Borena saynt national park biodiversity threat

THE STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF CONSERVATION
AND THREATS OF BIODIVERSITY OF BORENA SAYNT
NATIONAL PARK
Abebaw Abayneh Assefa (M. Ed in Biology)
March 2012
Mekaneselam

i
Abebaw Abayneh ANRS- south Wollo administrative zone BSNP- mekaneselam mobile 0913132728
THE STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF CONSERVATION AND
THREATS OF BIODIVERSITY OF BORENA SAYNT NATIONAL
PARK
Borena saynt National park office
By
Abebaw Abayneh Assefa (M. Ed in Biology)
March 2012
Mekaneselam

ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. CTPD- culture tourism and park development bureau
2. BSNP- Borena saynt national park
3. IBC- Institute of biodiversity conservation
4. PaDPA –park development and protection authority
5. CTB- culture and tourism bureau
6. EWCA- Ethiopian wildlife conservation and utilization authority
7. WPCC- woreda park coordination committee
8. ANRS- Amhara national regional state
9. EPLUB-Environmental protection land administration and use Bureau

0
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..............................................................................................................................................................................................ii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.1. Background of the Study...............................................................................................................2
1.2. Statement of the Problem ..............................................................................................................3
1.3. Objectives of the Study:................................................................................................................3
1. 4. Significance of the Study: ............................................................................................................4
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. The Status and Sustainability of Biodiversity Conservation ...........................................................5
2.2. Reinforcements for Biodiversity Conservation ..............................................................................7
2.3. The Park - Community Conflict Management ...............................................................................7
2.4. Objectives of Protected Area in the 21st Century.........................................................................9
2.5. The Threats of Biodiversity Conservation ...................................................................................10
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.1. Description of the National Park and Sampling Techniques.........................................................12
3.2. Sources of Data and Data Gathering Tools ..................................................................................15
3.3. Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................16
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
4.1. Status and sustainability of Biodiversity Conservation of BSNP..................................................18
4.2. The Park Community complaints on resources utilization............................................................20
4.3. Effects of Very tall Festuca on Ethiopian Wolf............................................................................23
4.4. The Objectives of BSNP and extent of their attainment ...............................................................24
4. 5. The Regulation of the National Park versus the Needs of the Local Community .........................28
4.6. Management Plan of BSNP and the plan’s Integration to Sectoral Plans and Strategies................29
4.7. The Threats of Biodiversity Conservation of BSNP and Their Severity .......................................30
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................................................................... 36
5.1. Summary and Conclusion ...........................................................................................................36
5.2. Recommendation ........................................................................................................................37
6. REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 40
7. APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 42
7.1. Appendix I: List of Tables...........................................................................................................43
7.2. Appendix II: List of Interview Guides .........................................................................................49
7.3. Appendix III: List of Questionnaires ...........................................................................................51

1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of Borena Saynt National Park......................................................................................................................13
Figure2. The park communities of jelisa-libanos kebele participating on conference in the year 2011.....19
Figure 3. Rotten festuca at mehal limesk site of the national park......................................................................23
Figure 4. The decomposed festuca vegetation and Ethiopian wolf .............................................................................24
Figure 5. Very high population pressure (grazing of livestock, expansion of farmland and settlement) ....32
Figure 6. The moso village on the marginal part of the park & Sekedereba farmland inside the park......33
Figure 7. Settlements at the two corridor areas (Arer media and Belechuma) and Sirejet................................34

2
THE STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF CONSERVATION AND THREATS OF
BIODIVERSITY OF BORENA SAYNT NATIONAL PARK
1. INTRODUCTION: - this unit deals with the background of the study, statement of
the problem, objectives, and significance of the study.
1.1. Background of the Study: - The ANRS has 4 legally declared parks, 16 priority forest
reserves, 12 important bird areas, 1 community conservation area (Menze Guassa), 3 water
basins (Abay, Tekeze and Awash) and 58 year round flowing rivers, 5 lakes including the largest
highland lake of the country (Lake Tana) and upstream source of Blue Nile and its spectacular
fall (Abrham, 2011). Borena saynt national park, one of the four national parks in the region,
was established by the regional government to conserve biodiversity and associated scenic
features of the area and to generate income from tourism. It is located in south Wollo
administrative zone which fars 198km from Dessie in the west and 18km from Mekaneselam in
the northern direction. The primary area of Borena Saynt national park shares boundary with
three woredas namely Borena, saynt and mehal saynt. Borena Woreda shares boundary on the
south, east and west direction, with nine Kebeles, Saint Woreda on the North, with One Kebele
and M/saynt woreda on the north and the west ,with three Kebeles. Though the current size of
the old national park is 4375 hectare, 10887 hectare potential area that shares boundary with
Saynt, Legambo,Mekidela and Tenta woredas is newly demarcated in May 2011 and 2012. So
the newly merged area of the national park will have an area of 15262 hectare in the near future
(CTPD, 2011, CTPD, 2012). But opening the Belechuma and Arer media corridors are the major
challenges of expansion of the national park to the newly demarcated areas as expansion of
settlements are still continuing. The park is endowed with different faunal and floral
biodiversity. As mentioned by Lakew etal’s (2007), Denkoro-Chaka (Now Borena saynt
National Park) is an area having great varieties of biodiversity (flora and fauna diversity).
The park office (2011) also reported that Borena saynt national park (BSNP) is endowed with a
variety of biodiversity, spectacular landscapes, cultural heritage sites and natural authentic
features (historical caves, waterfalls, high cliffs, ancient graves etc…). It is the water reserves of
the surrounding area from which more than 15 rivers are flowing and providing water for
millions of people living in the lowlands. So the National Park has so much more resources than
just unique, rare and endemic species. The rich biodiversity of the national park is surrounded

3
by a highly degraded and eroded environment and contains isolated ecosystems. So the regional
government issued regulation number 68/2009 to look after, conserve and pass down the
biodiversity resource for the coming generation as heritages and thereby contributing for
economic development at various levels ranging from local to global scale. The national park is a
sanctuary of wild animals, plants, and birds which are endangered and endemic to Ethiopia (The
ANRS, 2009). The major threats of the national park are encroachment, lack of buffer zone, lack
of connectivity, shape, size and high population pressure (Lakew etal’s, 2007). In addition to the
threats mentioned above, the human park conflicts, fire hazards, lack of infrastructure, illegal
resource utilization and house construction and problems related to implementation of the land
administration and use proclamation are severe threats of the park.
1.2. Statement of the Problem:-though general assessment on biodiversity richness and the
threats of the protected area was made by Lakew etal’s (2007) and CTPD (2011), the study
didn’t show all the areas and the problems in detail and the severity of the various threats of
conservation of the biotic resources. The researcher participated during demarcation of the old
park in the year 2005, in the potential area assessment study and demarcation of the new
potential area in the year 2011 and has the chance of exposure for more than two years as a
warden and process coordinator in the national park. On the basis of his own observations and
experiences, he believes that there are old aged and recent problems that threaten the existence of
wildlife in the national park. He also believes that there is gap between the park regulation and
intention of the local community in utilizing some of the resources of the protected area.
1.3. Objectives of the Study: - the main aim of the study is to assess the status and
sustainability of conservation and identify the major threats of biodiversity of the national park.
So this study addresses the following specific objectives;
It identifies relations of the park and the local communities and the gaps between them.
It identifies the status and the sustainability of biodiversity conservation of the old
Borena saynt national park and the newly demarcated potential area of the national park
It identifies the major threats of biodiversity of the park and their root causes
it ranks the threats of biodiversity in accordance with the severity of influence

4
It identifies the extent of emphasis given for conservation, development and attainment of
intended objectives of the park by various stakeholders from local to regional levels.
It also gives the possible solutions for the problems mentioned above
1. 4. Significance of the Study:-this study will be important at least for the following
reasons:
It will help to know the attitude of the local communities in conserving the park
biodiversity
It will help to create awareness about the status and sustainability of conservation and
threats of biodiversity among policy makers, planners and implementers and accordingly
could help to take appropriate measures that enhance the sustainability of biodiversity
conservation.
It could serve as a baseline for further in-depth studies on the park community-
interaction.

5
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. The Status and Sustainability of Biodiversity Conservation
Biodiversity has been defined as the variability among living organisms from all sources
including inter allia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological
complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species, and of
ecosystems. In short, biodiversity refers to the variety of life on earth. This variety of life
provides the building blocks to adapt to changing environmental conditions in the future. Genetic
variation brings natural selection and adaptability to changes in the environment, which
ultimately ensures species survival. Reduction in biodiversity affects these ecosystem services.
The sustainability of ecosystems depends to a large extent on the buffering capacity provided by
having a rich and healthy diversity of genes, species and habitats. Losing biodiversity is like
losing the life support systems that we, and other species, so desperately depend upon (Leveque
and Mounolou, 2003: IBC, 2005).
Ethiopia is one of the most important countries in Africa for biodiversity conservation at local,
regional and global levels. The range of habitats and vegetation is very wide, reflecting the great
diversity in climate, altitude and topography. Very high levels of endemicity are found in many
plant and animal groups. For birds, 862 species have been recorded from Ethiopia, 16 of which
are endemic. This is a higher rate of avian endemism than in any other country in the mainland
Africa. Data on other vertebrate groups are sparse but at least 6 reptiles and 34 amphibians are
thought to be endemic. There are also 280 mammals and more than 6000 plant species with high
rates of endemism. Ethiopian vertebrates, including nine endemic species and at least 43 non-
endemic species are considered threatened (IBC, 2005; Biodiversity analysis and technical
support team, 2008).
According to the EWCA (2008), Ethiopia possesses diverse, rare and endemic species of wildlife
which are of great value for tourism, education and science. So the wildlife conservation and
development authority was established to develop, conserve and utilize the wildlife resource and
to maximize its benefit.

