Degradation status, threats, and protection

measure in awash national park

Table of content
 summary
introduction

literature reviewINTRODUCTION

The natural ecosystems are being endangered due to human associated factors; the razing of forests is
depleting the world’s oxygen supply and potentially invaluable resources. Acid rain is spoiling the air and
many of those trees left. Wetlands are being drained, eliminating breed in grounds for millions of birds
and spawning groundsfor fish; valuable species of plant and animal are being threatened with extinction.
Simple humangreed is destroying virtually overnight a natural wealth which has taken millennia to amass
(IUCN/UNEP/WWF,1991).Ethiopia has potential areas (like Awash National Park) for biodiversity
conservation and environment integrity. However, these areas are facing a range of problems, which
threatens the survival, and continuity of its biodiversity resources of the country (Arega, 2005).Owing to
the rigorous human interference from agriculture, settlements, fuel wood and the construction of various
infrastructures the Awash National Park (ANP) natural resources base degradation is continuing. These
state of affairs resulted in a number of adverse impacts to the park management and its biodiversity.
Therefore, as ecosystem management is solidly dependent on local biological account and context,the
study will have a paramount importance to determine appropriate management practices and could be
used as baseline information for the protection of plant and wild mammals’ species diversity.

Awash National Park (ANP) is located 225 km away from Addis Ababa and situated between latitudes 8050' and
9010' north and longitudes 39045' and 40010' east (EMA, 1992). The park takes its name from the Awash River,
which marks the park’s southern boundary. The ANP was established in 1966 (Tessema et al., 2011). It was
gazzated by proclamation No. 54/1969 as a strict conservation area in which all forms of human land use are
prohibited (Moore, 1982). Its altitude ranges from 705 to 2007 m a. s .l.. Awash National Park is one of the most
geologically active regions of the world (Birdlife International, 2008). Awash National Park is characterized by
semi-arid climate or Qolla Zone and bimodal rainfall with the annual rainfall ranging between 400 and 700 mm.
Out of the nine vegetation types of Ethiopia, the vegetation type of ANP is classified under Acacia-Commiphora
woodland (Sebsebe and Friis, 2009) in the Somali-Masai Regional Center of endemism (White, 1983). Grassland,
savanna, and shrubland dominate the park (Birdlife International, 2008).More than 81 species of mammals, 453
species of birds (6 of them endemic) have been recorded from the park. ANP is home to one critically endangered
and endemic mammal, Swayne’s Hartebeest (Alcellaphus biselaphus swaynei) and five vulnerable species (Lesser
horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus hiposiderose minimus; Trident leaf-nosed bat, Asellia patrizii; Spot-necked otter,Lutra
macuricollis; lion, Panthera leo and Soemmering’s gazelle, Gazelle soemmerringi). Several species of reptiles and
amphibians and unknown number of invertebrate species are found in the park. The major water sources in and
around ANP include Awash River with major tributaries including the Kesem and Kebena Rivers; Lake Beseka; and
the Hot Springs at the northern tip of the ANP. Consequently, the park remains one of the high potential tourist
areas in the central Rift Valley of Ethiopia, because of its proximity to Addis and road access for tourists. The
diverse culture of people, the abundance of wildlife and plant resources, scenic value and the existence of
archeological sites, have made the area an appealing tourist attraction (Jacobs and Schloeder, 1993). Human
activities around ANP include pastoralism, crop agriculture and harvesting natural resources. Pastoralists living
around ANP belong to the Afar and the Oromo Nations. The pastoralists in the north and northeast of ANP
represent the Afar Nation. Kereyu and Ittu pastoralists occupy the western and southern parts of the park, and
belong to the Oromo Nation. The Park is currently facing major threats because of the growing strain between
contradictory forces: biodiversity conservation and the livelihood needs of the local communities. Policy
unfairness was identified as the main threatening cause of the park resources pre-1995, its impact was
insignificant post-1995. The impact of expansion of private and state farms was also reported to be high post-1995
(Solomon et al., 2012). Thus, the expansion of state and private farm in Afar and Kereyu-Ittu settlements reduced
their rangeland resources and forced them to invade the park’s possession.The expansion of the nearby
freshwater body, Lake Beseka, is one of the reasons for recent settlement expansion in the park as well as to the
loss of grazing land for the Kereyu communities. The lake’s surface area expanded from 11.1 km2 in 1973 to 39.5
km2 in 2002 (Gulilat, 2000). The other critical challenges facing ANP is the cutting of forests for charcoal, and the
expansion of invasive plant species (Prosopis and Parthenium). Thus, the general objective of this review paper
was to see the degradation status,thrats, and protection measures in the Awash National Park. Specifically land
use/land cover changes, causes of degradation, loss of wildlife resources, protection measures and its challenges
were reviewed. Fig. 1 Location map of Awash National Park (Source: Solomon et al., 2014)

