected area management, each protected areas should have at least the minimum
amount of the following resources. The summary table detail time frame, priority level, synergies,
responsible body and estimated costs to fulfill each protected area needs for effective protected
area management.

49 | P a g e
Table 19: Summary Need Assessment Table
Needs/Type of Need Time-frame (Short, Priority (High, Responsibilities
Medium, Long- Medium, Low)
term)
1. Human Resources Short and Long High  EWCA and
Term  Each PA
 Community
 Donor
2. Financial Resources Both Short and Long High  EWCA and
Term  Each PA
 Community
 Donor
3. Technical Assistant Both Short and Long Medium  EWCA and
Needs Term  Each PA
 Community
 Donor
4. Logistics Both Short and Long High  EWCA and
Term  Each PA
 Community
 Donor
5. Physical Investment Both Short and Long High  EWCA and
Needs Term  Each PA
 Community
 Donor
6. Infrastructure Both Short and Long High  EWCA and
Term  Each PA
 Community
 Donor
7. Equipment and Tools Both Short and Long High  EWCA and
Term  Each PA
 Community
 Donor
8. Communications and Both Short and Long Medium  EWCA and
Related Term  Each PA
 Community
 Donor
9. Utilities and related Both Short and Long  EWCA and
facilities Term  Each PA
 Community
 Donor
10. Ecosystem and Wildlife Both Short and Long High  PAs
Management Facilities and Term  EWCA
Infrastructure  Donors,
 International
organizations
11. Training Future Need Both Short and Long High  EWCA and
Assessment Term  Each PA
 Community
 Donor
12. Policy and Regulatory Both Short and Long High  Government
Development Needs Term

50 | P a g e
 Needs/Type of Need Time-frame (Short, Priority (High, Responsibilities
Medium, Long- Medium, Low)
term)
13. Institutional Both Short and Long High EWCA
Development Needs Term
14. General Needs Both Short and Long Medium  EWCA and
Term  Each PA
 Community
Remark: Monitory and evaluation (M and E) tasks are priorities which need to be integral, but
merely are due of the EWCA offices at all levels. With the recent structural change of EWCA,
shifted from Ministry of Culture to Environment Forest and Climate Change Commission, there
should be a modality forum among stakeholders and partners towards implementing all the needs
and requirements of the five project sites.

Information obtained from various sources indicated that the existing M and E practices as have
been inconsistent and random. More specifically, wardens and experts suggested that at least four
times schedule should be made so as to effectively monitor and evaluate the implementation status
of needs and requirements that the intended project to achieve its desired goals and objectives.

51 | P a g e
 6. Conclusion and Recommendation
6.1. Conclusion

Ethiopia’s wildlife conservation and management faces major threats to habitats and wild animal
populations driven by many factors such as growing human populations, industrial and agricultural
development, encroachment, and rising poaching and trafficking.

The main driving factors illegal poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking in Ethiopia can be
categorized in to two groups: high consumer demand for illicit wildlife and wildlife products, and
lack of good governance and corruption which erode public trust and the other are poverty among
the rural communities living adjacent to protected areas, poor PA management practices and weak
law enforcement in and around protected areas can be mentioned. In addition to this, the major
challenges to the conservation of wildlife resources identified in target Pas were overgrazing,
limited livelihood option of the community, management skill and competence, lack of capacity,
coordination problem and other technical support and regular monitoring limitations have been
found critical.