6
Though there are some activities to protect wildlife, there is a great loss of biodiversity all over
the world which is about 1000 to 10000 times the background rate. The most immediate and
effective response to the imminent biodiversity crises is expansion of protected areas. Though
there are a rapid expansion of protected areas all over the world, most of them are suffering from
population pressure. Seventy percent of the poorest people of the world depend on biodiversity
for their basic needs (Ervin, etal’s, 2010). If we take Ethiopia, nearly 85% of the populations
live in rural areas, and a large part of this population depends directly or indirectly on natural
resources.
Conservation of biodiversity is crucial to the sustainability of sectors as diverse as energy,
agriculture, forestry, fisheries, wildlife, industry, health, tourism, commerce, irrigation and
power. Ethiopia’s development in the future will continue to depend on the foundation provided
by living resources and conserving biodiversity (IBC, 2005).
In order to achieve sustainable conservation of biodiversity,
protected areas should be integrated within a broad sustainable development planning
agenda
Protected areas should strive to contribute to poverty reduction at the local level, and at
the very minimum must not contribute to exacerbate poverty;
Biodiversity should be conserved both for its value as a local livelihoods resource
and as a national and global public good;
Equitable sharing of costs and benefits of protected areas should be ensured at local,
national and global levels;
Where negative social, cultural and economic impacts occur, the affected
community should be fairly and fully compensated
A gender perspective should be incorporated that encompasses the different role of
women and men in the livelihood dynamics, thus contributing to equitable benefit sharing
and more effective governance system (Scherl etal’s, 2004).

7
2.2. Reinforcements for Biodiversity Conservation
The forces driving the global expansion of protected areas are the unprecedented and irreversible
loss of biodiversity which led to the development of international environmental policy during
the past 25 years. During this period, the consensus was emerged as protected areas were
essential for maintaining biodiversity. There was also agreement that protected areas must
address the local communities’ concerns with development. But considerable debate faced
regarding the relative weight of social and economic objectives versus biodiversity goals in
protected area management (Naughton-Treves eta’ls, 2005). Protected areas are the cornerstone of
global biodiversity conservation. Over the past 40 years, governments and non-governmental
organizations have made unprecedented investments in the establishment of protected areas
around the world. As a result, the world’s terrestrial protected areas encompassed more than 18
million sq km in 2010, compared with just over 2 million sq km in 1970(Ervin, etal’s, 2010).
As the first decade of the 21st Century comes to a close, emerging drivers of change are
transforming our concept of protected areas as they are expected to do more in terms of their
ecological, social and economic contributions than ever before. Not only are they expected to
provide habitat for endangered wildlife, but also to contribute to livelihoods for local
communities, to generate tourism revenues to local and national economies, and to play a key
role in mitigation and adaptation to climate change, among many other diverse functions and
contributions. Protected areas are expected to do more ecologically not only by providing
habitats and refuge for species, but also by enabling humans and wildlife to adapt to the impacts
of climate change, by securing the ecosystem services upon which humanity depends, and by
mitigating climate change through the storage and sequestration of carbon (Ervin, etal’s, 2010).
2.3. The Park - Community Conflict Management
There exists an interaction between humans and wildlife that results in negative impacts on
human social, economic or cultural life, on the wildlife populations, or on the environment. Both
people and wildlife can suffer from human-wildlife conflict. Farmers suffer economically from

8
the loss of crops and livestock and on more serious cases, people are killed. The people who
suffer from such interaction tend to be those living on the edges of settlements and those living
close to community / state/-managed wildlife areas. On the other hand, for animals, some
wildlife populations may decline or become locally extinct as a result of extensive human-
wildlife conflict (wildlife management series, 2005).
For harmonized interaction of peoples and protected areas, all the concerned bodies of the
protected areas should develop policies, practices and forms of Protected Area management
system that enhance opportunities, reduce vulnerability, and empower the poor and
vulnerables by:
a. Building partnerships with poor communities as actors and shareholders in
protected area development;
b. Strengthening mechanisms for the poor to share actively in decision making
related to protected areas and to be empowered as conservators in their own right;
c. Developing pro-poor mechanisms to reward environmental conservers, including
payments for environmental services, minimize and mitigate damages to both
biodiversity and livelihoods, and provide fair compensation for losses from human-
wildlife conflicts and from restricted access and decreased environmental services;
d. Respecting and recognizing customary ownership, use and access rights for local
people, particularly for the poor, during the negotiation and decision making process
and preventing further loss of costmary rights
e. Improving accountability and transparency of decision making processes related to
protected areas;
f. Developing more inclusive interpretations of Protected Area categories that
reflect the interests and initiatives of the poor, including the role of community
conserved areas;
g. Fostering programmes of restoration to deal with modified and degraded areas that
yield biodiversity benefits as well as providing goods and services to improve
livelihoods within protected areas and in the land escape surrounding them (Scherl
etal’s, 2004).

9
PaDPA,( 2008) said the adjacent people of Borena saynt national park have got a very good
attitude to the park except some challenges as the buffer zone is very near to villages ,and some
worries as they underprivileged to expand farmland, and grazing land. But the park office
reports (2010) indicated that the current needs of the peoples are to be benefited from the park
biotic resources in a manner that do not harm the resources sustainability.
2.4. Objectives of Protected Area in the 21st Century
Nowadays, protected areas are established for biodiversity conservation, ecological service
provision, climate change adaptation and mitigation and for attaining the millennium
development goals. So they have incalculable values. Protected areas can play an important role
in reducing poverty and sustaining livelihoods provided that there is a supportive and enabling
policy environment. In order to sustain livelihoods and reduce poverty, protected area planners
and policy makers will likely need to develop and/or improve a new set of policies, including
those listed below.
a. Develop policies for the sustainable use of resources to promote livelihoods. In many
protected areas around the world, the use of natural resources is allowed, but there are no
policies delineating sustainable levels of use.
b. Develop tourism guidelines: Tourism is one of the most widely recognized economic benefits
of protected areas, and is a major source of jobs and livelihoods for those living in and around
protected areas. However, balancing tourism and associated livelihoods with the protection of
biodiversity will require policies that create clear standards and outline the best practices.
c. Develop safeguards and thresholds: In developing alternatives for sustaining livelihoods, one
of the most important steps is to develop safeguards and thresholds that balance the need for
biodiversity conservation with the needs for economic development. There is a need to
develop policies for equitable sharing of benefits of livelihood related resources of protected
areas (Ervin etal’s, 2010).
protected areas are expected to do more socially not only by sustaining communities in and
around their boundaries, but also by significantly contributing to the aims of the millennium
development goals, and by buffering humanity from the impacts of climate change. They are also

10
expected to do more economically not only by generating revenue to sustain their own operation,
but also by improving local and national economies through tourism, supplying of minor forest
products, fish and other resources and the provisioning of ecosystem services such as the
regulation of water supplies (Ervin etal’s, 2010).
The biodiversity, ecosystems and ecological processes of Ethiopia are of profound international
significance. The significance is not of economic value alone. The watershed value of the
Ethiopian highlands is of strategic importance. The highlands of Ethiopia attract large amounts
of orographic rainfall and there are seven major river basins that provide water for the people,
livestock, wildlife and riparian vegetation in the surrounding lowlands (Lakew etals, 2007).
2.5. The Threats of Biodiversity Conservation
Though the official protection granted protected areas, national parks and wildlife preserves
worldwide face threats from outside their boundaries. These threats range from logging, mining,
and livestock grazing to the encroachment of growing human populations (Encarta, 2009). So
management of protected area in developing countries presents profound challenges, given
widespread conditions of poverty, rapid population growth and political instability. The
campaign to protect biodiverse parks and reserves in developing countries exposes political
tensions that surface for other international environmental problems, such as climate change
(Naughton-Treves eta’ls, 2005).
In Ethiopia the major threat to conservation of natural resources in general and protected areas in
particular are human activity. With over 90% of the population dependent on subsistence
agriculture, the population increase is accompanied by deforestation to release new land for
cultivation, to obtain fuel wood, for construction and the making of implements. Current fuel
wood consumption is nearly three times the sustainable supply, causing severe soil erosion and
environmental degradation. The major threats to protected areas originate from settlement within
the parks or adjacent to them as it creates pressure due to crop cultivation, grazing, deforestation,
and mineral extraction (IBC, 2005). According to Biodiversity analysis and support team (2008),

11
the major threats of Ethiopian biodiversity are limited governmental, institutional, and legal
capacity, population growth, land degradation, weak management of protected areas and
deforestation which are interrelated and self reinforcing.
In addition to the above threats of protected areas, the attitudes of the local communities towards
the park are a determinant factor for sustainable biodiversity conservation. According to Hussein
(2011) field observation report, there is great community grievance on the BSNP preservationist
approach which requires an urgent remedial measure. If conditions continue in such fashion, the
park community conflicts will go from simple to complex which is of difficult to give reshape
then after.
According to the Ethiopian wildlife development and conservation Authority (2008), activities
such as transferring weapons, hunting, all agricultural activities, mining, cutting and transferring
of plants and their products, destroying and transferring any natural and artificial objects are
threats of wildlife and are prohibited in national parks. Setting any fire and using any harmful
chemicals are also activities prohibited in national parks, sanctuaries and wildlife reserves.
Though the rules are mentioned here above, some seasonal utilization of the natural resources
such as beekeeping, cutting and taking of forage and medicinal plant collection may be permitted
under controlled condition, based on the agreement made between the protected area
management and the surrounding community.
Nowadays, Protection of the biodiversity requires local management by the populations
immediately concerned. The governments should know that Centralized management forms have
no universal validity. So assessing the economic interests of the society and knowing the real
implications on the areas are very important to shape policy-makers of today for sustainability of
the heritages (Leveque and Mounolou, 2003).