ATTRACTIONS OF THE PARK

Awash National Park is one of the few national Parks in the country with extraordinary biodiversity.
ANP’s exceptional resource values consist of habitats, fauna, flora, scenic landscape and tourism and
culture of the Kereyu, Itu and Afar communities. The park is Ethiopia’s largest protected Beisa oryx
population. Mammals that contribute to the Park’s uniqueness include Beisa oryx (Oryx beisa), Defassa
waterbuck (Kobus ellipsyprimnus defassa), Salt’s dikdik (Madoqua saltiana), Hamadryas baboon (Papio
hamadryas), Leopard (Panthera pardus), Ardwolf (Proteles cristata), and Bat-eared fox (Otocyon
megalotis) (Awash National Park Newsletter, 2009). Awash National Park is the second most important
Critical Bird Area in Ethiopia and the richest conservation area in its bird diversity, with more than 450
species. The Awash ecosystem’s diverse habitats and the various services provided include: the
endangered African lion; unique landscape scenery, including Fentale Crater, Ilala Sala plains, Hot spring
area, Awash Falls and the gorge; Hamadryas and Anubis baboons and the hybridization between the two
populations; endangered, endemic and migratory bird species; unique botanical features, including Doum
palm and riverine forests; Ilala Sala grasslands, and unique geological features including Filwuha hot
springs (EWCA, 2011). The other uniqueness of the park include: It is a buffer area between different
ethnic groups; the nearest national park to the capital city; the oldest educational museum and the lodges
inside; the diverse and unique ethnic/cultural features including the Seats for Gada system in Oromo and
the Belaadas in Afar; an ideal place of a training site for ornithologists, primatologists, and archaeologists;
and vital watering

Awash Falls
The southern border of the Park is the Awash River, the lifeline for the many parts of Oromia and Afar Regions. The River is
about 1,200 km long and joins Lake Abe on the Djibouti border in the north-east. The Falls at the lodge are high and wide at
the head of the impressive Awash Gorge. Visitors have an excellent view from the lookout near the waterfall into the gorge. The
falls have been described as a "scaled-down version of Victoria Falls". They are certainly one of the natural wonders of Ethiopia.

