MADDA WALABU UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL AND RANGE SCIENCE

ROLE OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE IN RANGELAND MANAGEMENT: IMPLICATION

FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND RANGELAND REHABILTATION, THE CASE
OF DHAS DISTRICT BORENA ZONE, SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA

MSc. THESIS

BY: HUSSEIN ALIYO

BALE-ROBE, ETHIOPIA

JUNE, 2020

I
 ROLE OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE IN RANGELAND MANAGEMENT: IMPLICATIONS
FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND RANGELAND REHABILTATION, THE CASE OF
DHAS DISTRICT BORENA ZONE, SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA

BY
HUSSEIN ALIYO

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL AND RANGE

SCIENCE

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND

NATURAL RESOURCES

MADDA WALABU UNIVERSITY

BALE-ROBE, ETHIOPIA

A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN RANGE ECOLOGY AND BIODIVERSITY.

MAJOR ADVISOR: Dr. HABTAMU TEKA (PhD.)

CO-ADVISOR: Dr. SAMUEL TUFFA (PhD.)

JUNE, 2020

II
ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Frist thanks to the Allah, for his forgiveness and gift of treasure. Then I would like to express thanks and
special gratitude to m y major advisor Dr. Habtamu Teka president of MWU for his professional
guidance and endless support.

Also, I wish to express my sincere thanks to my co-Advisor Dr. Samuel Tuffa, the previous coordinator
of Yabello pastoral and dry land Agriculture Research center and now the coordinator of the Oromia
research bureau, for his valuable comments, support, Professional guidance and patience well from the
beginning of title selection, proposal writing to the completion of the Thesis manuscript. Without their
help, the success of this work would have not been achieved.

I would like to express my thankfulness to Oromia regional government, for their e n c o u r a g e m e n t and
financial support not only during the thesis writing but also throughout the a c a d e m i c career. Special
thanks also go to Pastoralists community in the study area who were sources of data, for their time and
valuable information. Also for those district administrators, the district pastoral development office
leaders and experts for their unforgettable support. I am very much thankful staff of Animal and range
science for their support and all my friends, particularly Abdi Mohamed, Arero Galma, Jarso Sora,
kanchora Guyo and Kelo Isak for their unforgettable support on technical guidance of the Software, field
data collection, information sharing, their persistent encouragement and moral support.

Last not least my especial thanks going to my Family particularly my brother Ibrahim Aliyo. I want
them to know that I respect and always keep in my memory their boundless and invaluable support
beyond a simple thank you.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL SHEET………………………………………………………………………………….II

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................................................... iii

STATEMENTS OF AUTHORS/DECLARATION........................................................................... VII

ABBREVATIONS ............................................................................................................................... VIII

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. IX

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................X

LIST OF APPENDECISES ................................................................................................................... XI

ABISTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... XII

CHAPTER ONE ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT....................................................................................................................... 3
1.3. OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1. General Objective ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Specific Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS........................................................................................................................ 4
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................. 4

CHAPTER TWO ...................................................................................................................................... 5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 5

2.1. DEFINITION AND CONCEPTS OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE ............................................................... 5

2.2. INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE, BORANA PASTORALIST AND RANGELAND MANAGEMENT ....................... 6
2.3 ROLE OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE IN RANGELAND MANAGEMENT ................................................... 6
2.4 RANGELAND CONDITION, IK OF RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND HINDERING FACTORS . 7
2.4.1 Customary institutions for rangeland management .................................................................... 7
2.4.2 Utilization of Herd Splitting ....................................................................................................... 8
2.4.3 Traditional enclosure (Reserved grazing areas, Kalo)................................................................ 9
2.4.4 Hay Making Practice to Fodder Shortage................................................................................. 10
2.4.5 Practicing Prescribed Fire (Controlled fire) ............................................................................. 10
2.4.6 Indigenous knowledge Practices for Rangeland evaluation ..................................................... 11
iv
 2.5 MAJOR CONSTRAINTS FOR INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE-BASED RANGE MANAGEMENT........................ 11
2.5.1 Weakness of Indigenous Range Resource Management System ............................................. 12
2.5.2 Problem of Indigenous knowledge transfer .............................................................................. 12
2.5.3 Over exploitation and Conflict ............................................................................................... 13
2.5.4 Farmland Expansion ................................................................................................................. 13
2.6 CONSEQUENCES FOR WEAKNESS OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE ....................................................... 14
2.6.1 Rangeland degradation and Biodiversity loss .......................................................................... 14
2.7 CONCEPT OF IK IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND RANGELAND REHABILITATION ................ 14
2.7.1 Concept and contribution of IK systems in biodiversity conservation ..................................... 14
2.7.2 Concept and contribution of Indigenous knowledge in Rangeland Rehabilitation .................. 15
2.8 BIODIVERSITY IN ETHIOPIAN SITUATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF BIODIVERSITY AT LOCAL LEVEL 15
2.8.1 Biodiversity of outside protected area and in protected area (Enclosure) ................................ 15
2.9. IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND RANGELAND REHABILITATIONS ................. 16
2.9.1 Species diversity, richness, evenness and similarity ................................................................ 17
2.10 IMPORTANCE AND CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATING TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE WITH SCIENTIFIC ... 18

CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................................ 19

3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 19

3.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA .................................................................................................. 19

3.2 DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 21
3.2.1 Selection of respondents for a questionnaire survey ................................................................ 21
3.2.2 Site Selection and Sampling procedures .................................................................................. 22
3.2.3 Sampling design ....................................................................................................................... 22
3.2.4 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) ............................................................................................... 25
3.2.5 Source of data ........................................................................................................................... 27
3.2.6 Preliminary survey.................................................................................................................... 27
3.2.7 Data collection and Analysis .................................................................................................... 27

CHAPTER FOUR................................................................................................................................... 30

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 30

4.1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFORMATION OF RESPONDENTS ......................................................................... 30

4.1.1. Gender Distribution of Respondents ....................................................................................... 30
4.1.2. Age of Respondents ................................................................................................................. 31
4.1.3 Production system and Main source of income ...................................................................... 31

v
 4.1.4 Rangeland Condition ................................................................................................................ 33
4.1.5 Cause and Consequences of rangeland degradation ................................................................. 35
4.1.6 Indigenous knowledge in Rangeland management .................................................................. 36
4.1.7 Contribution of Indigenous knowledge in rangeland Management ......................................... 37
4.1.8 Indigenous knowledge practices of rangeland management and their Status .......................... 41
4.1.9 The Major Indigenous knowledge practices and Their Description in the study area ............. 41
4.1.10 Preview condition of IK of rangeland management practices and Major Factors Affecting the
practices ............................................................................................................................................. 49
4.1.11 Weakness of indigenous knowledge practices and method of strengthening ........................ 55
4.2 COMMUNITY PERCEPTION AND CONTRIBUTION OF IK IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND
RANGELAND REHABILITATION ............................................................................................................... 57
4.2.1 Community perception and Contribution of IK in biodiversity Conservation ......................... 58
4.2.2 Community perception and Contributions of indigenous knowledge in rangeland rehabilitation
........................................................................................................................................................... 62
4.3 COMMUNITY PERCEPTION TOWARD DIFFERENT LAND USE TYPES .................................................... 64
4.3.1 Community Perception toward Private enclosure .................................................................... 64
4.3.2 Community Perception toward cultivated land ........................................................................ 65
4.3.3 Community Perception toward Communal enclosure and Communal Grazing ...................... 65
4.4 INTERVENTIONS OF RANGELAND MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ..................... 66
4.4.1 Rangeland management Intervention practices ........................................................................ 67
4.5 PREFERENCE RANKING OF SUSTAINABLE INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE PRACTICES ............................... 69
4.6 IMPLICATION OF INDIGENOUS LAND USE PRACTICES FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND
RANGELAND REHABILITATION ............................................................................................................... 74
4.6.1 Result for Implication Measurements from Vegetation Data Collection ................................. 75
4.6.2 Implication results of Sorenson’s similarity index of paired land use types ............................ 81
4.6.3 General result of implications of four selected land Use types in Rangeland .......................... 82
4.6.4 Integrating indigenous and scientific knowledge in the future................................................. 83

CHAPTER FIVE .................................................................................................................................... 84

5. CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATION ................................................................................. 84
5.1 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 84
5.2 RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................................................................... 85
6. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................... 87
7. APPENDICIES ................................................................................................................................... 99

vi
vii
 ABBREVATIONS

CIFA Community Initiative and Facilitation Assistance

ANOVA Analysis of Variance
CS A Central Statistical Authority
DA Development Agent
DRM Disaster Risk Management
EPA Environmental Protection Authority (Ethiopia)
EPRDF Ethiopian people’s revolutionary democratic front
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GPS Global Positioning Systems
GTZ German Technical cooperation
HH Household
IEK Indigenous Environmental Knowledge
IGAD Intergovernmental Authority On Development
IK Indigenous Knowledge
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
LK Local Knowledge
LT Land use Type
m.a.s.l Meter above sea level
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NMA National Meteorological Association
PA Peasant Association
PDO Pastoral Development office
PRIME Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement through Market Expansion
PSNP Productive Safety Net Program
SAS Statistical Analysis System
SORDU Southern Rangelands Development Unit
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
Vs Versus

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Total numbers of HH of selected PAs and their respective sample size in relation to total HH
proportion. ................................................................................................................................................. 23
Table 2: Shows the FGD participants ....................................................................................................... 26
Table 3: Production systems and main source of income revealed by the respondents in the study
districts ...................................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 4: illustrate Indigenous knowledge in Rangeland management ..................................................... 36
Table 5 : Preview condition of IK of rangeland management practices ................................................... 49
Table 6: Weakness IK practices and method of strengthening ................................................................. 55
Table 7: Community perception and Contribution toward biodiversity conservation and Rangeland
Rehabilitation ............................................................................................................................................ 57
Table 8: Intervention of Rangeland management and Biodiversity conservation .................................... 66
Table 9: Preference ranking of sustainable indigenous knowledge practices (N=341) ............................ 70
Table 10: Summary of Major IK practices, contribution in Biodiversity conservation and RL
rehabilitation and Factors hindering the Practices .................................................................................... 71
Table 11: Summary of biodiversity implications measurement values in selected land use types. ......... 77
Table 12: Summary of biodiversity implications measurement values in selected land use types. ......... 81
Table 13: The Sorenson’s index of similarity of the land use types ......................................................... 82

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2: Map of study area ...................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 3: Sampling Frame work For Study ............................................................................................. 24
Figure 4 : Blocks design containing designs (Contain land use types and designed plots) ...................... 25
Figure 5: FGD conducted in the study district .......................................................................................... 26
Figure 6: percentage of respondent in gender distribution ....................................................................... 30
Figure 7: Age group of respondent ........................................................................................................... 31
Figure 8: Respondents response on Preview of rangeland condition ....................................................... 34
Figure 9: Frame work describe Consequences of Rangeland degradation ............................................... 35
Figure 10: Indigenous knowledge of rangeland management in study district ........................................ 41
Figure 11: Medicinal, incense and gum plant which communities gave emphasis from knowledge base
even at time of bush thinning. ................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 12: Distribution of Acacia Tortolis as conserved, even around the Homeland in Teso-kalo PAs 61
Figure 13: Wildlife Conserved By communities at time of severe drought in the study area. ................. 62
Figure 14: Communal enclosure for different Purpose in Dhas District .................................................. 63
Figure 15: Rangeland Rehabilitated through Traditional communal enclosure and hay making profit
obtained from the area by the technical support. ...................................................................................... 69
Figure 16: At time of recording the existing plant spp.in different land use type .................................... 74
Figure 17: Some of locally threatened plant Species Cenchrus ciliaris (Mat-guddesa), which present in
communal enclosure. ................................................................................................................................ 76
Figure 18: Communal grazing Area invaded by less palatable and undesirable plant species called
Indigofera volkensii (Gurbii Hoola) which highly affect grass species. ................................................... 77
Figure 19: Variation in adjacent land use types (Communal enclosure and Communal grazing) ........... 78
Figure 20: Highly degraded grazing land and rehabilitated rangeland using an enclosure ...................... 79
Figure 21: Due to scarcity of rainfall the lands dig out for cultivation, which left over without
included in either rangeland use or cultivated land. ................................................................................. 80

x
 LIST OF APPENDECISES

Appendix 1- Questionnaires for data collection ....................................................................................... 99

Appendix 2: Checklist /Points of Discussion for Focus Group (FGD) .................................................. 101
Appendix 3: Format of Vegetation data collection (VEGETATION ASSESMENT) ........................... 102
Appendix 4: Socio-economic information of respondents ..................................................................... 103
Appendix 5: Overall encountered plant spp.in four selected land use types and Sorenson’s similarity test
................................................................................................................................................................. 104
Appendix 6: Total number of individual of all plant species (N) and number of plant species(S) recorded
block per land use types from Communal Enclosure and Communal Grazing. ..................................... 107
Appendix 7: SAS Analysis, Output for comparison of Total number of individual of all plant species (N)
and number of plant species(S) recorded block per land use types from Communal Enclosure and
Communal Grazing. ................................................................................................................................ 108
Appendix 8:Total number of individual of all plant species (N) and number of plant species(S) ......... 112
Appendix 9: SAS Analysis, Output for comparison of Total number of individual of all plant species (N)
and number of plant species(S) recorded block per land use types from Private enclosure and cultivated
land. ......................................................................................................................................................... 113

xi
 ABISTRACT

This study was attempted to assess the role of indigenous knowledge in rangeland management with
implication for biodiversity conservation and rangeland rehabilitation in Dhas district of Borana Zone.
For the study both household (HH) and field vegetation data were collected. For HH survey, Samples
of 341 respondents were selected for interview and Three FGDs were used as a supplement of the
interview. The vegetation field survey was investigated in four selected land use types that are adjacent
to each other using systematic sampling, which composed of plots 30×30m for trees, 10×10m for
shrubs, and 1×1m for Forbs and overall herbaceous plant growth forms which designed within 15
blocks. The collected data was analyzed using SPSS and SAS software, descriptive statistics, Shannon
wiener diversity index and Sorenson’s coefficient of similarity test formula. The study result indicated
significant (P< 0.05) variations between selected land use types for the overall plant spp. Means, both
enclosures types have high plant diversity, including highly desirable/productive grass spp. Such as
Cymbogon commutates (Alchiso),Cenchrus ciliaris (Mat-gudesa),Digitaria naghellensis (Ilmogori) and
the value of the Shannon wiener index, Evenness and richness were higher in enclosed areas. So, the
enclosure types, particularly communal enclosure which well appreciated by the communities approved
the positive implications. It was concluded the great role of IK and especially communal enclosures
practice had contributed to increased plant diversity. Therefore, this study recommended strengthens
of IK and Promoting the wise expansion of communal enclosure as a viable strategy for biodiversity
conservation and rehabilitation of rangelands.

Key Words: Biodiversity conservation, Indigenous knowledge, Rangeland Management, Rehabilitation

III
 CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Rangeland is a type of land found predominantly in arid and semi-arid regions that are managed as
natural ecosystem supporting indigenous vegetation, predominately grasses, grass-like plants, forbs,
or shrubs (Kris et al., 2007). Rangeland resources and their biodiversity have a high importance for
the worldwide ecosystem in offering the rural poor manifold ecosystem services for the support of
livelihood. (Hussein et al., 2012)

Rangelands of Ethiopia consist of mainly native pastures (grass, legumes, forbs and woody plant
species); they are main feed sources of grazers and browsers (Dalle et al., 2006). It covers about
62% of total land area (78 million hectares) of Ethiopia, and most of them are found at an altitude
below 1500m of elevation and generally classified as arid and semi-arid environments (Alemayehu,
1998; Dawit, 2000). Among Ethiopian Ethnic groups Oromo people, particularly, Borana
pastoralists have high potential of rangeland with well-structured customary system of range
management (Dalle et al., 2005). They use their indigenous knowledge to categorize landscapes not
only in terms of seasons of use, but also in terms of grazing capacity (Oba and Kotile, 2001).

The indigenous knowledge of Borana Pastoralist which used for sustainable resource management is
acquired through observations over centuries and practical exercises in their ecosystem. However,
different factors including external interferences originally planned and implemented to bring
development and to improve the living conditions of the pastoralists have disturbed this knowledge
base, weakened its applications and consequently contributed to rangeland degradation (Gemedo,
2004).

Similarly, Kamara et al., (2004) reported that, national policies and development interventions in the
Borana area have resulted in conflicts of authority between customary and formal systems,
contributing to rangeland degradation and low animal productivity.

1
Land degradation is a major threat to biodiversity and loss of biodiversity has serious economic and
social costs for any country. While following the path of development Ethiopia has been sensitive to
the needs of conservation. So, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is fundamental to
ecologically sustainable development. Different authors used an approach which considers
indigenous knowledge as useful to the successful implementation of any development and in this
context, rangeland management intervention. Horak (2005) pointed out that, indigenous knowledge
is the basis for local-level decision-making from health care to natural resource management; also it
provides problem solving strategies for communities, when it is community-driven rather than
individual and can contribute significantly to development when leveraged with other knowledge
resources. Indigenous knowledge (IK) of pastoralists on the use and management of their plant
resources is a valuable source of information for conservation and sustainable utilization of the plant
biodiversity and hence, conservation based on indigenous knowledge is recommended mostly if used
with caution. Not only, the combining this knowledge with scientific knowledge also provides a
more complete understanding of environment from the perspective of utilizing the resources (Ayana
and Gufu,2008).Although indigenous knowledge can fill crucial gaps in our ecological
understanding, but indigenous people often ignore that their knowledge is being used by scientists.
They often lose control over the information they share and have no power over how that knowledge
is interpreted and used (Stevenson, 1996).