In this need assessment study, various approaches and tools were used to address the existing
resources and future gaps meant to enhance protected area management and effective anti-
poaching and anti-trafficking priorities. The key need assessment and analysis results obtained
from field survey and secondary data sources showed variations in terms of availability and needs
in view of physical and material resources (human staffing and training, finance, logistics,
infrastructure and other utilities). The degree of adequacy of human resources for each of the five
PAs were less than 45%, this implies that huge gap in human capital resources mainly of technical
and park management staffs. Highest and lowest adequacy percent values observed for Kafta
Shiraro National Park (43.40%) and Mago National Park (30.91%), respectively. Besides, analysis
of the current human resource and respective future needs in five PAs revealed that a-more-or-less
similar percent values, but differences in staff availability were found to be relatively higher among
those five PAs. In line with this, the gaps in human resource availability attributes for all round
concerns each of the five PAs are expected to achieve management goals. For instance, under
existing management scheme, the biological status of almost all PAs have been poorly known and,
the extent of threats has not been identified. Yet, except for Mago National Park (Category II under
IUCN Category) no information had so far been made available to the four other PAs.
52 | P a g e
Standard-based analysis was used to estimate the required number and percent proportion of scouts
and rangers the five PAs. The total number of scouts and rangers for all PAs reached 1256. From
this total, the relative percent values varied significantly among target PAs in terms of required
scouts and rangers. The highest proportion accounted to the Kafta Shiraro National Park (40%),
while the least for Babille Elephant Sanctuary (1%). Meaning, the earlier rather than the latter PA
is more at risk not to effectively perform anti-poaching and ant-trafficking tasks. In this, gaps in
the adequacy of scouts and rangers indicate that the extent to which target PAs towards making
patrolling and controlling IWT differs among PAs. Weak law enforcement and poor community
awareness, in adequacy of human and material resources in each of the five PAs aggravated
poaching and IWT, i.e. elephant, cheetah, leopard and other game animals.

Financial needs assessment is one of the most critical requirements for PAs to perform and achieve
enhanced protected area management. With this, financial gap analysis was held based on data of
the EWCA`s six consecutive annual budget plans and response from chief wards. Accordingly, the
trend analysis revealed that EWCA allocated only less than 10% of the annual budget requirement
of each parks. This was in agreement with the information obtained from chief warden, Chebera
Churchura in particular. Appending to this, estimated budget requirements for target PAs were
determined through consideration of the reverse of the average trend that EWCA allotted for, i.e.
90%. In addition, assumptions such as the project`s likelihood to support any of the five PAs in
view of finance, material, logistics and capacity building were used in times when data were
lacking. More profoundly, EWCA`s Incremental Budgeting Approach (IBA) that ranges from 37%
(minimum) to 48% (maximum) per annum together with current operational budget allocation
covering only 10% of the actual PA need/demand, number of staffs, and relative area coverage
proportion. To compare the degree and extent of differences in financial requirement, description
about the type of budget and support for capital budget, operational budget and, others as
contingent budget were made for each of the PAs, including budget sources. As a result, significant
variation was observed in terms of financial requirement, but all relying on similar budget sources-
GO’s and Partners. This by implication shows that the existing huge gaps in the yearly recurrent
budget (10%) in tandem with future requirements for each of the target PAs is unlikely to be
fulfilled in nearby future.

53 | P a g e
With respect to infrastructural and utility needs analysis, estimation of the existing availability and
prediction of the future were determined using the optimum amount/density of each infrastructure
and utility standards of EWCA, if not the minimum East African Park Management standard.
Moreover, the availability of office buildings and furniture, transport and logistics, communication
and other related were found to be somehow similar, and hence appraisal was made in aggregated
and condensed form. Nonetheless, with a presumable cost prize differences in the five distant
borders of the five target PAs, the national current average prices set for any of these requirements
were used and inferred for estimating the respective needs in the future.

Equally important, PA-specific monitoring and evaluation for proper and timely implementation
of this need assessment report document within other broader components of the main project,
were assessed and, at least four time round schedule should be planned and a need to budget
finance for monitory and evaluation tasks be put in place.

In conclusion, each protected area need to have properly developed infrastructure and facilities,
improved transport and logistics, skilled and competent human resource, adequate finance,
standard park management system, law enforcement, training and capacity building strategies, and
improved ecosystem management equipment and facilities to effectively manage the national
parks.