The Awash ecosystem’s diverse habitats and

the various services provided include: the
endangered African lion; unique
landscape scenery, including Fentale Crater, Ilala Sala plains, Hot spring area, Awash Falls and the gorge;
Hamadryas and Anubis baboons and the hybridization between the two populations; endangered, endemic and
migratory bird species; unique botanical features, including Doum palm and riverine forests; Ilala Sala grasslands,
and unique geological features including Filwuha hot springs (EWCA, 2011). The other uniqueness of the park
include: It is a buffer area between different ethnic groups; the nearest national park to the capital city; the oldest
educational museum and the lodges inside; the diverse and unique ethnic/cultural features including the Seats for
Gada system in Oromo and the Belaadas in Afar; an ideal place of a training site for ornithologists, primatologists,
and archaeologists; and vital watering points for livestock including Hakaki and the hot springs (Sintayehu etal.,
2012).
STATUS OF DEGRADATION IN AWASH NATIONAL PARK
At present, more than two thirds of the Park is either permanently or temporarily used for non-conservation
related activities ranging from permanent settlement to extensive grazing. The park’s resources are severely
degraded due to poor relations between park management and the neighboring communities and to the latter
having minimal
understanding about the economic values of the wildlife resource. Poor management capacities of the park,
inadequate enforcement of legislation, and minimal collaboration among stakeholders have further hindered the
sector from achieving its mandate to conserve. The competition between livestock and ANP’s grazers and
browsers has led to
range and food loss. Owing to the rigorous human interference from agriculture, settlements, fuel wood and the
construction of various infrastructures the Awash National Park’s natural resources base degradation is continuing.
Tourists visiting the Park are persistently disappointing by the absence of large animals and the crowds of livestock
that
they see (Solomon, 2014).
Land use/land cover change
Land Use Land Cover (LULC) has a direct relationship with productivity of the land and biological diversity in
protected areas (Geist, 2002). As a result, monitoring its dynamics and impact, and identifying root causes of its
change are critical to environmental sustainability efforts (Tekle, and Hedlund, 2000). The consequence of those
LULC changes can only be observed in a longer period (Getachew et al., 2007). Recent study in Awash National
Park by Solomon et al (2014) indicates, over the three decades (since 1972), trends of LULC changed at different
rates of conversion in all cover types. Scattered bush land was drastically reduced by 38.5% between 1972 and
1986 and by 29.4% during 2014.
Grassland was the largest cover type in area between 1986 and 2006 and expanded by 14.2% between 1972 and
1986 as well as by 10.5% in 2014 because of conversion of scattered bush land. Controlled burning within the
boundary of
ANP for the purpose of enhancing grass quality and reducing shrub and bush encroachment contributed to the
expansion of grassland between 1993 and 1997 (Jacobs and Schroeder, 1997). Farmland expanded during the
entire period. The current Ethiopian government has encouraged pastoralists to engage in agro-pastoral activities.
Overall high farmland expansion characterized most parts of the country during the past 15 years including the
nearby areas of the park. It was common to see land without vegetation cover particularly at the top of Mt
Fentale, and this bare land expanded by 4.9% during the entire three decades (Solomon et al., 2012).
Loss of Diversity of Large Wild Mammals
The number and richness of the wild mammals is greatly reduced. Wild animals like, Grevy's Zebra, Bush buck,
Leopard, Cheetah, Ostrich, Giraffe, Grey duiker, and Swayne's hartebeest are totally absent. Extensive habitat
destruction for settlement, fuel wood, charcoal making, and agriculture are also factors, which have aggravated
for the
deteriorating of the wild fauna in ANP (Abule et al., 2005).The pastoralists shoot large carnivores on the
supposition that the carnivores are a hazard to their livestock. In addition to this, extensive habitat destruction for
settlement, fuel wood, charcoal making and agriculture are also factors which have forced the declining of the
wild fauna in ANP. As shown in Table1 above, the IUCN Red list of threatened species confirms that most of the
ANP’s wild mammal species diversity is in danger of extinction. Ethiopia’s busiest high way as well rail way which
runs from Addis to Dire, Djibouti, kicks the heart of the park in east west direction. The presence of succulent
herbs on the sides of the high way attracts the wild animals to feed in that area and specifically during the night it
is not uncommon to see wild animals being hit by a car accident, another spate unfortunate agent for the
devastation of wild animals (Abule et al., 2005).Human interference in the park is ruining the wild mammal
resource base of the park. The density of the wild mammal in the park is under question as it was very difficult to
have a look at a wild mammal in all areas with the exception of Oryx, the only commonly observed wild animal in
the park. Poaching of wild life by the local Kereyu, Ittu and Afar, the massive number of livestock present in the
park augmented by seasonal migration which competes with the meager available feed and the Addis-Dire
highway will take the predominant role for the decline of the wild mammal resource base of Awash National Park
(ANP). Because of the decline in herbivore animals, predation on the current little amount of wild animals by
carnivores is becoming a serious contributing factor for the diminishing of wild mammals (Eyasu, 2008).