12
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study focused on examining the status and sustainability of conservation .and threats of
biodiversity of Borena saynt national park. The methodological framework of this study was
descriptive survey. Descriptive survey was preferred to other methods as it enables to make
investigations with predictions, narration of events, comparisons, and drawing of conclusions
based on the information obtained from relatively large and representative samples.
3.1. Description of the National Park and Sampling Techniques
Borena saynt national park (bsnp) was established in 2009 by the ANRS government of Ethiopia
with regulation number 68/2009. It is found in the central Amhara development corridor of
Ethiopia, which is about 598km from Addis Ababa via Dessie, 300 km from bahir dar via
Mertulemariam and 198km from Dessie respectively. It is located 18 km far away from the head
office, mekaneselam, the town of borena woreda (district). The old park is located between
100
50'45.4” and 100
53'58.3" latitude and 380
40'28.4"and 380
54’49" longitude. The area is
characterized by deep valleys and ridges with an altitude ranging from 2000m (west end) up to
3727m (yilas gora) above sea level.
Though the current size of the national park is 4375 hectare, 10887 hectare potential area that
shares boundary with Saynt, Legambo,Mekidela and Tenta woredas is newly demarcated in 2011
and 2012. So the newly merged area of the national park will have an area of 15262 hectare and
the elevation will range from 2000 to 4280m asl in the near future. The merged area of the park
is located between 100
50'45.4” and 100
57'03" latitude and 380
40'28.4""and 390
10’39" longitude
(CTB, 2011, Lakew etal’s 2007, CTB, 2012).
The biodiversity of the area has been recognized and protected since the 15th
century as it
endowed with a variety of biodiversity, spectacular landscapes, and natural authentic features
(PaDPA).

13
Figure 1. Map of Borena Saynt National Park
The park has three agro- climatic zones; Wurch, Dega and Woina dega as it has high ranges of
altitudal variation. The average temperature falls between 10oc to 20oc and Rain fall is
dominated by single rainy season i.e. June to September which is supplemented by irregular rain
fall from February to May.
The park is endowed with a significant number of larger mammals with high endemicity .There
are about 23 larger mammals, considerable number of amphibians, reptiles and smaller mammals
such as rodents and bats. The endemic mammals of the national park are Ethiopian wolf(canis
simenisi), gelada baboon (theropithecus gelada), stark’s hare and menelik bush buck(tragelaphus
scriptos meneliki).There are more than 77 bird species recorded, among these gypaetus barbatus(
lamer gayer),gyps rueppellii, stephanoaetus corinatus, Columba larveta,bostrychia
carunculata(wattled ibis) ,Abyssinian cat bird(parophosma galinieri),thick billed raven(carvous
crassirostris) Harwood francolin(endemic bird). The variability of flora is also as diverse as the
ranges of habitats and altitudinal gradients. There are 174 large plant species recorded in the
park, of which 11 of them are endemic to Ethiopia. The lower forest is dominated by podocarpus

14
falactus with juniper and olea with increasing olinia as we go higher. The Upper forest is
dominated by Rapanea, Dombeya, and Hagenia moving in to the lower stratum of Erica arborea
and hypericam revoltum (Abate, 2003; Lakew etal’s 2007).
Above the forest edge there is high altitude grass land dominated by festuca gelibertina (guassa)
with scattered giant lobelia (lobelli rhynohopetalum) and red hot pokers (kniphofia foliosa).
The major objective of establishing the protected area is to conserve the biodiversity and bypass
it to the fore coming generation and to benefit the people economically, socially, and
ecologically from local to global scales.
To answer the ambiguities set for this study; both quantitative and qualitative data were collected
from respondents and other relevant documentary sources were used as supplements. There were
six categories of respondents (woreda park council members, experts, scouts, contract scouts,
local communities and kebele park coordination committees). Furthermore, the office reports and
research documents were served as strong sources of evidence for the study.
Purposive and simple random sampling methods were used to select representative samples from
the local communities.
Name of
woreda
Name of kebele Population size of the kebeles Population size of conference
participants in the year 20011
M F T M F T
Borena Miskabe(014) 2165 2233 4399 113 43 156
Borena Fati-janeberu(012) 2823 2909 5732 132 24 154
Borena Abu(011) 2662 2735 5397 110 23 136
Borena Degadibi(09) 1611 1683 3294 134 24 158
Borena Hawoybetaso(08) 1798 1785 3583 72 29 101
Borena Jelisalibanos(06) 2853 2748 5601 112 42 154
Borena Anferfra(029) 1425 1375 2800 110 46 156
Borena Chirocherkos(030) 1757 1788 3545 122 30 152
Borena Chirokadis(031) 3037 3043 6080 111 45 156
Saynt Bejachilaga(08) 2648 2666 5314 131 25 156
M/saynt Samagn(030) 2726 2796 5422 108 12 120
M/saynt Wojed(036) 2125 2021 4146 143 13 156
M/saynt Kotet(041) 2342 2116 4458 141 16 157
Total 29972 29898 59771 1539 372 1912

15
Table1. Conference participants of the adjacent kebeles (the data of population size was taken from borena
woreda agriculture office and from individual kebele agriculture office of saynt and m/saynt woredas)
Purposively, the peoples living very near the park and the kebele park council members are
selected as they have detail knowledge about the overall situation of protected area and the local
communities. The individual samples were selected from the target population using random
sampling techniques. The size of the samples was summarized here above. For the rest
categories of respondents, availability sampling techniques were used as it is summarized below.
s/n categories target population expected
sample size
actual sample
size
1 woreda park council 30 30 23
2 experts 9 9 9
3 scouts and contract scouts 32 32 27
total 71 71 59
Table 2. The sample size of various respondent categories
The reason why the various categories of respondents were included (incorporated) into the
sample was to increase the chance of obtaining detail information as they had a day to day
exposure and awareness about the park community interaction and the threats of biodiversity.
3.2. Sources of Data and Data Gathering Tools
Both primary and secondary data were used for the study. Primary data were collected from the
woreda park council members, park experts and scouts through questionnaires that contained
both closed and open ended questions. To supplement the data from questionnaires, target group
discussions were used to secure in-depth information.
Data from local communities and kebele park council members were collected using target group
discussions to give equal chance of participation for literates and illiterates and to secure in-depth
information about their interaction with the park and the real problems there in the area of study.
The last two years observation was also used as a source of data for analysis in the overall study.

16
As supplement of the data gathered above, the secondary data from office reports, and research
documents were used to know the status and sustainability of conservation and the major threats
of the National park biodiversity.
The questionnaires prepared for respondents had three major parts. The first part focused on
obtaining detailed information on the status and sustainability of conservation, and on the overall
problems and factors affecting biodiversity of the park.
The closed ended question is integrated with open ended question on parts that needed further
explanation.
The second part of the questionnaire contained randomly listed possible threats that could be
rated using Likert scale to show the threats severity.
The third part of the questionnaire contained randomly listed possible threats of biodiversity that
could affect conservation of biodiversity in sustainable manner. So respondents were asked to
rank these possible threats according to the degree of their influence. All possible threats of the
park were listed and ranked by respondents according to the perceived severity of each threat in
affecting the biodiversity. Then the individual ranks were further ranked to discriminate the order
of the threats affecting the park.
Though all the questionnaires were originally prepared in English, they were translated to
Amharic language considering the English language difficulty of the respondents. Then all the
distributed questionnaires for respondents were filled and returned under close supervision of the
researcher.
3.3. Data Analysis
To attain the research objectives, the data gathered were analyzed using quantitative and
qualitative approaches. To know the status of conservation and the severity of threats affecting
the sustainability of conservation of biodiversity, the qualitative data from open ended questions,
and target group discussions were categorized, presented, narrated and described in line with the

17
research objectives. In addition to the above qualitative data, the analysis of quantitative data was
done using tally, frequency count and percentage as statistical tools.
In addition to the above data, the ratings and the ranks of the possible threats threatening the
biotic resources of the park were classified, tabulated, calculated and ranked according to their
influence by calculating the percentage value and the mean value of each possible threat. The
smaller the mean value of the possible threat, the higher is in its rank and its impact.
Finally, the results of the analysis and interpretation of the data obtained were discussed and
summarized to forward implications and/or recommendations on the basis of the findings.