6.2. Recommendation

This study has shown that the project sites/protected areas management team in collaboration with
key stakeholders tried to manage the wildlife to the extent possible. According to the information
and data collected PAs have limited resources, capacity and technical skill gap in addition to
scarcity of equipment, tools, logistics, and PA management facilities. Thus, due to diverse resource
management problems, target protected areas are unable to effectively manage wildlife resources
as effectively as expected to be. Therefore, EWCA and each protected areas in collaboration with
national and international key stakeholders should take the following recommendation to conserve
protected area for effective management.

 Human resources development scheme should be put in place and adequate staff should be
allocated to each PA,

54 | P a g e
 Infrastructure, transport, logistics, and park management equipment and facilities should be
at least to the minimum standards,
 Develop and implement sustainable resource mobilization strategies,
 Create synergy with potential stakeholder at national and international level,
 Enhance coordination and partnership with key stakeholders to share management
responsibilities for effective wildlife conservation,
 Allocate significant and adequate financial and other resources and enhance effective
resource management
 Improve managerial skill and other human development program to improve implementation
capacity of technical and support staffs,
 On job training and capacity enhancement scheme should be emplaced for all PA staffs
 Develop and strengthen institutional capacity in collaboration with concerned parties starting
from local community up to higher governmental organizations;
 Review organizational structure at PA level to accommodate the result of the assessment and
its recommendation

Above all, the assessment process provides an opportunity for wardens/managers and partners to
learn how serious is the problem in each protected areas and the standard of their protected area
management effort exerted. Thus, we believe that for effective protected area management
concerned bodies should allocate and fulfill the minimum at least East African standard.

55 | P a g e
 7. References

 Amend (1993). NO. 129 OF 1993: GENERAL LAW THIRD AMENDMENT ACT.
 Bekabil Fufa and Anemut Belete (2009). Park with People Conservation Strategy: Local
Residents’ Willingness to pay and Expected Net losses in Ethiopia, Unpublished Manuscript.
 CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (2012). Action Plan for Implementing the
Convention on Biological Diversity’s Program of Work on Protected Areas
 Chase, Michael J.; Schlossberg, Scott; Griffin, Curtice R.; Bouché, Philippe J.C.; Djene,
Sintayehu W.; Elkan, Paul W.; Ferreira, Sam; Grossman, Falk; Kohi, Edward Mtarima;
Landen, Kelly; Omondi, Patrick; Peltier, Alexis; Selier, S.A. Jeanetta; and Sutcliffe, Robert,
"Continent-Wide Survey Reveals Massive Decline in African Savannah Elephants" (2016).
PeerJ. 386. 10.7717/peerj.2354
 EWCA (Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority) (2018). Annual Budget, Head Quarter
Office, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 EWCA (Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority) (2018). HR database, Head Quarter
Office, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 EWCA (Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority) (2018). Human Resources JEG proposal,
Head Quarter Office, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 Ferraro, P.J. & Pressey, R.L. (2015). Measuring the difference made by conservation
initiatives: protected areas and their environmental and social impacts. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B,
370, 20140270.
 IUCN (International Union of Conservation of Nature) (2017). Wildlife Crime Assessment in
Ethiopia.
 Leverington et al. (2008). ‘Management Effectiveness evaluation in protected areas – a global
study. Supplementary Report No1: Overview of approaches and methodologies.
 Leverington Fiona, Lemos Katia, Costa, Pavese Helena, Lisle Allan, Hockings Marc, (2008).
A Global Analysis of Protected Area Management Effectiveness. In: DOI 10.1007/s00267-
010-9564-5.
 Mengistu Wale, Abeje Kassie, Getachew Mulualem, Weldemariam Tesfahunegny, Abraham
Assefa (2017). Wildlife Threats and Their Relative Severity of Eastern Ethiopia Protected
Areas. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Vol. 2, No. 4, 2017, pp. 59-67. DOI:
10.11648/j.eeb.20170204.12.
56 | P a g e
 Schulze, Katharina & Knights, Kathryn & Coad, Lauren & Geldmann, Jonas & Leverington,
Fiona & Eassom, April & Marr, Melitta & H. M. Butchart, Stuart & Hockings, Marc &
Burgess, Neil. (2017). An assessment of threats to terrestrial protected areas. Conservation
Letters. 10.1111/conl.12435.
 Watson, James & Dudley, Nigel & Segan, Daniel & Hockings, Marc. (2014). The performance
and potential of protected areas. Nature. 515. 67-73. 10.1038/nature13947.
 Wittemyer. G, Northrup J.M., Blanc. J., Douglas-Hamilton I, Omondi P, Burnham, K.P.
(2014). Illegal killing for ivory drivees global decline in African elephants, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111:13117—13121 DOI
10.1073/Pnas.1403984111.).