CAUSES OF DEGRADATION
Population Growth
As stated by Fesseha (2011), Population growth is seen as the main causes of land use/land cover change pre- and
post-decentralization (pre-1995 and post-1995). Specific population pressure particularly the immigration of the
Ittu
people towards Fentale district has caused increased competition over resources and contributed to the observed
LULC
changes in the park. The immigration of Ittu to the Kereyu’s locality was to avoid persecution by other
communities.
However, in addition to the Afar and Kereyu communities, these people are encroaching to the park for better
resource demand for their herds (Jacobs and Schroeder, 1997).Based on Ethiopian national population and
housing survey (CSA, 1994; CSA, 2007) in 1984, 1994 and 2007, the total population of the Afar and the Kereyou-
Ittu people has increased rapidly by 65%. Over the same period, the population on the Kereyou-Ittu side increased
by 71% (CSA, 2007). This population increase is thus, considered as the main causes for LULC changes.

Government policy
The most important drivers of the observed LULC changes pre-1995 were the combined effects of the land reform
policy and changes in park boundary followed by climatic changes such as drought. Other factors were the
expansion of both government and private farms and civil war. The expansion of irrigation around the ANP is seen
as having an indirect
effect on the park in addition to its contribution to the land use and land cove changes in the park surroundings.
For instance, Metahara sugar plantation denied water access to the Kereyou-Ittu and their livestock and that
forced them to move into the ANP in search of watering site. A similar expansion of irrigated and rain fed
agriculture in Afar and Oromo
communities around the ANP have been implicated to be the causes for the conversion of different land cover
types into farmland (Getachew et al., 2007).Changes in the boundary of the park is identified as the driving force
post-1995. The need for amendment to the current boundary to avoid ambiguity, inaccuracy and to make it easily
recognizable by local
communities seems feasible. The problems related to livestock production in pastoralists’ locality forced them to
engage in non-pastoralist activities such as irrigation and rainfed agriculture, which incased the demand for new
LULC types, i.e. the park.As stated by Solomon (2014), pastoralists and agro-pastoralists pointed out that major
events and
consequences of the observed LULC changes in terms of their incidence period during the imperial (before 1974),
the “Derg” regime (from 1975 to 1991) and the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPDRF) from
1991 to the present. Imperial regime made an attempt to negotiate on some issues with them before the
establishment of the
ANP. Then the Kereyu requested the pushing back of the Ittu to the surrounding of Harar town as a pre-condition
for the establishment of the park. However, after the establishment of the park, the Kereyu, who believed to be
indigenous owners of the area, presented their complaints to the Emperor about the unfulfilled promises made to
them. The immigration of the Ittue towards land owned by Kereyu and the removal of the Kereyou
withoutcomparable
compensation was an unfortunate decision which led to the development of a more negative attitude towards the
value of ANP from the beginning. However, the communities did not forget the good steps the Emperor took in
providing 250 km2 of land to the Kereyu as compensation. Permanently uncultivated and unsettled land during
the Emperor was
considered state property. The changes in land ownership from the Kereyu to the Ittu and conversion of their
pastureland for sugar cane plantation became a cause for an increased demand for pastureland and water points
in and surrounding the park.The time between 1972 and 1986 was recognized as a hard time for the communities.
Activities such as boundary demarcation of the ANP without the knowledge of the local communities and park
resources protection by force were unpleasant for the communities. Moreover, the 1975/76drought was a cause
for an unforgettable devastation both on the community and the park. The drought forced that park
administrators to be tolerant: they gave permission to pastoralists to have access to grazing land, settlement and
borehole inside the ANP. The prolonged civil war in the country during the Derg regime was also categorized as
one reason for the government’s neglect of community-based solutions. The dramatic loss of larger mammal
populations due to poaching of wildlife by the Argobba and government soldiers was reported during the Derg
regime. The 1975 land reform policy did not set any
genuine steps to ensure land-holding rights of pastoralists.The current government (EPDRF) has a better
understanding of the pastoralists’ production system and is engaged in better economic and infrastructure
development activities locally. However, the expansion of large scale commercial farming did not take into
consideration about the conservation of park resources. Expansion of state and private farms has aggravated the
scarcity of grazing land for pastoralists. Infrastructure development, mainly access roads and railway, has negative
effect on wild animal populations in the park. The current government encourages settlements and agro-pastoral
activities, which unfortunately in turn create a higher demand for firewood, charcoal and house construction in
and around the park. Current land tenure policy is unable to resolve land tenure insecurities and related land use
challenges of pastoralists.