18
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the data collected from different sources using questionnaires (close and open-
ended questions), target group discussion and the documents available are presented and
discussed. Presentation of the data is followed by discussion and interpretation in line with the
major research objectives outlined.
4.1. Status and sustainability of Biodiversity Conservation of BSNP
According to the emerging model, the rationale for establishing protected areas is to maintain the critical
life supporting systems. They are managed for social, economic and ecological values, with an emphasis
on maintaining ecosystem services (Ervin etal’s, 2010) .But BSN Park follows the classic model of
protection that set aside the park from any natural resource use. The local communities are
deprived from any resource of the national park which is not common to their past trends of
conservation. The park office experts and scouts mentioned that the current protection status of the
biodiversity of the park is somehow good. But it may not be long lasting as the park follows the
preservationist approach of biodiversity protection and as complaints are arising from the nearby park
communities. For the sustainable biodiversity conservation, the local communities should be benefited
from the resource directly by extraction of forage and festuca grass and dry fire wood and benefitted from
ecotourism. Similarly Scherl etal’s(2004), said in order to achieve sustainable conservation of
biodiversity, protected areas should strive to contribute to poverty reduction at the local level,
and at the very minimum must not contribute to aggravate poverty.
Most of the woreda park coordination council members also said, the present protection of the
biodiversity of the national park is relatively good. But participating the local people in conserving the
resources and benefiting them from the resources under sustainable manner should be given due attention.
Protected area planners and policy makers will likely need to improve a new set of policies,
which allows sustainable use of resources to promote livelihoods. In many protected areas
around the world, the use of natural resources is allowed, but there are no policies delineating
sustainable levels of use (Ervin etal’s, 2010). The above study indicated that the local
communities should be benefited from the park resources by delineating the sustainable levels.

19
As all categories of respondents said if the communities are not benefited either directly from the natural
resources or from ecotourism revenue in a near future, they may develop a negative attitude on the park
rather than considering it as their possession. So extraction of festuca from the park should not be given
time in order to benefit the locals economically and improve their ownership and to save the park from
fire hazards. Furthermore, the above respondents said that the present status of protection of the
biodiversity of the newly demarcated portion of the national park is calling us to arrive and save it from
loss. There are rapid rate of agricultural and settlement expansion and deforestation of the Erica forest.
Conferences organized by the park office were also held twice in the 13 adjacent kebele peasant
association of the park in the years 2010 and 2011. The participants of the conference were
representatives of all the 13 kebele peoples that include the kebele administrators, religious fathers, males,
females, adolescents, school directors, DAs and community policing officers. The conference agenda was
prepared by the park office aiming to stop illegal settlement expansion, improve communal lands
protection and development, reduce threats of the biodiversity, identify the legal and illegal land holdings
inside and around the park, identify the communities need and how to reduce the conflicts that occur
among the park and the local communities.
Most of the conference participants of the adjacent kebeles of the park mentioned as they were trying to
stop illegal settlement expansion, safeguard the communal lands, and identify the land holding types in
order to stop illegal agricultural expansion. But they were not successful as the concerned woreda sector
offices didn’t support them in implementing the above activities.
Figure2. The park communities of jelisa-libanos kebele participating on conference in the year 2011

20
As mentioned by the conference participants, the needs of the communities are to utilize the resources
sustainably and the major threats of biodiversity of the national park are resource utilization conflicts.
The local peoples said we have been conserving it from the past to the present, but we are considered as
an enemy of the biodiversity. They said we are prohibited utilization of the non woody plant resources
having no impact on the biodiversity of the park such as extraction of forage and festuca. The
communities mentioned as extraction of such resources is the burning issue of them. The local
communities request the regional government to give them permission for extraction of the annual
resources specially the non timber plant products in sustainable manner. In addition to benefiting the
locals, collection of festuca is important for sustainability of festuca and prevention of human induced fire
hazards as some communities are disappointed by prohibition of festuca.
On the contrary some woreda park council members said that the conservation practice is so poor. To
mention witness for the poor protection practices of the scouts, the guards’ houses are stolen in the near
past. But some of them said the illegal activities are due the smaller number of the park scouts. So the
number of scouts should be increased and the newly demarcated area of the national park should be
legalized, merged with the old portion of the park and protected by the park office rapidly before loss.
The researcher field observation also indicated that there are rapid rate of deforestation, agricultural land
expansion and settlement expansion in the newly demarcated areas of the park especially on the side of
Saynt and Legambo woredas.
Some of the respondents from all categories have reservation on extraction of dry fuel wood. Collection
of dry fuel may cause damage on the living organisms and give room for the illegal actors. Furthermore it
may increase the dependency syndrome.
In general, the local communities should be benefited directly from the natural resource and tourism in
various ways as mentioned here above. In addition to resource utilization, other means of income
generating schemes are important mechanisms to supplement the communities’ livelihood and to reduce
the population pressure of the biodiversity.
.
4.2. The Park Community complaints on resources utilization
Though the major causes of Complaints are prohibition of festuca extraction from the park for different
uses such as hatch and sale, agricultural land expansion and prohibition of compensation for their land
holdings, predation of domestic animals and crop damage, fire wood collection and livestock grazing are

21
causes of conflict between the park and the local communities. Knowing the impacts of the protected area
on the communities is very important as it helps to take appropriate management measures. According to
Getzner etal’s (2010), regardless of the assigned category of the protected area , it is crucial to understand
the impacts of protected areas on local and regional development in terms of ecological, social and
economic dimensions. They also mentioned that there is a paradigm shift from strict protection to
sustainable use areas i.e. besides conservation function, today’s protected areas contribute to human
welfare, poverty alleviation and sustainable development.
As shown in table 3 below, nearly all the respondents mentioned as there are complaints of the local
communities as they are deprived from their traditional utilization of resources. The major causes of the
park community conflicts are land holding issues, annual plant collection, encroachment by settlement,
grazing and deforestation. So there is gap between the needs of the local communities and the national
park regulation as the regulation is so ridged.
Table 3 Opinion of respondents on local communities’ attitude about utilization of some resources
s/n questions given for respondents respondents responses
WPCC experts scouts
yes no yes no yes no
1 Is there any Park community complaint on utilization
and conservation of the biodiversity of the park?
18
(85.7)
3
(14.3)
9
(100)
27
(100)
-
2 Have you ever seen a conflict between the local
community and the park?
16
(76.2)
5
(23.8)
9
(100)
25
(92.6)
2(7.4)
3 Do you believe that there is a gap between intention of
the community and prohibition of some resources
utilization?
16
(76.2)
5
(23.8)
9
(100)
24
(88.9)
3
(11.1)
Almost all respondents also said the very tall and dry festuca is highly susceptible for natural and induced
fire hazards as there is a frequent tender, a cigarettes residue due to the high way crossing the park and as
there are some communities having a negative attitude on the national park as they are prohibited from
utilization of the resource. The CTB (2011) mentioned that festuca is a highly valuable resource for the
day to day life processes of the local communities. As it is used for hatch, forage, construction of rope and
sleeping mattress production, the local kebele administrative bodies and communities manage it properly
with great emphasis.

22
As mentioned by Hussein, (2011), the resources having low/no negative impact on the sustainability of
the park biodiversity should be collected out and benefited the local communities. The park should reduce
poverty rather than aggravating it. This is achieved by transforming the outdated preservationist approach
to community based development approaches. To bypass the biological resource for the fore coming
generation, the Park should give remedial measures for the chronic problems of the present local
communities.
Another study indicated that for harmonized interaction of peoples and protected areas, all the
concerned bodies of the protected areas should develop policies, practices and forms of protected
area management system that enhance opportunities, reduce vulnerability, and empower the
poor and vulnerable by:
a. Building partnerships with poor communities as actors and shareholders in
protected area development;
b. Strengthening mechanisms for the poor to share actively in decision making
related to protected areas and to be empowered as conservators in their own right;
c. Developing pro-poor mechanisms that minimize and mitigate damages to both
biodiversity and to livelihoods, and provide fair compensation for losses incurred from
human-wildlife conflicts and from restricted access and decreased environmental
services;
d. Respecting and recognizing customary ownership, use and access rights for local
people, particularly for the poor, during the negotiation and decision making process
and preventing further loss of costmary rights
e. Improving accountability and transparency of decision making processes related to
protected areas;
g. Fostering programmes of restoration of degraded areas that yield biodiversity
benefits as well as providing goods and services to improve livelihoods within protected
areas and in the land escape surrounding them (Scherl etal’s, 2004).
The above primary and secondary data indicated that the local communities should be benefited
from the park natural resources in the manner having no greater impact on sustainability of the

23
park biodiversity. Otherwise the complaints will be transformed to severe threats of the
biodiversity which are of difficult to reshape.
4.3. Effects of Very tall Festuca on Ethiopian Wolf
The last two seasons’ wildlife counting results of borena saynt national park office indicated that there
was no Ethiopian wolf inside the old national park. It is emigrated from the old portion of national park,
and went to the surrounding communal lands around the park and to the newly demarcated area of the
park as the festuca is managed traditionally by the local kebele administrators. The guassa is extracted
every two years which creates suitable habitat for Ethiopian wolf to capture its prey.
Figure 3. Rotten festuca at mehal limesk site of the national park
Based on their experiences, almost all the respondents said the very tall festuca is not suitable habitat for
Ethiopian wolf to capture its prey. Furthermore unless it is collected with time interval, the festuca root
specially the ‘wonde guassa or ginchire guassa’ root will rot and extinct locally from the area. Studies
also indicated that the very tall festuca is not suitable for Ethiopian wolf as it covers its preys and creates
difficulty to capture the rodents. The suitable habitat of Ethiopian wolf extends from 3200m up to 4500m
with some wolves present in the montane grasslands at 3000m. The wolves use all afro alpine habitats,
but prefer open areas with short herbaceous and grass land communities where rodents are most abundant.
Their prime habitats are characterized by short herbs and grasses and low vegetation cover (Sillero-Zubiri
and Marino, 2004).