So, in order to Know the Condition of IK and try to solve the problems with IK of rangeland
management it is vital to know : 1) the contribution of IK in rangeland management and also its
implication for biodiversity conservation and rangeland rehabilitation, 2) IK practices, factors
affecting IK practice and consequence of weakening of indigenous knowledge, 3) community
understanding on biodiversity and how they were conserving biodiversity using IK, in order to seek
sustainable use of IK for rangeland management practices by considering responses to biodiversity
conservation and rangeland rehabilitation in Dhas district and to put recommendation for all stake
holders to integrate their IK with scientific for sustainable rangeland management.

Generally, this research work attempts to explore the role of IK in rangeland management and how it
contributes to Biodiversity conservation and rangeland rehabilitation to recommend the more
sustainable and appreciable IK practices which are in use in today rangeland management strategies.

2
1.2. Problem Statement
Previously, the Borana Pastoralist of Dhas district has high in rangeland potential called Dheeda
Wayama (wayama grazing unit) which contains different native plant species including unique grass
spp. called Cymbogon Commutatus (Alchiso) with well appreciable IK of rangeland management.
Conversely, today the rangeland potential was declined from time to time and this might be due to
less functioning of IK in rangeland management and the effectiveness of the Practices might be
eroded. But, as the Dhas district having high potential of the rangeland, center of Indigenous
communities and cultural base there is no research work undertaken so far and as well, some of the
recent study conducted by Tadesse (2015) and Godana (2016) in Borana pastoralist of other lowland
district in relation to rangeland also relies on questionnaires survey only and the issue of
investigating contribution of IK in rangeland with the angle of biodiversity conservation is not well
addressed. Since, the current ongoing world problem is biodiversity loss and in past human histories
the reduction or loss of biodiversity combined with land degradation has the potential to threaten the
prosperity of local and global civilizations (World Resource Institute, 1988) and Reports of the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) indicated that biodiversit y changes due to human
actions were more rapid in the past 50 years than at any time in human history.

Not only, but also the study that have been conducted were also highly appreciated the contribution
of IK and underestimated challenges in face IK practices. Since, today the communities of the
district were in tension and worried about the current trends in regards to their livelihood practices.
Because of their appreciable IK which has been developed and passed on over thousands of
generations were changed. Particularly, Young generations neglect or underestimate the existing IK.
So, there was study gap which result in inadequate data on natural resources base for planning better
management in the district. Turner et al., (2000) showed that, in the efforts to restore degraded land
and conserve biodiversity, it is important to respect, recognize and apply IK of pastoralists with their
full participation and collaboration. Not only the district, Gemedo (2004) and Amaha (2006) also
stated that in most parts of Ethiopia the IK of pastoralists is not adequately documented. So, the
objective is needed to fill these gaps through: a) to identify and ranked the current appropriate IK
practices for sustainable rangeland management with the emphasis of biodiversity. b) To open the
door of the study to the district . c) Finally, the finding of study would help the well documentation
of IK.

3
1.3. Objectives

1.3.1. General Objective

 The main objective of this study was to assess the contribution of IK in rangeland management,
with its implication for biodiversity conservation and rangeland rehabilitation.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

 To assess the contributions of IK in rangeland management

 To investigate IK of rangeland management practices, and factors affecting IK in rangeland
management and its consequences
 To evaluate the perceptions of Dhas pastoralist on biodiversity
 To understand the current management and its implications for biodiversity conservation and
rangeland rehabilitation in different land use type through assessing plants species diversity,
richness, evenness and similarity

1.4 Research questions

The following research questions were emanated from the above objective:
1. What are the contributions of IK in current rangeland management?
2. What are factors affecting Indigenous knowledge in rangeland management?
3. What are the Dhas pastoralists’ perceptions on biodiversity conservation?
4. What are the impacts of current rangeland management on plants species diversity, richness,
evenness and Similarity?

1.5 Significance of the study

This study aims at providing valuable information on the role of IK in rangeland management,
factors affecting IK of rangeland management practices, local community perceptions towards
biodiversity conservation and different land use practices, response of IK practice in Biodiversity
conservation and rangeland rehabilitation to seek more sustainable practices of IK for current
management problems in the rangelands. The findings of the study would help all stake holders to
undertake appropriate measures on rangeland management activities for biodiversity conservation
and rangeland rehabilitation through the integration of community IK and scientific knowledge for
sustainable rangeland management.

4
 CHAPTER TWO

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Definition and Concepts of Indigenous Knowledge

The term Indigenous Knowledge (IK) is used interchangeably with Traditional Ecological
Knowledge (TEK), Local Knowledge (LK) and Indigenous Environmental Knowledge (IEK) may
be defined in various ways. According to (Verlinden and Dayot, 2005) IK is the “accumulated
knowledge, skills and technology of local people derived from their direct interaction with the
environment”. While Bicker et al., (2004) defined it as “the local knowledge that is unique to a given
culture or society and is often focused on people’s relationship with the natural world”.

Traditional knowledge (cultural knowledge or community knowledge) refers to the complete bodies
of knowledge, how practices are maintained and developed by peoples with long histories of close
interaction with the natural environment. According to Martin (1995) in describing traditional
knowledge, the sets of understandings, interpretations and connotations are part of a cultural
composite which includes language, naming and classification systems, ways of using resources,
spirituality, rituals and a worldview. It is transferred from generation to generation orally and is
rarely documented.

Traditional knowledge is causal to science in many fields relevant to natural resource management
(Nakashima and Rou´e, 2002). In particular, it is helping scientists to understand issues of
biodiversity and rangeland management. Scientists are often adapting indigenous knowledge and
using it again in projects of development collaboration and other modern contexts. Therefore, it can
be regarded as traditional knowledge and contemporary science can be seen as two schemes of
knowledge that harmonize each other.

Due to fast changes in the system of life (such as countryside to city way of life) ; little knowledge
on the importance of indigenous knowledge, lack of written documentation, disruption or poor
communication channel (only through oral custom), cultural amalgamation, vanishing of indigenous
practices and etc. transmission of the knowledge or indigenous information has been threatened and
exacerbated by lack of purpose and interest of the young generation in learning and applying
indigenous knowledge. Similar to trends in other parts of Africa, particularly, the pastoralists of

5
different study confirmed that Ethiopia are experiencing considerable erosion of their traditional
lifestyle from time to time and Thus there is the need to integrate these indigenous knowledge base
concepts to government policy for any conservation.

2.2. Indigenous knowledge, Borana Pastoralist and Rangeland management

Borana pastoralists are the indigenous people of southern, southeastern Ethiopia and northern Kenya.
Turner et al., (2000) described indigenous people as peoples who have resided in a particular locality
for a long period of time, depending on the resources of their homelands. The Borana pastoralists
have been living in the region since before the thirteenth century (Oba and Kotile, 2001). These
pastoralists are one branch of the Oromo ethnic group in Ethiopia. They are most popular for
managing to maintain the democratic administration of Oromos, called the ‘Gada System’. Borana
pastoralists hold many diverse and complex systems of indigenous ecological knowledge (IEK),
which is the cumulative result of practical test over the centuries. Previous studies showed that
Borana pastoralists categorize landscapes or rangeland not only in terms of season of use, but also in
terms of grazing capacity and their IEK has been reported to be superior to the approaches used by
modern ecologists for planning grazing management (Oba and Kotile, 2001). This indigenous
knowledge for sustainable resource management is acquired through observations over centuries and
practical exercises in their ecosystem. However, different factors like external interferences,
originally planned and implemented to bring development and to improve the living conditions of
the pastoralists, have disturbed this knowledge base, weakened its applications and consequently,
contributed to rangeland degradation (Gemedo, 2004).

Similarly, Kamara et al., (2004) reported that national policies and development interventions in the
Borana area have resulted in conflicts of authority between customary and formal systems,
contributing to rangeland degradation and low animal productivity.