Public Services;-

Due to the presence of public facilities, various villages are settling permanently inside the park. For example
Gudina Tumsa foundation, a non-government organization, has constructed various public service facilities
(schools, clinic, millhouse, store house, water works, etc) inside the western part of the park which as a result lets
the Kereyus to lead a
settled way of life. Due to this fact other institutions like mosques are appearing and electric light facilities are
lined for the inhabitants inside the park. In general it is possible to witness as this part of the park is under the
development intervention programs which are changing the park in to an urban area. Currently, a Village (Kebele)
Administration
called Legebenti came in to being at the south western tip of the park which is well acknowledged and established
by the government and the area is being changed to a farm land and the construction of schools and other
facilities is underway (Mulugeta et al., 2008).In addition to this, around Sabure Camp site, the state sugarcane
farm is expanding its territory at the north eastern edge of the park and is currently cultivating the lands of the
park. Irrigation project works are also crossing the park’s territory which needs a special attention if the park is not
to die due to various agents. The other destructive agent of the vegetation of the park is the huge hydropower
lines (to Dire Dawa, Djibouti, etc) which are
constructed with a minimum of 14 meters diagonal destruction/clearance of the vegetation. In addition to this the
lines have adversely reduced the scenic value of the park (Solomon, 2014). It is well known that the power supply
may have a paramount importance for the development of the country; however, it is another sad reality that the
role of the park is

still rated too low, yet the ecological and financial return is healthier than other forms of land use.
THE INVASION OF PROSOPIS JULIFLORA AS THE MAIN CAUSE OF DEGRADATION AND ITS IMPACT ON LIVELIHOOD
Exotic plant species have been introduced deliberately and/or accidentally to countries for various reasons. Some
of such species have been proved to be helpful in their new places with regard to their economic importance,
biodiversity aspect, ecological merit, or a
combination of those factors. On the other hand there are a lot of exotic plant species which are found harmful
after their introduction in different ways. For example: (a) by interfering with rural livelihoods activities; (b)
impeding land use systems; and (c) incurring extra costs
of management to their „new home‟ due to the fact that they invade a large amount of land within a short period
of time. Such plant species, in most cases, are declared to be invasive alien species (IAS) in their new locality.