24
Figure 4. The decomposed festuca vegetation and Ethiopian wolf
Hussein (2011) field observation report also indicated that the Ethiopian wolf emigrated from the park
having a taller, mature and nearly dried festuca to the areas having short grasses such as Shimegera and
Belechuma where it lives along domesticated animals.
The above phenomenon highly exposes the Ethiopian wolf to rabies which is the most dangerous and
wide spread disease to affect it. Rabies is the major causes of wolf mortality (Sillero-Zubiri and Marino,
2004). The situation also increases the chance of hybridization of the wolves with common dogs.
From the above primary and secondary information, we generalize that collection of festuca with proper
management, time interval and season is very important to create suitable habitat for Ethiopian wolf, to
benefit the local communities and the grazer wild animals and to sustain the festuca itself. This extraction
of festuca also improves the bond between the park and the local communities.
4.4. The Objectives of BSNP and extent of their attainment
Internationally, the rationale for establishing protected areas is to maintain the critical life supporting
systems and managed mainly for social, economic and ecological values, with an emphasis on
maintaining ecosystem services (Ervin etal’s, 2010). EWCA (2008) also stated as the objective of
the EWCA is to ensure the development, conservation and sustainable utilization of the country’s
wildlife resources. The above two conservation strategies and enforcements permitted utilization
of natural resources in sustainable manner.

25
Researchers stated that national parks are not established only to provide habitat for endangered
wildlife, but also to contribute to livelihoods for local communities, to generate tourism revenues
to local and national economies, and to play a key role in mitigation and adaptation to climate
change (Ervin etal’s, 2010).
According to the ANRS (2009), Borena Saynt national Park has been established to conserve the
remnant representatives of the middle altitude biodiversity of the region by the direct
conservation participation of the community and to bypass it as a heritage for the coming
generation. The park was also established aiming to benefit the local communities and the
country from tourism revenue. To attain the objectives of the borena saynt national park, the
ANRS- PaDPA (now the CTPD) set plans of activities to be implemented within a short period
of time:
1. provision of farm land compensation for the 64 farmers whose farm lands were
demarcated within the national park
2. selection and construction of campsite for scouts of the national park
3. building the park office and organizing the human resources
4. Construction of the necessary infrastructures such as road, view points, lodge and other
buildings, keeping the natural beauty of the national park and in the manner that do not
disturb the wildlife living condition.
5. Doing activities that enhance local communities’ participation in the park development
and protection and benefiting them from the resource.
6. plantation of pillars on important sites of the park boundaries
7. provision of education for the local communities about wildlife management and use
8. promoting the park for national and international organizations
9. Preparing the management plan of the park and notifying the tourism and research
potential use of the area (PaDPA).
Implementation of the short term plan mentioned here above are the duties and responsibilities of
CTPD (proclamation, 96/2003) and are the preliminary steps to attain the objectives of the
national park i.e. to conserve the biodiversity sustainably and to benefit the local communities

26
and the country as a whole from ecotourism. But most of the short term plans mentioned here
above didn’t arrive at the ground. To mention the status of the plans implementation:
1. No compensation has given for most of the farmers though the revised rural land
administration and use determination proclamation no 133/2006,said the farmers
expropriate their holding rights for public services by receiving the proper compensation
in advance. Researchers said where negative social, cultural and economic impacts
occur, the affected community should be fairly and fully compensated (Scherl etal’s,
2004). Though the regulation stated here above, only 12 of the farmers were given
compensation from the adjacent kebele reserve farm lands of Borena woreda. However
the phenomenon done on the rest 52 farmers are so greatly far from the regional land
administration and use laws. As the farmers are deprived from their land use rights since
2009 without compensation, they repeatedly explained their complaints to Borena woreda
administrators. Still now, the compensation is not given for the farmers though the
processes are going on in a very slow rate.
2. Though the areas appropriate for campsite were selected by the Bureau and the park
office experts before two years, no campsites are constructed in the national park. So
there is limitation in carry out patrolling during night time as there is no resting room for
scouts and their house is far away from the park. At the beginning of this physical year,
the CTPD mentioned as two million birr was allocated for constructing campsites, though
nothing is implemented until now. It is known that starting construction of the campsites
at the end of the physical year has a great negative impact on the quality of the
construction and the budget utilization.
3. The CTPD constructed very attractive park office at mekaneselam and there are well
organized human resources though there are some quality problems of the construction
due to limitation of the park office construction plan document in specifying the quality
of the raw materials. Though the regional bureau administers only this park, the activities
performed in aspects of capacity building of the park office experts is very low which is
not beyond an eye break training during organizing the office before two years.
4. The park is an open air museum having a representative natural biodiversity with very
high endemism, scenic landscapes and historical caves, and surrounded by impressive
cultural heritages, Abay river landscapes and historical religious sites. But Construction

27
of the necessary infrastructures such as road from mekaneselam to the park, view points,
and lodge is almost zero. Almost all of the tourists that visited the park mentioned that
the park is an open air museum, but the road from mekanneselam to the park is so bad
and the services at mekaneselam are very poor. So unless emphasis is given for
development of such infrastructures, it will have a great negative impact on attainment of
the park’s objectives.
5. The 5th
component of the short term plan of the regional bureau i.e. benefiting the local
communities from tourism is the fore most important activity to attain the park
objectives. However nothing except awareness creation was done to enhance
communities’ involvement in the park development and protection and to benefit them
from the resource. It is highly dependent on activity four of the short term plan mentioned
here above.
6. There are no plantations of new pillars after its gazettement as a national park. But
remarking of the boundary using paints on natural features are practiced by the park
office experts and the park scouts. Education is being given for the local communities by
experts and scouts regularly.
7. The promotion practices done ever before were very low which is not done beyond the
very short TV and radio air time, distributing poster and leaf lets. So great emphasis
should be given for promotion of the national park using various Medias nationally and
internationally.
8. To attain the objectives of protected areas, management plan is the fundamental
requirement. Developing the management plans is an urgent priority for the worlds’
protected areas. The process of developing management plans help protected areas
manager to identify natural and cultural resources, understand key threats to those
resources, and develop plans and strategies for long term protection(Ervin etal’s, 2010).
Though management plan is the priority requirement of protected area, borena saynt
national park is being managed without management plan which is like walking closing
the eyes. So preparation of the management plan is the primary activity and the guide for
development of the park that requires due attention.

28
Though the attainment of the intended objectives of the national park are dependent on
implementation of the short period plans mentioned here above, the emphasis given for them is
below the minimum. So the Bureau should give emphasis as the short period plans’
implementation is backbones for sustainability of the park biodiversity and benefits the locals.
4. 5. The Regulation of the National Park versus the Needs of the Local Community
According to EWCA (2008), seasonal utilization of some natural resources of protected areas
such as beekeeping, cutting and taking of forage and medicinal plant collection may be permitted
under controlled condition, based on the agreement made between the protected area
management and the surrounding community. But the Amhara national regional state park
development and protection regulation does not give such options and rights for the park
managers, rather totally block any resource extraction from the national parks (The ANRS, 2009).
As mentioned by the park office experts and scouts, there is a gap between needs of the local
community and the national park preservationist objectives. There is neither direct use of
resources nor ecotourism revenue that the local people supplement their livelihood. Similarly
participants of the conferences held in the 13 adjacent kebeles of the park displayed their great
complaints on prohibition of collection of resources which has no/ low impact on conservation of
biodiversity but are valuable for them. So communities, scouts and experts of the park office said
extraction of resources (guassa and forage) should be permitted for local communities using
proper managerial approach, time interval and extent of resources, and the regulation of the park
should be revised in the way that allows the extraction of the resources sustainably. For
sustainability of the biotic resource of the national park, it is better that the local communities
should participate in preparing the law of the national park. The governments should know that
Centralized management forms have no universal validity. The economic interests of the society
and the real implications on the areas are very important to shape policy-makers of today for
sustainability of the heritages (Leveque and Mounolou, 2003). Many of the threats of protected
areas are resulted from the local people as they simply have left without alternative options but to steal
and poach. The management authority of a PA may solve the problems more effectively by investing

29
development of social services and alternative employment than by increasing the law enforcement. it is
now become clear that PAs cannot survive unless the good will of the local population supports their
existence (Menassie etal’s, 2006).
The above primary and secondary data indicated that benefiting the local people from the natural
resources of the park in sustainable manner enhances ownership of the local communities. So the
regulation of the park needs amendments in order to have some flexibility that gives
management options for the park manager and the local communities.
4.6. Management Plan of BSNP and the plan’s Integration to Sectoral Plans and
Strategies
Developing the management plans is an urgent priority for all the worlds’ protected areas. The
process of developing management plans help protected areas manager to identify natural and
cultural resources, understand key threats to those resources, and develop plans and strategies for
long term protection(Ervin etal’s, 2010). But the Borena saynt National Park is being managed
without management plan from the beginning up to now which is like walking closing the eye.
In addition to lack of the park management plan, there is no integration of plan of the park with
plans of adjacent woreda and kebele concerned bodies and stakeholders. The office experts and
scouts said the participation of adjacent woreda stakeholders for development and protections of
the biodiversity of the park are not sufficient enough. There is very loose integration of the park
office and the adjacent woreda stakeholders in conserving the biotic resources and solving the
threats and problems of the park. Researchers said in order to achieve sustainable conservation of
biodiversity, protected areas should be integrated within a broad sustainable development
planning agenda (Scherl etal’s, 2004).
The Woreda Park council members also said integration of the woreda stakeholders and the park
office are very loose. They mentioned as the present Performance of all the adjacent woredas
administrators in conserving the biodiversity is so limited assuming that the park office will take