2.3 Role of Indigenous knowledge in Rangeland management

As Kris et al., (2007) Stated, rangeland is a type of land found predominantly in arid and semi-arid
regions that are managed as natural ecosystem supporting indigenous vegetation, predominately
grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs. Rangeland resources and their biodiversity have a high

6
importance for the worldwide ecosystem in offering the rural poor manifold ecosystem and services
for the support of livelihood (Hussein et al., 2012).
The Previous studies (Feye 2007; Mohammed 2004, Angassa et al., 2012; Sulieman and Ahmed
2013) have also shown that communities’ knowledge has a role to play in the advancement of
scientific research and attainment of sustainable development goals. Different authors have used an
approach which considers indigenous knowledge as useful to the successful implementation of any
development and in this context, rangeland management intervention. This thinking follows the
proposition of Horak (2005) pointed out, indigenous knowledge is the basis for local-level decision-
making from health care to natural resource management, that it provides problem solving strategies
for communities, that it is community-driven rather than individual and is contributing significantly
to development when, leveraged with other knowledge.

2.4 Rangeland condition, IK of Rangeland Management practices and hindering Factors

Borana pastoralists have long established customary range resources management systems in
Ethiopia. Pastoralists’ perception and observations made towards rangeland condition in the present
study support earlier results (Bekele and Kebede, 2014; Mohammed 2004, 2010; Feye and Abule,
2007; Tsegaye, 2010) suggests a gradual decline in rangeland condition. Additionally, Rangelands
that are used by pastoralists for many generations successively are now partly fragmented and
degraded (Flintan et al., 2011). Causes of this downgrading are due to population growth,
mismanagement and increased privatization for grazing and cultivation. Under this section the
indigenous-knowledge based rangeland management practices by which Borana pastoralists manage
their rangeland and factors affecting Indigenous knowledge practices are discussed as follows.

2.4.1 Customary institutions for rangeland management

As the previous study conducted by Godana (2016) indicated that, Borana has a unique system
(customary institution) of managing natural resources in general and rangeland and water resources
in particular. Indigenous institutions include local cultural form of organizations, for instance locally
elected, appointed, or hereditary leaders and elders, customary rules and regulations relating to
access to resources, indigenous practices and knowledge.

Broadly speaking, the Borana customary institutions have been categorized into two forms: micro
and macro institutions. Both could be further divided into many branches. Each of them has a

7
responsibility for natural resource management and other societal issues at various levels.
Management of any resource has to start at the lower level in accordance of Borana law. Micro level
institutions for the management of rangeland are Warra, Ollaa, Ardaa, Reera, Madda and Dheeda.
Again appointed and elected individuals in the community like Jaarsa dheeda, abbaa herregaa and
Jaarsa madda and the Macro level institutions was Gada system institutions which play a very
important role in Borana pastoralist and many things are primarily maintained by the Gada
institution. Generally, both Micro and Macro level institutions have their own roles and rules of
managing natural resources in general, range and water resources in particular. Currently Godana
reported that the interesting system of rangeland management (IK) has been facing a serious threat
from many sides. From time to time and the smooth functioning of IK on the rangeland management
has been weakening.

2.4.2 Utilization of Herd Splitting

Utilization of natural resources in arid lands requires herd mobility and tracking strategies. This
could create a balance by way of adjusting the stock size to the available livestock fodder and it is by
considering this condition that various development interventions were undertaken (Bahnke and
Scoones, 1993). Here Tadesse argued that development interventions were made to facilitate herd
mobility. Contrary to this argument, the World Bank reported that livestock mobility is restricted by
the development interventions in pastoral areas (World Bank, 2005).

Flexible natural resource use strategies and stratified herd management used by Borana pastoralists
has matched the livestock with available pasture and water resources during times of scarcity
(Watson, 2003 and Homann et al., 2007).

Oba (1996) stated that, Borana pastoralists divide their herd into two groups known as loon warraa
(haawwicha) and loon fooraa. The strategy of dividing up a livestock herd has some important labor,
security and ecological implications. Currently, herd splitting practice is affected by several factors
mentioned as follows:-

x Labor availability: Oba (1996) pointed out; labor for herding and watering is a major
constraint of each pastoral family through the time.
x Pasture and water availability:-According to Oba (1998) before moving their livestock the
herders send a scout, known as abuuru to assess the current grazing pressure and
8
 accessibility to water for both human and livestock for ensuring the availability of grass and
water. The practice to delegate scouts to other areas to collect information about climate,
forage and water availability, disease outbreaks and a warship, has become rare from time to
time.
x Security issues: Security of the area is a decisive factor to be taken into consideration while
practicing grazing pattern. Oba (1996) in his study in Kenya stated that, the occurrence of
insecurity exacerbated by the spread of fire arms has restricted access to several grazing areas
in Western Marsabit and also Abdulahi (2005) stated, The pastoralists’ way of life, which
was based on mobility, was seriously affected by the boundaries set by the colonial states and
border dispute

2.4.3 Traditional enclosure (Reserved grazing areas, Kalo)

Godana (2016) reported that, the use of traditional range enclosures locally known as kalo is widely
practiced in their area for dry season grazing and Traditional range enclosures can be used as a
method for rangeland restoration where rangelands are often heavily grazed to allow the herbaceous
vegetation diversity. The prime purpose for the kalo to be designated is in order to reserve grasses
for dry season grazing. The management of kalo (enclosure) in the study area is by Jaarsa dheeda
(elder of grazing) of that reera. It was managed according the customary institution. Each member
of the village and reera has the responsibility for the management of the enclosure. If there is the
misuse of enclosure the issues has first to be resolved at the village level by elders of the villages. If
the issue has to be focused in-depth, Jaarsa dheeda has to make decision.

The Napier and Desta (2011) stated, in their reviewed paper on types of enclosure in Borana
pastoralist reported out communal enclosures are organized on the basis of a community or group of
communities called Community-initiated kalo are owned and managed by groups of ollas (villages),
but the decision to enclose, the enclosure location and size and the use of the enclosure is
traditionally decided by the Reera council. Since the number and size of ollas are expanding, one
large olla may now have its own kalo. Additionally, the practice of private enclosure has grown
whereby individuals fence a large area, purportedly for crop cultivation, but then plant crops on a
small part of the land and keep the rest as pasture for rent or for hay production and sale. This type
of enclosure is expanding all over the Borana lowland. Most of these ‘farmlands’ are located in the
flat valley bottoms, taking the most productive and fertile land from the common range. The
9
development of private enclosures is linked to the expansion of crop land, the commercialization of
livestock production and a weakening the power of the customary institutions.

Generally, in development of enclosures in Borana first fenced kalo are approved by the Gumi Gayo
in parts of the Gonde/Guji area, based on the experience of the Guji as the Borana first Jirmo Dida
establishes the kalo in Dida Hara at his olla during Gada Goba Bule (1968-1976). Then, during
Gada Jilo Aga (1977-1985) PA-based ‘communal enclosures’ expanded. Currently Private
enclosures and large scale enclosures have emerged alongside. the continuing expansion of semi-
private or communal enclosures facilitated by NGOs and government.

2.4.4 Hay Making Practice to Fodder Shortage

Hay making is the indigenous practice of feeding animals on the fodder cut and collected for later
use. It is one of the important adaptation strategies of coping with a shortage of fodder. Borana
pastoralists cut and store the grass near their respective house at the turn of the rainy season or in the
early period of the dry season. Luseno et al., (1998) argued that the traditional feeding practice of
cutting grass and feeding the animal is very laborious task and highly inefficient, with regard to time
management. The grass is cut from various sites such as kalo (reserved forage bank), fringe of farm
land and area that animals have no access to because of uneven topography and/or dense and thorny
thicket concentration.

2.4.5 Practicing Prescribed Fire (Controlled fire)

In Borana controlled burning was practiced for many years ago. Before banning of burning, they
control the expansion of the bushes by burning. Also helps to stimulate the growth of new grass
shoots, and destroys unpalatable dried and very mature grasses and undesired bushes. The grasses
that grow following controlled burning are very palatable for livestock to graze and usually called
Guba (pastures grown after burning) in local naming. However, the continuity of this traditional
indigenous range management system was disturbed by implementation of the law that prevented
rangeland burning. Since 1970 the Dergue regime banned the burning of rangeland. This time is
during Gadaa of Gobba Bule (1968 – 1976). This period is perceived to have promoted the rapid
expansion of bush encroachment. Since then, unpalatable grass, herb, shrub, bush species got the

10
chance to grow. Most of them are not palatable for most livestock and they suppressed palatable
grass species and began to dominate.