PROTECTION MEASURES
Protection Efforts of stakeholders Awash National Park is one of two national parks in Ethiopia that are under the
management of the Ethiopian Wildlife and Conservation Organization (EWCO) at the national level (the other one
is Semien Mountain National Park). All other protected areas are under the regional governments. Shockingly two
thirds of the 750 km2 demarcated area as the Awash National Park is inhabited and utilized by local people with
no protection or management interventions from EWCO. The only area actively managed by EWCO is the so-called
“core area” of around 250km2 where there is no resident population. Within this core area significant wildlife
populations remain, although declining, and the pasture remains in relatively good condition. In the rangelands
outside this core area pasture is highly degraded and there are no significant populations of the larger wild
animals apart from around Filwuha springs (Jacobs and Schloeder, 1997).
EWCO started the Awash Conservation and Development Project (ACDP) for the sustainable management of
natural resources in and around the Park. The initial phase of ACDP covered the period from January 1995 to June
1996. During this pilot phase, planning, start up and research activities will be carried out to pave the way for the
subsequent implementation phases. Activities accomplished include: staff recruitment and training, baseline
surveys, an ethnoveterinary survey, and operational studies on water development, range management and
fodder development. Community institutions will be also established to link the project with the community. This
18 month pilot phase led to the development of a proposal for a 3 year project, phase I, which started in July 1996
and was concluded in December 1999 after a 6 month extension. The goal of this project was “to enhance
household livelihood security within the Kereyu, Ittu and Afar communities while at the same time safeguarding
the future of Awash National Park by strengthening the conservation capacity of the park and improving relations
between the park and the neighboring pastoral communities”. However, it is not effective due to lack of
coordination among stakeholders and the like (Phil et al., 2003).There were seven conservation areas planned to
serve as corridors of wild animals which may come in and going out of the boundary of the Park. These include
Yangudirasa national Park, Awash West and Alledeghi wildlife reserves located north, northeast and west of the
Park. They were established as buffer zones for the Park primarily for
the protection of wild animals as well as grazing and cattle ranching areas of the local communities (Jacobs and
Schloeder, 1993). Awash West, Afdem- Gewane and Erer-Gota controlled Hunting areas are found north of the
Park extended into Afar triangle. In these areas all human activities including settlement as well as licensed
hunting of certain
species are allowed. Currently, all these conservation areas are not functional because of the newly established
settlements and associated high demand for grazing and farmland (Solomon et al., 2012).CARE’s involvement in
natural resource management in the Awash valley started in 1993 with a situation analysis organized by CARE UK
and the International Institute of Environment and Development which made an in-depth analysis of the
relationship between natural resource management and the livelihoods of pastoralists living in and around Awash
National Park. In the end this did not work out, and CARE UK handed the initiative to CARE Norway for funding by
NORAD. It lost its direction in the late ‘90s,
none of the objectives was done, and the project has been left struggling with lack of consistent and effective
support from EWCO’s weak management systems (Solomon et al., 2012). Thereafter there were three
organizations working in collaboration with EWCA to assist ANP. These were the Sustainable Development of the
Protected Area System of
Ethiopia (SDPASE), Wildlife for Sustainable Development (WSD) and the Save Awash National Park (SANP) project.
The Sustainable Development of the Protected Area System of Ethiopia (SDPASE) was financially supported by the
Global Environment Fund (GEF)/United Nations Development Program (UNDP). It was also financially supported
by the Ethiopian Government and other co-financers including Frankfurt Zoological Society, African Parks
Foundation, Conservation International, Farm Africa/SOS Sahel and others. The Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation
Authority (EWCA) was charged by the Ethiopian government and UNDP to implement this project. SDPASE had
two phases of 4 years each. Stage One was started in 2004 and concerned with the capacity building of EWCA and
other relevant bodies from the regions. It was implemented in collaboration with GTZ-IS and the second phase
was implemented by EWCA. The project has started its task in 2008 and completed in 2012 without effective
achievements (Solomon, 2014).In August 2011 a national conference on the protection of the park was held.
Institutions of the Working Group for Rescuing Awash National Park were established and given recognitions for
collaborative protection and related tasks. These working group include: Awash Fentale Wereda Culture & Tourism
Office, Awash National Park (ANP), Awash National Park Baboon Project, Population, Health and Environment
Ethiopia Consortium, East Shewa Zone Culture & Tourism Department, Ethiopian Sustainable Tourism Alliance
(ESTA), Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA) ,
Ethiopian Wildlife & Natural History Society (EWNHS), Sustainable Development of the Protected Areas System of
Ethiopia (SDPASE), W ildlife Conservation & Environmental, Development Association (WildCODE), and Wildlife for
Sustainable Development (WSD) (EWCA, 2011). Fruitful achievement of all these stakeholders is still inadequate.
While there are no simple solutions to many of the park’s problems, there is good cause for hope. The Ethiopian
Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA) recently upgraded several key new positions in ANP. These include
specialists in tourism, biology and the community, and 15 new scouts. Two-thirds of these new scouts are local
Afar and Kereyu, which is great news as it demonstrates EWCA’s commitment to engage with the local community
(Solomon, 2014).
MAJOR CHALLENGES TO EFFECTIVE PROTECTION
Lack of Ownership/Clear Boundary Delimitation There are very different perceptions of the boundaries of the
park. EWCO maintains that the park is defined by the boundary markers put in place in 1969. Kereyu and Afar
communities on the other hand only recognize the core area as the legitimate park and in fact only that part of
the core area that lies south of the main highway. Within this core area they accept a legitimate national interest
and recognize the authority of EWCO. Outside of this core area they consider that traditional rights prevail. On
several occasions attempts by EWCO to assert their authority over this wider area have been challenged and
EWCO has had to back down. Although EWCO still has staff stationed in this wider area, these park staff make little
attempt to control resource use in the area. (Tessema et al., 2007). This made protection and management effort
of the park very unclear and difficult. Lack of coordination In August 2011 a national conference on the protection
of the park, the main problem mentioned was lack of effective coordination and consultation among all
stakeholders. Particularly EWCA criticized for its failure to accomplish its responsibility to ensure conservation and
development of natural resources in the Park and integrate concerned stakeholders in the decision making
process. Luck of trained man power about how to manage a national Park was mentioned as one of the
bottlenecks of weak management ability of the EWCA. Furthermore the problem of coordination was reported
sever at regional and district level than the federal level (Solomon, 2014). On the contrary, this is quite different
from the experience of Semien Mountain National Park, in which an increasing effort of government officials at
regional level played a pivotal role to improve the state of the Park through developing positive attitude in the
community towards the Park (Hurni et al., 2008).The Park has failed to protect the continuous decline of both
faunal and floral communities even after the removal of human inhabitants out of the area, which caused
subsequent conflicts among pastoralists in the area (Eyasu, 2008). The vast majority of community living on the
Afar side has a positive attitude towards the Park than people in Oromia side. The Afars generally participate more
in the conservation and have a sense of ownership towards the Park than people in latter (Solomon, 2014). Hence
low conservation interest and lack of
ownership in the Oromia community could be also related to high resource competition between Kereyu and Ittu,
limited awareness and an overall negative attitude towards Park authorities. The attitudinal difference between
the two communities might be due to the misconception about the significance of the Park.