30
all the responsibilities of conservation and development. They also said for sustainable
conservation and development of the park biodiversity;
1. All stakeholders specially the local communities should be actively participated in
conserving the park.
2. The conservation and development of the park should be mainstreamed and its
development plan should be included in all development plans of the adjacent woredas
and kebeles.
Ervin etal’s, (2010) said integrating the park plan and development with land use planning,
transportation, energy , tourism , agriculture ,grazing, forestry, freshwater, waste , invasive
species and climate change are very important for biodiversity conservation and poverty
reduction. Mutualistically, biodiversity conservation is crucial for sustainability of the diverse sectors
mentioned here above (IBC, 2005). Getzner etal’s (2010), also said to maximize benefits for the local
communities and to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of conservation management, it is
important to involve all groups of stakeholders in the process of establishing, designating, and managing
protected areas. Participating stakeholders in management plan preparation process is important as it
increases a sense of ownership and commitment to management objectives.
The above data indicated that though too late, the management plan of the national park should be
prepared within a short period of time and all stakeholders should be involved in conservation of the park
biodiversity, and the development plan of the park should be integrated with the plan of stakeholders at
all levels .
4.7. The Threats of Biodiversity Conservation of BSNP and Their Severity
Management of protected area in developing countries presents profound challenges, given
widespread conditions of poverty, rapid population growth and political instability. The
campaign to protect biodiverse parks and reserves in developing countries exposes political
tensions that surface for other international environmental problems such as climate change
(Naughton-Treves eta’ls, 2005).

31
As a reflection of poverty and rapid population growth, there are a number of factors that cause
conflicts between the biodiverse national park, Borena saynt national park, and the local
communities. the causes of conflicts are grass collection, livestock grazing, land holding
conflict (agricultural land expansion & expropriation of farm land without compensation),
construction of settlements, crop damage, predation of domesticated animals, intentions to
practice apiculture inside the park and lack of any supplementary income source to the local
livelihoods(The park office annual report,2010). The above conflicts along with the
disappointment of the local communities, as they are prohibited from the traditional festuca
utilization, are threats of biodiversity and are ranked based on their severity of influence on
biodiversity conservation.
As shown in table 1 and 2 in the appendix, office experts and scouts arranged the threats of the park
biodiversity from the highest to the lowest. Based on the data analysis, scouts and experts listed the first
11 threats of the biodiversity of the park as;
1. conflicts due to land holding issues (prohibition of compensation and inaccuracy of plot size)
2. susceptibility of the park for human induced fire
3. the root rotting of guassa due to poor management practice
4. the compliant and economic problems of the local community as they are deprived from access
of guassa for various local uses
5. negative effect of the highly grown guassa on Ethiopian wolf
6. Encroachment by settlement
7. existence of so many roads across the park that creates difficulty of patrolling
8. illegal agricultural land expansion inside and around the park
9. Illegal resource utilizations such fire wood, and grass
10. auto-invasion of some of the ecosystem by some other native species
11. Grazing of livestock inside the park respectively. The data from the likert scale is almost
congruent to the results of re-ranking of threats shown in table.
But the rating and re-ranking results of the woreda park council members are slightly different from that
of scouts and experts. The woreda park council members ranked the first 11 threats of the park as
1. conflicts due to land holding issues (prohibition of compensation and inaccuracy of plot size)
2. Illegal resource utilizations such fire wood, and grass
3. susceptibility of the park for human induced fire

32
4. illegal agricultural land expansion inside and around the park
5. the guassa root rotting due to poor management practices
6. grazing of livestock inside the park
7. encroachment by settlement
8. existence of so many roads across the park that creates difficulty of patrolling
9. Negative effect of the highly grown guassa on Ethiopian wolf respectively
10. the compliant of the local community as they are deprived from guassa access for various
local uses and as measures has been taken on illegal resource users especially the festuca thieves
11. Deforestation of old aged trees and cultivation of the communal land around the park (table
4 and 5 in the appendix).
Studies indicated that the major threats of the borena saynt national park biodiversity conservation are
encroachment, lack of buffer zone, lack of connectivity, shape, size, the severe degradation of the
surrounding areas, agricultural land expansion, destruction of corridor, allotting the communal land for
adolescents, overgrazing, gaps in policy and legal framework, deforestation and high population pressure
( Lakew etal’s ,2007 : CTB, 2011: BSNP office,2010, Minassie etal’s,2006).
Figure 5. Very high population pressure (grazing of livestock, expansion of farmland and settlement)
According to Biodiversity analysis and technical support team (2008), the major threats of
Ethiopian biodiversity are limited governmental, institutional, and legal capacity, population
growth, land degradation, weak management of protected areas and deforestation which are
interrelated and self reinforcing.

33
The major threats to protected areas originate from settlement within the parks or adjacent to
them as it creates pressure due to crop cultivation, grazing, deforestation, and mineral extraction
(IBC, 2005).
In addition to the above threats of protected areas, the attitudes of the local communities towards
the park are a determinant threat of biodiversity. According to Hussein (2011), there is great
community grievance by BSNP preservationist approaches of protection which requires an
urgent reform in management. If the situation continues in such ridged fashion, the conflict will
go from simple to complex threat of biodiversity of the park which are of difficult to reshape
then after.
The above primary and secondary data indicated as the major threats of the borena saynt national park are
reflection of land degradation, poverty and population growth. The major threats of the area are
summarized as follows
1. Conflicts due to land holding issues-there are farmers having farm lands inside the park and at the
marginal parts of the national park. The sizes of the farm lands of individual farmers are not
accurately registered and farmers mentioned as they were given the land by guess referencing
some natural barriers or features. So they are expanding it from year to year without any
demarcated boundary. The other point is that there is farmers deprived cultivation of their farm
lands without compensation. This land holding issues (agricultural land expansion and
expropriation without compensation are the major causes of conflict between the park and the
local communities.
Figure 6. The moso village on the marginal part of the park & Sekedereba farmland inside the park

34
2. The human induced fire is also the major threat of the park biodiversity as there is disappointment
of local communities as deprived from festuca extraction and there is a tar of cigarette, as there is
a main road crossing the park. There was an indicator that fire outbreak occurred a few months
and a year before with unknown reason at Godel and Dugidedalech sites of the national park
respectively.
3. The effect of tall festuca on Ethiopian wolf, the rotting of root of ‘wonde ‘festuca and the local
communities desire to extract festuca are also the major threats of biodiversity as it causes local
extinction of species and conflict between the park and the communities.
4. Encroachment by settlement is another serious threat of the national park biodiversity which is so
severe at Belechuma and Arer media that fragmented the new portion of the potential area in to
three fragments. So opening of the two corridors is the priority action of the concerned
stakeholders following the approaches mentioned on proclamation 96/2003 and 133/2006 of
ANRS, as almost all the residences of the two villages have enough farm land and as there is
opportunities to compensate the farmers from the reserve farm land outside the park.
FIGURE 7. Settlements at the two corridor areas (Arer media and Belechuma) and Sirejet
5. Lack of connectivity and buffer zone, shape of the park, livestock grazing, deforestation of the
old aged trees in the newly demarcated potential area of the park and the communal land around
the national park and environmental degradation around the national park are threats of the park
biodiversity.

35
Figure 8. Rapid Erica deforestation at the edge of kebele 05 of Legambo woreda and Erica fire wood at Belechuma
of saynt woreda
6. The economic problem (poverty) of the local communities and the higher number of roads across
the park are also threats of the park biodiversity.
7. Human wildlife conflicts are also the threats of biodiversity conservation of the national park that
requires further in-depth study.

36
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
In this unit, the objectives of the study, the methods used and the major findings of the study are
summarized and conclusions are given based on the findings of the study. Based on the data
analysis, the major findings of the study and the summary, the possible solutions to the problems
are recommended.
5.1. Summary and Conclusion
The objective of this study was to assess the status and sustainability of conservation and identify
the major threats of biodiversity conservation of borena saynt national park using descriptive
survey. The data required for the study were gathered using qualitative and quantitative methods.
The quantitative data were collected using questionnaire, where as the qualitative data were
collected from analysis of documents, questionnaire and target group discussion.
Based on the objectives of the study, the findings of the study are summarized as follows
1. Though the present conservation of the park biodiversity is relatively good, this
preservationist approach of protection leads to the park-communities conflict which is
difficult to conserve the biodiversity sustainably and bypass the resources for the coming
generation. Furthermore, there are severe biodiversity lose in the new portion of the park.
2. To attain the objective, the local communities should be benefited from the natural resource and
from tourism in various ways. The local communities of the park should be benefited from
the park natural resources especially that of festuca in the manner having no greater
impact on sustainability of the park biodiversity. Otherwise the complaints will be
transformed to severe threats of the biodiversity which are of difficult to reshape. But Dry
fire wood should not be extracted from the national park as it may be a threat of biodiversity.
3. Extraction of festuca every three years with proper management, and season (February to April)
is very important to create suitable habitat for Ethiopian wolf, to benefit the local communities
and grazers of the national park and to sustain the festuca itself. This extraction of festuca also
reduces conflicts and improves the bond between the park and the local communities.
4. The objectives of the park is to conserve the park biodiversity, to bypass it as a heritage
for the coming generation and to benefit the local communities and the country‘s