2.4.6 Indigenous knowledge Practices for Rangeland evaluation

The lack of accessible pastures renders the evaluation of rangeland condition scores (finna)
superfluous. Finna is a complex indigenous score for evaluation of the actual rangeland conditions.
It is situation specific because it integrates aspects like water quality, disease prevalence and
livestock specific grazing preferences. The expertise in leading the cattle to pastures of good forage
value was formerly based on continuously updated information and evaluation of alternative grazing
areas by commonly appointed range scouts (aburro). Chiissa is also an indicator which refers only to
the abiotic properties of an area. Gabinna reflects the criteria for the rangeland evaluation, the
behavior, products and productivity of livestock.
Interviewed of Dureti Wario, Borana elder from Web, pers. Comm. (2001) stated “Formerly we
understood the environment by collecting information from many channels. Then, we checked the
local grazing conditions by sending a scout (aburru). The whole encampment (olla) came together to
decide about the grazing area and the aburru to be sent. He had to be an experienced person, who
knew to evaluate the conditions of an area (finna), interpreting range conditions and animals’
behavior and health conditions and making sure that there was peace. Today we cannot follow the
good finna, because the grazing areas are restricted”.

2.5 Major constraints for indigenous knowledge-based range management

Helland (2000) in his study indicated that, Borana pastoralists were in a favorable position to
develop an efficient system of natural resource management, but in a time of transition state in
which external influences have started to shape their strategies (cited in Homann, 2005). Somewhat
the range land gets into the problem and the productivity of range land decreased from time to time.
The range condition assessment of Dalle (2004) showed that, the formerly highly productive Borana
rangelands were only fair in condition and this was confirmed by another study of Oba et al.
(2000b). The grass biodiversity was found to be very poor, with a very low proportion of excellent
forage grasses, while unpalatable grasses have expanded.

11
Coppock (1994) acknowledged that, development interventions which aimed at improved food
security have essentially caused that the rangelands are used to capacity, but did not empower the
pastoralists to manage the natural resources sustainably. The threat to IK-based range management
due to different influences leads ecological degradation of the rangelands, which directly affects
livestock production.

2.5.1 Weakness of Indigenous Range Resource Management System

Indigenous range resources management system is believed to be efficient and environmentally

sustainable in many respects. But it has some limitations or drawbacks. There are no formal and
written rules and regulations governing range resources management and utilization. The absence of
written rules sometimes makes resource management decision controversial and consequently the
process of decision making is protracted. Moreover, some influential personalities with political
and/or economic power can influence resource management decisions. For instance, if the decision
made by the whole or at least by majority affects their interest they refuse to accept it. Therefore, the
decision is delayed or left without being implemented at all. According to Kotola Godana, Cited in
Godana (2016) some individuals occupied, a very vast pasture land and monopolize it as their
private property (kalo) that others have no access to it.

2.5.2 Problem of Indigenous knowledge transfer

Several studies show that the Borana have good knowledge of range condition and range
management strategies (e.g. Oba Post et al., 2000; Angassa and Beyene 2003; Dalle et al., 2006).
The Borana classification system of range condition is not subject to scientific ecological
classification systems (Oba Post et al., 2000). However, the quality of the IK depends on the type of
knowledge. In an assessment of the knowledge of the nutritional quality of grasses the Borana scored
lower. Consequently, the declining knowledge in conservation practices would have a negative
effect on the conservation perceptions among the younger generations. Gamedo (2006) conclude
that, the younger generation of Borana had limited ecological knowledge and showed less interest to
learn and apply customary resource management strategies and the exit of youth from the pastoral
system.

12
2.5.3 Over exploitation and Conflict

Hogg (1997) reported that, population pressure from neighboring ethnic groups is the main cause for
Borana rangeland shrinkage. Borana land is surrounded by many ethnic groups such as Garri, Gujii,
Konso and Arbore. These groups gradually began to occupy Borana territory either through invasion
or through peaceful settlement. Many of these ethnic groups are pastoralists and they went into
conflict with Borana pastoralists over scarce resources mainly pasture and water. The conflict
between Borana and Garri in its earlier phase was caused by the competition over the scarce range
resources. Later on, however, the dispute is changed into the territorial claim. Resource based inter-
ethnic conflict in Borana land is intermittent but it was more intensified (Watson, 2003).

According to Boku (2000) the lost part of Borana land (eastern part) known as wayama is the area
with red soil ,scattered bush, very suitable one for Borana multi species livestock and very
productive one in terms of grass coverage and availability of valuable fodder for livestock. Not only,
Hogg (1997) also pointed out, some important permanent water points such as Goofa and Laye deep
wells complexes also became under the control of Garri and as a result Borana have been denied the
access to these water points with the adjacent grazing land.

2.5.4 Farmland Expansion

The Borana pastoralists of Southern Ethiopia have been appreciated for their superior systems of
rangeland resource use and management for a long time (Coppock 1994; Oba et al., 2000).
However, the prior communal management systems have been weakened over time. Alongside this,
there has been increasing crop cultivation in some portions of the rangelands (Boku and Oba, 2010).

Farmland is the factor that contributes to the decrease in rangeland and expansion of farm land that
takes place at the expense of grazing land. Agriculture was introduced to Borana land recently by
resettles from other areas and gradually began to expand. Borana were pure pastoralists in the past,
but later on started crop farming. Waktole and others said that traditionally the Borana considered
tilling of land as the work of evil and violation of sacred rule of land use (Anderson, 2016).

13
2.6 Consequences for Weakness of Indigenous Knowledge

Huqqa (1999) pointed out As the Borana pastoralists’ strategic choices given for the indigenous
rangeland management has lost their value. Dalle (2004) results revealed that the overall conditions
of the Bora rangelands were only fair and the trend was further downward, this was reflected by the
low scores for the botanical composition. Dalle found the rangelands to be poor in grass biodiversity
and in forage production, indicated by a restriction of pastoral mobility in current natural resource
management. They’re very low frequency and density of highly palatable forage grass species.

2.6.1 Rangeland degradation and Biodiversity loss

Habitat damage, especially the conversion of forested/Range land to agriculture (and often
subsequent abandonment as marginal land) has a long human history (Wilson, 2002).

Kamara et al., (2004) also reported that national policies and development interventions in the
Borana area have resulted in conflicts of authority between customary and formal systems,
contributing to rangeland degradation (land conversion) and low animal productivity. Land
degradation is a measure threat to biodiversity. Loss of biodiversity has serious economic and social
costs for any country. According to Fathom et al., (2012), extinction is a natural event following a
chronological perspective and routine, Species extinction represents the ultimate destination of all
species and most species that have ever lived have become extinct.

2.7 Concept of IK in Biodiversity Conservation and Rangeland Rehabilitation

2.7.1 Concept and contribution of IK systems in biodiversity conservation

An indigenous knowledge system is the basis of sustainable national development and includes the
experiences, skills and insights of the local communities applied to maintain or improve their
livelihood (Biggs, 1989; Babington et al., 1993). According to O'Brien (2010), due to their intricate
understanding of the host environment, indigenous people have made significant contributions to
global knowledge in all areas of development and disciplines such as medicine, agriculture, animal
health, meteorology and the environment, which have all had significant inputs from the knowledge
base of indigenous peoples since indigenous knowledge systems and biodiversity are complementary
phenomena essential to human development. The failure of the State in consulting local
communities, including local experts, before implementing large-scale projects intended

14
fordevelopment of the rural poor, often leads to adverse impacts on the livelihood and survival
strategies of the targeted populations (NEMA et al., 2005).

Many studies have confirmed that indigenous people are reservoirs of considerable knowledge about
rare, threatened and endangered species (Nabhan, 2000). Integrating IEK of Borana pastoralists into
projects that deal with sustainable utilization of natural resources will contribute positively to
biodiversity conservation.

2.7.2 Concept and contribution of Indigenous knowledge in Rangeland Rehabilitation

Indigenous knowledge among pastoralists plays an essential role in the sustainable rehabilitation of
rangelands (Gemedo et al., 2006, Forbes et al., 2009). For strengthening the rangelands’ natural
capacity for resilience, Previous studies have shown new types of grazing management (Fernandez-
Gimenez, 2000, Oba and Kaitira, 2006; Allsopp. et al., 2007), emphasizing that the pastoralists,
through indigenous ecological knowledge have identified plants that are meeting the particular
grazing habits of their herds in the plants’ growing seasons.

2.8 Biodiversity in Ethiopian situation and understanding of biodiversity at local level

In Ethiopia the overall biodiversity of rangelands is declining due to various factors, including land
use changes and intensification, dry land fragmentation, the introduction of invasive species and
mismanagement. Past human histories have shown that the reduction or loss of biodiversity when
combined with land degradation has the potential to threaten the prosperity of local and global
civilizations. Already, the scale of biodiversity loss caused by the present generation of human
activities ranks with the great prehistoric extinction and recovery from this level of disturbance will
require ten millions of years (World Resource Institute, 1988).