Awash national park has potential areas for biodiversity conservation and environment integrity.
However, this area is facing a range of problems(that means, a total area and number of biodiversity) are
highly reduced, and also threatens the survival, and continuity of its biodiversity resources of the park due
to human interference from agriculture, settlements, fuel wood (charcoal) and the construction of various
infrastructures the Awash National Park (ANP) natural resources base degradation is continuing. These
state of affairs resulted in a number of adverse impacts to the park management and its biodiversity.
Therefore, as ecosystem management is solidly dependent on local biological account and context, the
study will have a paramount importance to determine appropriate management practices and could be
used as baseline information for the protection of plant and wild mammals’ species diversity.
Objective

general objective
TO INVESTIGATE THE DEGRADATION STATUS,THREATS, AND PROTECTION
MEASURES IN AWASH NATIONAL PARK.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
1.To asses degradation status.
2.To identify the anthropogenic effects.
3.To describe the threats of the park.
4.To examine what needs to be done to ensure the sustainable
development of the park.

Material and methods;-

Description of the Study Area;-

The study area, Awash National Park is in Africa’sGreat Rift Valley,located at

90020’NLatitudeand40020’ELongitude(Figure1).Thepark is 95 km east
of Nazareth and 225Kmeast of Addis Ababa.With its southern boundary along the AwashRiver,
the park covers 756 square kilometres withelevations range between 750and2007 meters
above sea level. The Addis Ababa–Diredawa-Djibouti highway passes throughthis park,separating the
Illala Salla plains to the south fromthe Kudu valley to the north. Awash’s ecosystem provides habitats for
the world’s largest populationof endemic birds and other wild life.The park was established in 1966 and
gazetted in1969 (Negarit Gazzetta,1969;IBC,2007).The annual rainfall ranges between 319.8-
898.5 mm with mean annual rainfall of 620.4 mm and the annual mean maximum and minimum
temperature is 32.5 and 19.2oC, respectively.

Data collection procedure;-

Key information selection will be based on the information from park management . A check list of open
ended questions and observation related with whether awash national park affected by anthropogenic
activities or not,benefit obtained, community resource use requirements from park, involvement in park
activities, status of human wind life conflicts, and the current conservation status as well as future fate of
the park will be raised during the key information interview. To obtain this study primary and secondary
data was used as a source of data A total of three information interview from park manager will be
included during study.
Large Wild Mammals Species Diversity Trend Analysis In order to asses the current status/trend of the
large wild mammals species diversity in the park; in all the transect walks; all the encountered wild
mammal species will be intensively recorded. For the collection of data a mix of techniques; physical
observation, foot print, fecal droppings and sound identification will be used. The total transect widths
will be fixed to be 60m; 20 m direct observation for each of the data collectors. In addition to this, a road
side data collection will be also deployed. All the motorable roads of the park will be inspected for five
different times from 5:00 am until the rise of the sun. These timings will be preferred for they are the
usual hours in which the large wild nocturnal mammals appear from their address to hunt their food as
well as in search of water.