37
economy as a whole in sustainable manner. The attainments of the intended objectives
are dependent on implementation of the short term plans especially of infrastructure
development and preparation of management plan document. So emphasis should be
given for the short term plans’ implementation as it is crucial for conserving the park and
benefiting the local communities in sustainable manner.
5. The regulation of the national park does not give any management options and rights for
the park managers and local communities, rather totally block any resource extraction
from the national park. So the regulation of the park needs amendments with some
flexibility that gives management options for the park manager and the local
communities.
6. Developing the management plans is an urgent priority for all the national park as it helps the
manager to identify natural and cultural resources, understand key threats to those resources, and
develop plans and strategies for long term protection. Integrating the park plan and development
with diverse sectors are very important for biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction, and
for sustainability of the diverse sectors.
7. The major threats of the borena saynt national park are reflection of land degradation, poverty and
population growth. So the major threats of the national park are Conflicts due to land holding
ambiguities, the human induced fire, the effect of tall festuca, encroachment by settlement, lack
of connectivity and buffer zone, shape of the park, livestock grazing, deforestation, environmental
degradation around the national park, economic problem (poverty) of the local communities, and
Human wildlife conflicts .
From the findings of the study we conclude that there are chronic threats of biodiversity
conservation of the national park that requires immediate mitigative measures. There is also gap
between the needs of the local communities and the park regulation which requires ammendments
of the regulation of the park to develop a mutuallistic interaction.
5.2. RECOMMENDATION
To attain the protected area objectives and to develop a mutalistic interaction between the park and the
local communities i.e. to conserve and pass the biodiversity to the coming generation benefiting the
present generations, the following recommendations are suggested.
1. The local communities should be benefited from the national park by extraction of festuca, and
forage in a manner having low impact on sustainability of the park biodiversity, and ecotourism

38
revenue within a short period of time. Agricultural activities such as poultry, beekeeping, and
high land fruit cultivation, development of forage, plantation of fast growing fire wood trees,
establishing the nursery sites that produce these seedlings, introducing eco-sound income and
power generating schemes and production of gaussa on individual farm lands should be practiced
intensively as they are important mechanisms to supplement the communities’ livelihoods and to
reduce the population pressure on the biodiversity. Development of small scale irrigation in the
adjacent kebeles of the national park is also an important option to supplement livelihoods of the
area as there is no water scarcity.
2. The regional government should set strategic plans and polices that integrate the conservation of
the remnant natural resources with plans of all sectors from regional to local levels and set a
directives that help to integrate the park development plan with the plans of diverse sectors of the
adjacent woredas and kebeles. The regional government should identify the share duties and
responsibilities and give directives for the administration, EPLuB, and agriculture sectors from
regional to local levels, the CTPD, the park office and local communities.
3. Saynt and Legambo woreda administrations, environmental protection and land administration
and agriculture sectors should stop the very rapid agricultural land and settlement expansion and
use the opportunities of compensating the farm lands inside the potential area at Arer media and
on other adjacent kebeles as there are very sufficient reserve farm lands in such kebeles.
4. The culture tourism and park development bureau should implement the short term plans
mentioned in the supportive document of gazettment of the old portion of the park. The bureau
should also solve fragmentation of the corridors, finish demarcation of the new portion of the
park and merge the two portion of the park before a much more biodiversity lose.
5. For effective development and protection of the biodiversity museum i.e. Borena saynt national
park, all stakeholders Specially EWCA and CTPD of Amhara region should have strong
integration and search for solutions for threats rather than isolating oneself from the other. There
should be flow of information between the Authority and the Bureau regarding this park. The
Authority should also support the park in capacity building practices that enhance the
conservation and development of the park. The park office should also work with tight integration
among various stakeholders at different levels.
6. Festuca should be collected out with time interval of three years following a proper management
and season to create suitable habitat for Ethiopian wolf, to benefit the local communities and the
grazer wild animals, and to sustain the festuca itself

39
7. The higher institutes of the country should play role in improving the livelihoods of the local
communities using different eco-sound income generating technologies in order to reduce the
population pressure of the national park.

40
6. REFERENCES
1. Scherl, L.,M. A. Wilson, R. Wild, J. Blockhus, P. Franks, J. A. Mcneely And T. O. Mcshane,
2004. Can Protected Areas Contribute To Poverty Reduction?: Opportunities And Limitations
Iucn, Gland, Switzerland And Cambridge, Uk,
2. Ervin, J., N. Sekhran, A. Dinu, S. Gidda, M.Vergeichik and J. Mee, 2010. Protected Areas for
The 21st Century: Lessons from Undp/Gef’s Portfolio. United Nations Development Programme
and Montreal: Convention on Biological Diversity.
3. Abrham Marye and Mulugeta Seid, 2011. Natural Attractions of Amhara Region. Culture And
Tourism Bureau
4. Abrham Marye, 2011.Major Natural Attractions of the Amhara Region. Culture And Tourism
Bureau
5. Lakew Berhanu, Fanuel Kebede and Gizachew Alamirew, 2007.Biodiversity Assessment of the
Proposed Denkoro-Chaka National Park. Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia.
6. Institute Of Biodiversity Conservation, 2005.National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
7. Sillero-Zubiri, C., and J. Marino, 2004. Ethiopian Wolf
8. Biodiversity Analysis and Technical Support Team, 2008.Ethiopian Biodiversity and Tropical
Forest 118/119 Assessment. The United States Agency For International Development
9. Abate Ayalew, 2003. A floristic Composition and Structural Analysis of Denkoro Forest, South
Wollo. Addis Ababa University School Of Graduate Study ,June 2003
10. Naughton-Treves, L., M., B. Holland and K.Brandon, 2005. The Role of Protected Areas In
Conserving Biodiversity And Sustaining Local Livelihoods. Down Loaded From Arjournal,
Annual Reviews Org. By University Of California.
11. ሁሴን አዳል, 2003. የቦረና ሳይነት ብሄራዊ ፓርክ ጊዜያዊ ሁኔታ፤የፓርኩ ማህበረሰብ እዉቀቶች ቅሬታዎችና የእድገት
አቅጣጫ(ከ3ኛ ድግሪ ማሟያ ጥናታቸዉ የተወሰደ የመስክ ምልከታ ሪፖርት)
12. The Ethiopian Wildlife Development, Conservation and Utilization Council of Ministries
Regulation No. 163/2008. The 15th
Years No. 26. Addis Ababa, 22nd
May 2008.

41
13. The Ethiopian Wildlife Development and Conservation Authority Establishment Proclamation
No. 575/2008. The 14th Year
No. 31. Addis Ababa, 22nd
May 2008.
14. A Proclamation Issued To Provide For The Revised Rural Land Administration and Use Of The
Amhara National Regional State. Proclamation No. 133/2006, Bahirdar May 29 /2006
15. የቦረና ሳይነት ብሄራዊ ፓርክ ጽ/ቤት, 2002. የቦረና ሣይንት ብሄራዊ ፓርክ ጽ/ቤት አመታዊ . 2002‹
መካነሰላም
16. The Amhara National Regional State, 2009. Borena Saynt Park Demarcation and Administrative
Determination, Council of Regional Government Regulation: Regulation No 68/2009. Bahirdar
the 5 th
June 2009.
17. Borena Saynt National Park, 2011. A Leaflet Prepared By the Park Office. Mekaneselam.
18. የፓርኮች ልማትና ጥበቃ ባለስልጣን (Draft). የቦረና ሳይንት ፓርክን ክለላ በህግ ለመወሰን የቀረበ ደጋፊ ሰነድ. ባህርዳር.
19. Gtzner,M., M. Jungmeier And S. Lange, 2010. People, Park and Money Stakeholder
Involvement and Regional Development: A Manual for Protected Areas. The Alps- Adriatic –
University Of Klagenfurt.
20. , 2003.
. 2003
21. , 2003. A
A A
. 2003.
22. / , 2003. .
17/2003 A , /
23. Proclamation 96/2003. The Amhara National Regional State parks development and protection
authority establishment proclamation. Bahirdar December 2003.
24. Minassie Gashaw, Anteneh Shimelis and Yilma Delelegne, 2006. Compendium of notes on
protected area management and utilization: prepared for PaDPA of Amhara region on protected
area management, protection and utilization training, May 15-29, 2006. Debark.