2.8.1 Biodiversity of outside protected area and in protected area (Enclosure)

2.8.1.1 Biodiversity outside protected area

One of the most significant shifts in approaches to biodiversity conservation in recent years has
resulted from the realization that the vast majority of species are entirely or partially dependent on
Non-protected areas for their survival (Halliday and Gilmour, 1995). The importance of conserving
biodiversity in the managed landscape has now been widely recognized by national conservation
agencies, intergovernmental processes (the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations

15
Forum on Forests, etc.) and especially conservation by non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Currently Borana customary practice also protected different area of rangeland for conserving
livestock fodder for the dry season and Heady (1999) observed that, rangeland rehabilitation or
improvement implies implementing change to attain a particular economic value. Even though
rehabilitated land flourishes with a diversity of woody and herbaceous species long lost in other un-
rehabilitated areas, this trend seemingly welcome by the local communities raises major questions on
the future of pastoralism and livestock husbandry in East African rangelands.

2.8.1.2 Biodiversity inside protected area (Enclosure)

Area enclosure is the most urgent need in the degraded of Borana pastoralist which is an effective,
low-cost and reliable system or measure of soil and water conservation, which will reduce soil
erosion and soil sealing. Vegetation inside the enclosures established in a completely bare degraded
area tends to follow the shrub-herbaceous plant theory of Gilad et al., (2004), where establishment of
one form of plant life synergies that of another. In Baringo (RAE, 2004; 2005) and the neighboring
district of West Pokot (Makokha et al., 1999), some locally threatened species that had
“disappeared” are reported to be present inside established enclosures.

2.8.1.3 Socio-Economic Implications of the Enclosures

A successfully regenerated enclosure becomes key resource area for the respective household or
community in a harsh environment. The social and economic consequences of the range enclosure
are varied, depending on the accessibility of the Enclosure benefits to the pastoral households, and
the environmental goods and services tapped either directly or indirectly by the society (Mureithi et
al., 2010). The households that have access to the communal enclosures on one hand are enjoying
improved livelihoods as a result of income generating activities that have enabled them to profit
from the reclaimed land (Makokha et al., 1999; Kitalyi et al., 2002; RAE, 2004).

2.9. Implications for biodiversity conservation and rangeland rehabilitations

Plant biodiversity is an important parameter of Rangeland study, since high diversity is considered to
be an indicator of good rangeland condition, sustaining high forage production, providing nutritional
improvement through mixed diets, giving greater niche differentiation, giving more mutuality or
sympatric interspecies benefits and increasing stability of vegetation and soil. Biodiversity Indicators

16
are a crucial tool for monitoring biodiversity impacts or the improvement in biodiversity
performance. Indicators share certain properties: they must be rigorous, repeatable, widely accepted
and easily understood (Balm ford et al., 2005). Indicators evaluate the pressures of human activities
that lead to changes in environmental states, causing responses (decision and actions) from the
stakeholders aimed at reaching a more sustainable state. Some of the parameters used to measure
Biodiversity implications are:

2.9.1 Species diversity, richness, evenness and similarity

The report of plant community involves the study of species diversity, evenness and similarity. The
variety and equitability of species in a given plant community is used to interpret the relative
variations between and within the community and help to explain the underlying reasons for such a
difference. The concept of species diversity involves two relatively distinct notions: species richness
and evenness. Species richness refers to the total number of species in a community, whereas
evenness is the relative abundance of species within the sample or community (Kent and Coker,
1992). Diversity is, thus, measured by recording the number of species and their relative abundances.
The two components may be examined separately or combined with some form of an index like the
Shannon diversity index. Prototypes of plant species diversity have often been noted for prioritizing
conservation activities because they reflect the underlying ecological processes that are important for
management (Lovett et al., 2000).

Among many of species diversity indices, diversity and evenness are often calculated using Shannon
diversity index, which naturally varies between 1.5 and 3.5 and rarely exceeds 4.5 (Kent and Coker,
1992). It is the most widely used indices that combine species richness with evenness.

 Species diversity

Some studies refer to species richness and species diversity as one while others treat them differently
(Adams, 2010). While richness conveys an idea of a bounty of nature, diversity is about the different
types of species in the bounty. According to Adams, species diversity combines abundance of
species (richness), with a measure of how they are distributed.

17
  Species richness

The simplest and most frequently used measure of biological diversity is species richness, (Brown,
2007) Stated that species richness is used as a measure of diversity within a single ecological
community, habitat or micro-habitat. Greater species richness means more stability and
sustainability of an ecosystem, according to Miller and Spool man (2010).

 Species Evenness

Species evenness is one of the indicators of biodiversity, it refers to how close in numbers of each
species in an environment and mathematically it is defined as diversity index, a measure of
biodiversity which quantifies how equal the community is numerically.

2.10 Importance and Challenges of integrating traditional knowledge with Scientific

Sustainable and integrated rangeland management practices are some options for improvement from
current degradation to rehabilitation of rangeland resources to its potential. Many studies have
insisted on the necessity of integrating indigenous knowledge and scientific information in order to
lead to management that is “in tune with ecosystem dynamics” (Olsson and Folke, 2001; ITTO,
2002; Rist et al., 2010). However, there are challenges associated with integrating scientific and
indigenous knowledge systems. The issue is not only the role of indigenous knowledge in decision
making, but also the role of the indigenous people who are the bearer of indigenous knowledge
(O’Flaherty, Davidson Hunt and Manseau, 2008). Additionally, the potential contribution of
indigenous knowledge to environmental sciences is increasingly recognized. but, some scientists are
still reluctant to use TEK (Houde, 2007).

18
 CHAPTER THREE

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Description of the study area

The study was c o n d u c t e d in the Dhas district of Borana zone, Southern Ethiopia. The town of the
district called Borbor is located at about 730 km s o u t h f r o m t h e capital city, Addis Ababa and 171
Km from Yabello town. the district is one of the 13 districts found in Borana zone in the south
eastern Ethiopia, and it is located bordered with Arero district in the north, Guchi in the southeast,
Wachile district in the east ,Miyo district in the west, Dire district in north west and again Dubluki
district in north. The district has seven PAs, namely, Borbor, Teso-kalo, Gayo, Gorile, Dhas, Raro
and Mat-arba with total population of 69,856 (33,042 and 36,814) males and females respectively
(pastoral Development Office of Dhas district, 2017).

The mean annual temperature ranges from 18 to 25°C with slight seasonal variation depending on
the location of different meteorological stations. The topography of Dhas district includes a
mountain range, scattered volcanic cones, craters and gently undulating and flat plains. The
altitudinal range varies from 1,100 to 1,450 meters above sea level (m. a. s. l); the district receives a
bimodal rainfall distribution. That is Ganna (the main rainy season, from March to May) and
Hagayya (small rainy season, from September to November) are the two important rainy seasons,
more than half of the rainfall is received in Ganna. The rainfall pattern is characterized as erratic,
unpredictable, unreliable and receives the total annual rainfall ranging from 400 to 700mm (Dhas
district Climate change office base data, 2018).

Borana is a land of extensive type of livestock production system, i.e., pastoralism, characterized by
seasonal movement, herd diversification and overstocking tendency. The justification of which are
optimum utilization of the scarce spatiotemporally heterogeneous rangeland resources (pasture,
browse, and water). Livelihood is largely dependent on livestock and livestock products. About 96%
of this Borana pastoral community food is either directly or indirectly obtained from livestock and
livestock products. The major sources of income for the Dhas pastoral communities are also
livestock and livestock products, crop production, gum and incense production, wage etc. the

19
contribution of livestock reaches as high as 90 percent in the annual income of the rich, medium and
the poor in the Dhas community ( Gamtessa et al., 2005).

The traditional pastoral system in Dhas district is based on wet season grazing with cattle drinking
from ponds and dry season grazing close to deep wells (Ellas). The longer animals stayed on wet
season the better would be the range, because this would help in conserving dry season forage and
delay use of the wells, which in turn conserves ground water. However, the proliferation of water
points as a result of inappropriate development interventions in the past exacerbated heavy grazing
in dry season grazing areas disturbing the customary range management of the pastoralists (Dhas
District Disaster and Risk Management office report, 2018).

Due to its potential land characteristics Dheeda Wayama (Wayama grazing unit) sometimes the
district was called Mata Wayama district. The land is covered with scattered short bush, red soil that
dominates the majority of the eastern part of Borana rangeland and it contain many permanent water
points called “Tula”. According to Boku (2000) however, currently the eastern part of Borana land
known as wayyaama is lost.

Additionally, this is the area with red soil and scattered bush, which was very suitable for Borana
multi species livestock. Previously rangeland of this district was highly productive in terms of grass
coverage, including unique grass called Cymbogon Commutatus (Alchiso) and availability of
valuable fodder for livestock in addition to pasture land with permanent water. Nowadays, some
important permanent water points such as Goofa and Laye deep well complexes became under the
control of Garri and as a result, Borana have been denied the access to these watering points with
the adjacent grazing land (Hogg, 1997).