57 | P a g e
 8. Annexes

Annex-1: Summary of Equipment and Tools Needs and Estimated Costs for Target PAs
Estimated
Required Optimal Gap Gaps Estimated
Lists of Equipment and Total Cost
Amount Amount per per 5 Cost per PA
Tools for 5 PAs
per PA Required PA PAs (Birr)
(Birr)
1. Office Equipment
Desktop computers 14 25 11 55 84,000.00 420,000.00

Laptop computers 15 25 10 50 180,000.00 900,000.00

Color Printers 4 6 2 10 104,000.00 520,000.00

Black and White Printers 5 8 3 15 150,000.00 750,000.00

Fax (Tele Fax) 1 2 1 5 25,000.00 125,000.00

Scanner 3 3 0 0 54,000.00 270,000.00

2. Office Furniture 42 69 27 135 597,000.00 2,985,000.00

Managerial Tables 3 3 0 0 21,000.00 105,000.00
Managerial Tables 3 3 0 0 48,000.00 240,000.00
Expert Tables 8 12 4 20 32,000.00 160,000.00
Expert Chairs 8 12 4 20 24,000.00 120,000.00

Guest Chairs 30 60 30 150 180,000.00 900,000.00

Office Shelf (wooden) 30 40 10 50 210,000.00 1,050,000.00

File Cabinet (metal) 30 30 0 0 75,000.00 375,000.00
Store shelf (big) 6 10 4 20 36,000.00 180,000.00
3. Office Supplies 118 170 52 260 626,000.00 3,130,000.00
Copy Paper (Ream) 500 1000 500 2500 125,000.00 625,000.00
Pen (Packet) 150 200 50 250 22,500.00 112,500.00
Paper Tray and Trash basket 60 60 0 0 12,000.00 60,000.00
4. Field Tools 710 1260 550 2750 159,500.00 797,500.00
Digital cameras 3 5 2 10 12,000.00 60,000.00
Binoculars 15 25 10 50 18,000.00 90,000.00
Compass 5 5 0 0 2,500.00 12,500.00
Camping gears 5 15 10 50 30,000.00 150,000.00
Park map 50 50 0 0 5,000.00 25,000.00
GPS 10 25 15 75 40,000.00 200,000.00
Bird guide book 5 10 5 25 2,500.00 12,500.00
Mammal guide book 5 10 5 25 1,000.00 5,000.00

58 | P a g e
 Estimated
Required Optimal Gap Gaps Estimated
Lists of Equipment and Total Cost
Amount Amount per per 5 Cost per PA
Tools for 5 PAs
per PA Required PA PAs (Birr)
(Birr)
Sleeping bags 40 75 35 175 60,000.00 300,000.00
Mattress 40 100 60 300 120,000.00 600,000.00
Tents 30 60 30 150 54,000.00 270,000.00
Rain coats 40 75 35 175 48,000.00 240,000.00
Totals 248 455 207 1035 393,000.00 1,965,000.00
Grand Totals 1118 1954 836 4180 1,775,500.00 8,877,500.00

59 | P a g e