42
7. APPENDICES

43
7.1. APPENDIX I: LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. The scouts and experts rating results of the threatening factors of biodiversity of Borena saynt
national park using Likert scale
no
the severity of threatening factors of
biodiversity of the park
VH H M L VL
f % f % f % f % f %
1
susceptibility of the park for human
induced fire
28 77.8 4 11.1 2 5.7 2. 5.7
2
the park local communities conflicts
due to land holding issues
16 44.4 14 38.9 4 11.1 2 5.7
3
illegal resource utilizations such fire
wood, and grass
6 16.7 14 38.9 10 27.8 6 16.7
4
the rotting of root guassa due to poor
management practices
21 60 8 22.9 4 11.4 2 5.7
5 grazing of livestock inside the park 10 28.6 8 22.9 8 22.9 6 16.7 3 8.6
6 encroachment by settlement 14 38.9 12 33.3 7 19.4 3 8.3
7
illegal agricultural land expansion
inside and around the park
12 33.3 10 27.8 6 16.7 5 13.9 3 8.3
8
economical problems of the community
as they are prohibited to extract guassa
18 50 11 30.5 4 11.1 2 5.6 1 2.8
9 crop damage by wild animals 9 25 14 38.9 9 25 1 2.8 3 8.3
10
predation of domestic animals by
leopard
8 22.9 8 22.9 8 22.9 8 22.9 3 8.6
11
auto-invasion of some of the ecosystem
by some other native species
6 16.7 2 5.6 7 19.4 6 16.7 15 41.7
12
accumulation complaints due to
measures taken on illegal festuca users
9 25 8 22.2 8 22.2 7 19.4 4 11.1
13
prohibition of entrance of honey bee
hives and construction of seat of hives
inside the park
5 14.3 7 20 7 20 9 25.7 7 20
14
the compliant of the local community
due to lack of access of guassa for
various local uses
25 69.4 4 11.1 4 11.1 2 5.6 1 2.8
15
existence of so many roads across the
park that creates difficulty of patrolling
20 55.6 7 19.4 7 19.4 1 2.8 1 2.8
16
negative effect of the highly grown
guassa on Ethiopian wolf
20 55.6 9 25 2 5.6 3 8.3 2 2.8
17
poor attention given by adjacent
woreda administrators to solve the
problems and to protect the
biodiversity
9 25 15 41.7 6 16.7 4 11.1 2 2.8
18
deforestation of old aged trees and
cultivation of the communal land
around the park
8 22.2 9 25 9 25 4 11.1 6 16.7
19 illegal hunting 3 8.3 1 2.8 3 8.3 5 13.9 24 66.7

44
Table 2. The ranks given by scouts and experts of the park on threatening factors affecting the biodiversity of
the park
s/n Possible threatening factors of biodiversity total
value
No.Rs Average rank
1 susceptibility of the park for human induced fire 119 35 3.40 2
2 the park local communities conflicts due to land holding
issues
117 36
3.25
1
3 illegal resource utilizations such fire wood, and grass 278 35 7.942857 10
4 the rotting of root guassa due to poor management practices 187 36 5.194444 3
5 grazing of livestock inside the park 282 35 8.057143 12
6 encroachment by settlement 247 35 7.057143 7
7 illegal agricultural land expansion inside and around the park 277 35 7.914286 9
8 economical problems of the community as they are
prohibited to extract guassa
220 36
6.111111
5
9 crop damage by wild animals 280 35 8 11
10 predation of domestic animals by leopard 327 35 9.342857 17
11 auto-invasion of some of the ecosystem by some other native
species
370 36
10.27778
18
12 accumulation complaints due to measures taken on illegal
festuca users
313 35
8.942857
16
13 prohibition of entrance of honey bee hives and construction
of seat of hives inside the park
290 35
8.285714
13
14 the compliant of the local community due to lack of access of
guassa for various local uses
217 36
6.027778
4
15 existence of so many roads across the park that creates
difficulty of patrolling
259 36
7.194444
8
16 negative effect of the highly grown guassa on Ethiopian wolf 225 35 6.428571 6
17 poor attention given by adjacent woreda administrators to
solve the problems and to protect the biodiversity
309 36
8.583333
14
18 deforestation of old aged trees and cultivation of the
communal land around the park
307 35
8.771429
15
19 illegal hunting 570 35 16.28571 19

45
Table 3. The ranks given by scouts and experts of the park on threatening factors affecting the biodiversity of
the park
T the ranks of the possible threats and their Frequency of threats
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 total
value
rank
1 20 6 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 119 2
2 10 10 6 4 3 1 1 1 117 1
3 1 1 3 3 7 4 4 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 278 10
4 11 2 3 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 187 3
5 1 3 3 10 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 282 12
6 1 3 3 2 8 3 3 4 4 3 1 247 7
7 1 1 3 3 7 4 4 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 277 9
8 11 3 5 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 220 5
9 2 1 1 2 9 1 2 6 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 280 11
10 1 7 1 3 1 2 5 2 6 2 1 2 2 327 17
11 1 3 11 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 5 4 370 18
12 5 2 4 1 2 1 3 4 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 313 16
13 2 2 1 5 1 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 7 1 2 290 13
14 11 2 3 5 3 2 1 2 1 4 2 1 217 4
15 10 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 4 1 259 8
16 12 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 225 6
17 2 3 4 6 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 309 15
18 4 1 9 1 1 1 1 3 5 4 5 307 14
19 1 1 4 1 2 2 6 19 570 19

46
Table 4. The woreda park council members rating results of the threatening factors of biodiversity of
Borena saynt national park using Likert scale
No the severity of threatening factors of
biodiversity of the park
VH H M L VL
f % f % f % f % f %
1 susceptibility of the park for human
induced fire
12 52.2 4 17.4 3 13 2 8.7 2 8.7
2 the park local communities conflicts
due to land holding issues
9 39.1 7 30.4 4 17.4 2 8.7 1 4.3
3 illegal resource utilizations such
fire wood, and grass
7 30.4 9 39.1 4 17.4 2 8.7 1 4.3
4 the rotting of root guassa due to
poor management practices
9 39.1 5 21.7 5 21.7 2 8.7
5 grazing of livestock inside the park 8 34.8 6 26.1 6 26.1 2 8.7 1 4.3
6 encroachment by settlement 6 26.1 8 34.8 4 17.4 2 8.7 1 4.3
7 illegal agricultural land expansion
inside and around the park
10 43.5 5 21.7 3 13 3 13 2 8.7
8 economical problems of the
community as they are prohibited
to extract guassa
4 17.4 7 30.4 5 21.7 4 17.4 3 13
9 crop damage by wild animals 2 8.7 5 21.7 2 8.7 3 13 11 47.8
10 predation of domestic animals by
leopard
2 8.7 2 8.7 5 21.7 5 21.7 8 34.8
11 auto-invasion of some of the
ecosystem by some other native
species
3 13 3 13 2 8.7 5 21.7 10 43.5
12 accumulation complaints due to
measures taken on illegal festuca
users
2 8.7 9 39.1 7 30.4 5 30.4
13 prohibition of entrance of honey
bee hives and construction of seat
of hives inside the park
1 4.3 3 13 3 13 6 26.1 10 43.5
14 the compliant of the local
community due to lack of access of
guassa for various local uses
1 4.3 3 13 4 17.4 8 34.8 7 30.4
15 existence of so many roads across
the park that creates difficulty of
patrolling
3 13 8 34.8 2 8.7 7 30.4 3 13
16 negative effect of the highly grown
guassa on Ethiopian wolf
2 8.7 1 4.3 5 21.7 7 30.4 8 34.8
17 poor attention given by adjacent
woreda administrators to solve the
problems and to protect the
biodiversity
4 17.4 7 30.4 5 21.7 6 26.1 1 4.3
18 deforestation of old aged trees and
cultivation of the communal land
around the park
5 21.7 3 13 2 8.7 5 21.7 8 34.8
19 illegal hunting - 3 13 2 8.7 6 26.1 12 52.2

47
Table 5. The ranks give by woreda park council members on threatening factors affecting the biodiversity of the
park
s/n Possible threatening factors total
value
No.Res Average rank
1 susceptibility of the park for human induced fire 89 23 3.869565 3
2 the park local communities conflicts due to land
holding issues
56 23
2.434783
1
3 illegal resource utilizations such fire wood, and grass 82 23 3.565217 2
4 the rotting of root guassa due to poor management
practices
112 23
4.869565
5
5 grazing of livestock inside the park 113 23 4.913043 6
6 encroachment by settlement 122 23 5.304348 7
7 illegal agricultural land expansion inside and around
the park
90 23
3.913043
4
8 economical problems of the community as they are
prohibited to extract guassa
261 23
11.34783
15
9 crop damage by wild animals 241 23 10.47826 14
10 predation of domestic animals by leopard 261 23 11.34783 15
11 auto-invasion of some of the ecosystem by some other
native species
296 23
12.86957
17
12 accumulation complaints due to measures taken on
illegal festuca users
177 23
7.695652
13
13 prohibition of entrance of honey bee hives and
construction of seat of hives inside the park
335 23
14.56522
18
14 the compliant of the local community due to lack of
access of guassa for various local uses
153 23
6.652174
10
15 existence of so many roads across the park that creates
difficulty of patrolling
132 23
5.73913
8
16 negative effect of the highly grown guassa on Ethiopian
wolf
140 23
6.086957
9
17 poor attention given by adjacent woreda administrators
to solve the problems and to protect the biodiversity
171 23
7.434783
12
18 deforestation of old aged trees and cultivation of the
communal land around the park
156 23
6.782609
11
19 illegal hunting 345 23 15 19

48
Table 6. The ranks give by woreda park council members on threatening factors affecting the biodiversity of the
park
T Frequency of threats total
value
Re-
rank1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1 6 4 8 2 1 2 89 3
2 12 7 1 1 1 1 56 1
3 7 6 5 3 2 82 2
4 7 5 4 2 1 1 3 112 5
5 2 6 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 113 6
6 8 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 122 7
7 7 3 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 90 4
8 1 2 4 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 5 261 15
9 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 5 241 14
10 1 2 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 6 3 261 15
11 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 296 17
12 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 177 13
13 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 3 5 335 18
14 2 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 153 10
15 2 2 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 132 8
16 4 5 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 140 9
17 1 4 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 171 12
18 1 1 5 3 5 2 1 1 2 3 1 156 11
19 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 5 5 345 19

Borena saynt national park biodiversity threat

Borena saynt national park biodiversity threat

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Borena saynt national park biodiversity threat

Similar to Borena saynt national park biodiversity threat (20)

Borena saynt national park biodiversity threat