Finally, this district has several historical places like kalicha Borbor, Dawiti Borbor, Arda Gose,
Gara kanjibo and etc. which were used as cultural diversity area. The pan-Borana assembly, Gumi
Gayo, which has been forwarding different decisions on social and rangeland issues, has also been
held in this district every eight years (District cultural and tourism Bureau, 2013)

20
 Figure 1 : Map of study area
Source: Arc GIS

3.2 Data Collection Methodology

3.2.1 Selection of respondents for a questionnaire survey

This investigation requires the collection of data by interviewing on the contribution of indigenous
knowledge to rangeland management as well as its implications for biodiversity conservation and
rangeland rehabilitation, which was based on the past and current situation of indigenous knowledge
in rangeland management; this approach would help to understand implication for biodiversity
conservation and rangeland rehabilitation. Semi-structured questionnaire was used to interview local
communities and Focus group discussion (FGD) with the Elders/ gada leaders, PA leaders, Dheeda
committee, DA, youth and women. The selection of respondents was considering the gender balance
(males and females) and communities practicing crop cultivation, not practicing crop cultivation
(Pure pastoralist) was interviewed. The questionnaire was prepared by English and then translated
into the native language, “Afan Oromo” (Appendix 1).

21
3.2.2 Site Selection and Sampling procedures

This study was conducted for two consecutive (Ganna and Hagayya) rainy seasons at the mid of
rainy season for easily identification of vegetation. The Four types of land uses in two categories,
namely, 1) communal grazing vs. communal enclosure (traditional kalo) and 2) cultivated land vs.
private enclosure (kalo) were selected .The study site (PAs) were selected due to the presence of
these four land use type, which should be within the same agro-ecology of having altitudinal range
varies from 1,275 to 1,420 m. a. s. l ,the same vegetation characteristics and soil types (red or
Wayama) to lessen confusing factors, so that the variation can be considered due to only
management for changes in biodiversity/plant diversity. Prior to the field layout and sampling
techniques, Preliminary survey was conducted to assess present situation within the study area. In
order to establish Blocks, the area of interest was clearly identified, and 15 blocks which contain
pairs of land use types (communal enclosure vs. communal grazing, private enclosure (kalo) vs.
cultivated land) was designed, again within each land use types a numbers of plots were designed to
record the existing plant in each land use types with block as follow and the recorded plant result
pair block was in (Appendix 6).

3.2.3 Sampling design

For this study, three P A s from Dhas district that represents the overall condition of the district were
selected by expert recommendation and PA leaders of that area using purposive sampling method.
The sample size was proportionally allocated to each PA to draw the sample households. Hence,
sample households were selected from each PAs b y stratified random s a m p l i n g method. The
sample size for total household of selected site was determined using the following formula
(Yamane, 1967).

𝐍
n=
𝟏+𝐍�𝐞𝟐 �

Where: n = The Sample Size which determined

N = Population size of the selected 3PAs =2305
1 = Constant
E = indicates an error that can be tolerated (Which means it may take the value of 5% (0.05).

22
Accordingly, there were about 2305 households in 3 PAs (Dhas, Gayo, Teso-kalo) of Dhas district
(Dhas PDO, 2018).

Therefore, using the above formula

𝟐𝟑𝟎𝟓
n= =3 4 1
𝟏+𝟐𝟑𝟎𝟓�𝟎.𝟎𝟓 𝟐 �

So, the total sample size (n) were 341 households for this study and the sample sizes of the three
selected PAs were calculated in relation to population proportion as indicated below (Table 1).

Table 1: Total numbers of HH of selected PAs and their respective sample size in relation to total
HH proportion.

Name of Pas Total number of HH Sampled HH

Dhas 1319 57.2 % = 195

Gayo 586 25.5 %=87
Tesso-kalo 400 17.3 %=59
Total 2305 100 =341

23
 The study was conducted in Dhas district; Borana zone and a total of 341 HH were selected
from three PAs in the district for questionnaires during field survey. For vegetation sampling
five blocks were laid out in the selected land use types per PA, Totally 15 Blocks were laid
out.

HOUSE HOLD SURVEY FIELD VEGETATION SAMPLING

 Three PAs were selected purposively  From purposively selected three PAs 4 sites
 Head of HH were stratified by considering (Communal grazing Vs. Communal enclosure
gender issues and cultivating groups. (Traditional kalo) cultivated land Vs. Private
enclosure (kalo) were selected from each PAs.

Stratified Random sampling Systematic sampling

Dhas PA Communal grazing vs. Communal enclosure (5 blocks), 110 plots

N=1319, n=195 (57.2%) Cultivated land vs. Private enclosure (Kalo) (5 blocks), 110 plots

Gayo PA Communal grazing vs Communal enclosure (5 blocks), 110 plots

N=586, n=87 (25.5%)
Cultivated land vs. Private enclosure (Kalo) (5 blocks), 110 plots

Communal grazing vs. Communal enclosure (5 blocks), 110plots

Teso-Kalo PA
N=400, n=59 (17.3%) Cultivated land vs. Private enclosure (Kalo) (5 blocks), 110 plots

Figure 2: Sampling Frame work For Study

24
 Communal Enclosure (Kalo) /Private enclosure/

SS
T
10mBLOC1Km(1-15 Designed like this) 30m
H T = Tree (30mx30m)
S = Shrubs (10mx10m)
H = Forbs and overall Herbaceous (1mx1m)
30m

Communal Grazing (Open area) /Cultivated Land/

30m

30m

30m
NB: For Communal Enclosure Vs. Communal Grazing 15 Blocks which contain the above pair and
For Private Enclosure Vs. Cultivated land 15 Blocks which contain the above pair were designed for
investigating field survey.

Figure 3 : Blocks design containing designs (Contain land use types and designed plots)

3.2.4 Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

The participants of the FGDs were purposively selected with the help of PA leaders, District expert,
development agents (DAs) from the study area. Three FGDs that consisted on average twelve (12)
participants detailed in (table) were participated and the meeting held together per PAs in order to
get representative information.

25
Table 2: Shows the FGD participants

No. Participant of FGD Number of participants per PA

1. Dheeda committee 3
2. PA Leaders 2
3. DA coordinator 1
4. Gada leaders/ community elders 2
5. Women 2
6. Youth 2
Total 12

Figure 4: FGD conducted in the study district

Sources: Photo taken by Arero Galma, 2019

Additionally, for field vegetation sampling three household heads, including development agents
who have indigenous knowledge for plant identification were selected. If plants which are unknown
by selected peoples phase us it were captured using photography and identified with the help of
district expert, individual informants and literature. If it also difficulty with those people for later
identification it’s submitted to the national herbarium at Addis Ababa university. This method was
used to collect type of plants growing in different land use types.

26
3.2.5 Source of data

Both primary and secondary sources of data were used for this study. Household survey, focus group
discussion and vegetation sampling were used to collect the primary data. Relevant secondary data
were obtained from published and unpublished documents, including journals, reports and books.

3.2.6 Preliminary survey

A Preliminary survey of the study area was conducted in November, 2018 to obtain information or
data about agro-ecology of the area, situation of indigenous knowledge practices of the local people
and existence practicing different land use types for different purposes. In this survey the presence of
variation in agro-ecological zones between PAs and also between satellite area and settled areas of
mata wayama district, existence of different land use types and variation in practicing of indigenous
knowledge were known and fieldwork materials such as GPS (Geographical Position System),
digital camera and other supportive materials such as rope, peg and etc. Were made ready and
applied as necessary during the fieldwork.

3.2.7 Data collection and Analysis

3.2.7.1 Statistical analysis

As stated by Singleton et al., (1993), the questionnaire data were analyzed using frequencies and
percentages). So, the collected household data were summarized and analyzed using Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), SAS software, Descriptive statistics including tabular and
graph was also used to present n the results. The qualitative data collected by different data gathering
tools were analyzed using Opinion interpretation.

3.2.7.2 Vegetation field data collection and analysis

The Borana pastoralists of Dhas district currently classify their grazing lands into land use units such
as communal and private enclosures (Kalo) and communal grazing land. As one of the major
objectives of this study is to assess the role of indigenous knowledge in rangeland management to
understand its implications for biodiversity conservation and rangeland rehabilitation in different
land use units, we categorized the land use types into communal grazing vs. Communal enclosure
(traditional kalo), private kalo vs. cultivated land for comparison. As such, the vegetation in
communal enclosure (traditional Kalo) vs. adjacent open area (communal grazing) and cultivated

27
land vs. private kalo was sampled using systematic sampling from selected area. Sampling Units
were composed of 30m x 30m size plots for tree, 10m x 10m for shrubs which would be used by
Kidane (2005) and 1m x 1m for forbs and overall herbaceous (Including legumes) which would be
used by (Bedeke and Nigatu, 2015) In communal enclosures (traditional Kalo) as well as it’s the
adjacent communal grazing rangelands; similarly vegetation was sampled from the same quadrant
sizes for private kalo and its adjacent cultivated land. The vegetation sampling was carried out
during two consecutive wet seasons.

For quadrant demarcation and vegetation sampling measurement, meter tape, rope, peg and a three-
sided welded wood (Stick) frame of 1m x1m left open on one side (the fourth side) was used as
recommended by Whalley and Hardy (2000). Generally, there were different plots for measuring
trees, shrubs, forbs and herbaceous species including legumes. Within each land use type, the
collected vegetation data were analyzed for species diversity, richness, evenness and similarity using
the following indices:

3.2.7.3 Shannon –Wiener Diversity Index, Species Richness and Evenness Index

 Species diversity

Species number is one of the most important features of a plant community both with respect to
community organization and nature conservation (Wiegleb and Felinks, 2001).
Species diversity and species richness within different land use units was determined. A best-known
example of which is Shannon-Wiener index (H); Shannon diversity (H) and Shannon evenness (E)
indices was used for checking diversity (Smith, 1992; Jayaraman, 1999)

H'=-∑𝐬𝐢=𝟏 𝐩𝐢 𝐥𝐧 𝐩𝐢

Where:
H'=Diversity of species in the same sub-habitat, with higher values indicating increased diversity
(Shannon diversity index)
Pi = Proportion of individuals found in the ith species
ln = Natural logarithm
S = Total number of species in the sub-habitat, species richness

28
The value of Shannon diversity indices are usually found to fall between 1.5 and 3.5 and only, rarely
surpasses 4.5 (Margalef, 1972).

 Evenness
∑𝐬𝐢=𝟏 𝐩 𝐥𝐧 𝐩 𝑯′
The Shannon evenness (E) was calculated by: 𝐄 � Or E=
𝐥 𝐧𝐬 𝐥𝐧𝐬
Where, E =Shannon evenness
LnS = Maximum possible diversity
The values of evenness index high, means that the more even the populations that form the
community.

Species Richness
Species richness (number of species per unit area) is the simplest and most frequently used measure
of biological diversity and also used as a measure of diversity within a single ecological community,
habitat or micro-habitat ,then the Species richness was determined as total number of species count
per unit area (Oba et al., 2001)

�𝑺−𝟏�
Species Richness � 𝑳𝒐𝒈𝑵

Where: S=Total number of Species

N=Total number of Individual all species.
The greater species richness means more stability and sustainability of an ecosystem according to
Miller and Spool man (2010).
h Index of Similarity and Dissimilarity
According to Rutherford et al., (2014) the Sorenson’s index of similarity (CS) was calculated as:
𝟐𝑪
Index of Similarity(S) = , Where
𝑨+ 𝑩
A=Number of Species in Community/Site A
B= Number of Species in Community/Site B
C=Number of Species Common in Community/Site A and B

h Index of Dissimilarity=1-S

29
 CHAPTER FOUR

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Socio-economic information of respondents

In this study, the socio economic information of the Respondents participated in the study is
described in (Appendix 4). The information includes Sex (gender), age class, production system and
major sources of income/Food sources of respondents.

4.1.1. Gender Distribution of Respondents

As the result revealed that majority of study participants were predominantly male 57.8% from the
total participant and the rest 42.2% are female (Figure 5). To the some extend the related balance of
females Participation to the male in the study is due to gender consideration given for the female
during study time, because of attitude changing of female to respond and lessen of cultural barriers
that prohibited females in any participation which previously existed in the study area.

Gender distribution of respondents

Number s of Respondents Percentage

100

57.8
42.2 341
197
144

Male Female Total

Figure 5: percentage of respondent in gender distribution

30
4.1.2. Age of Respondents

As illustrated from (Figure, 6) in relation to age of the respondents all reproductive age class and
old year persons who are knowledgeable about past history of rangeland management were included
in respondents in order to get representative information.

66 above 25-35
1 3 .2 % 1 4 .1 %

56-65
17.3% 36-45
27.6%
46-55
27.9%

Figure 6: Age group of respondent

4.1.3 Production system and Main source of income

Major livelihood and occupation of communities in the study areas has typical of subsistent
pastoralist. The finding of this study indicates that production system in the area include pastoralists
(90.3 %), agro-pastoralist (9.7 %) as illustrated in (Table 3). Most of the interviewed pastoralists
replied that pastoralism is the main production system in the study area.

In terms of livelihood practicing system as income sources, majority of the respondents said that
63.3% source of their incomes are livestock rearing only,10.9% livestock rearing and
cultivation,12.3% are petty trade and 13.5% Respondents are practiced other activities like wage
daily , brokers, collecting forest products such as charcoal, firewood, gum and Incenses etc.(Table
3).

31
Table 3: Production systems and main source of income revealed by the respondents in the study
districts
Production systems Frequency Percentage

Pastoralist 308 90.3

Agro-pastoralist 33 9.7
Crop production - -
Others - -
Total 341 100.0
Sources of income Frequency Percentage

Livestock Rearing only 216 63.3%

livestock rearing and cultivation 37 10.9%
Petty trade or Small Business 42 12.3%
Others 46 13.5%
Total 341 100.0%

Specifically, Dhas pastoralists district keep various stock types such as cattle, shoat, camel, and
equines. Cattle and Shoat keeping are the most favored besides serving as a source of livelihood
associated with some social and cultural values as well. Livestock rearing is the commonly practiced
old age economic system as ecology of the study area called Mata Wayama rangeland district is
more suitable for animal rearing.

The Study Conducted by Ayana and Adugna (2006) in Borana pastoralist of other lowland district
confirmed Livestock rearing is the commonly practiced in Borana due suitability of rangeland for
livestock rearing than crop cultivation.

But currently, the result of the survey study showed that the livestock production in the area was
insufficient due to recurrent drought exacerbated by different comprehensive factors. Due to this
fact, the pastoralists of study district had forced to intervened Crop Cultivation as Coping strategies
to seek for additional means of livelihood subsistence as milk yield decreases with decrease in range
land productivity, to obtain food from farm if condition allows them. Which may result in removal
of vegetation, decrease in the size of the grazing land and worsen the rangeland degradation. The

32
result was supported by previous finding by (Ahmed, 2003), suggested about the problem of dry
land cultivation.

4.1.4 Rangeland Condition

Ayana and Baars (2000) and also Ayana (2002) concluded that Borana rangelands were in good
condition. On the other hand, results from the same area showed that The Borana system of
production was on decline since the early 1990s (Oba and Kotile 2001, Oba et al., 2000). Again the
consecutive Study conducted by Gemedo (2005) concluded that the rangeland of the Borana
lowlands is in fair condition and the trend appears to be down wards .Unless this trend of rangeland
degradation is reversed.

Currently, the study conducted in Dhas district of Borana lowland, Out of 341 respondents 51.9 %
confirmed that the rangeland was in Poor condition by the indicators of rangeland shrinkage
(Dhiphachu dheeda), bare land expansion, Bush encroachment, Very low proportion of the highly
desirable and productive grass species like Cymbogon commutates (Alchiso),Cenchrus ciliaris (Mat-
guddesa), Digitaria naghellensis (Ilmogori) etc. these all problems are highly exacerbated by
recurrent drought and territorial conflict of land expansion which highly affect the indigenous
management system.

As the general result confirmed by FGD approved that the range condition was either fair or poor,
and the trend was in decline condition (Figure 7).

As narrated by one Person of FGD members from Dhas PAs, before Three to four Abba Gada
periods or before 30 years ago, when we are herders of calf there was high potential of grass called
“Arda” even which used for “hide and Seeking game”(Dhokacha taphachu) and we were able to get
grass at near distance (Around ela Dhas ). But now rangeland is degraded in much faster than ever
before due to poor customary management, bush encroachment and absence of rain. At that time also
we heard from elders as they said the rangeland was not as before.so this idea confirmed the trend of
rangeland was in decline condition from time to time.

(Source: own field survey, 201 9)

33
 Rangeland Shrinkage and Productivity loss

When one elder from Gayo FGD participant suggested about Rangeland Shrinkage and Productivity
loss he said that I have been living in Gayo for about eight Abba Gada regimes. I am now 61 years old.
When I was a child caring for calve in Gayo, Gayo is one of the best grazing rangelands for livestock.
Villages are not too many and there are only four Villages (ollas) of Racha Halake, Tadesse Bule, Dida
Dabasa and Galgalo shanu. Numbers of population is also very small and sparse of settlement. Livestock
are not go far from the villages for grazing and the area around Ela Gayo (Now called “Gayo Town”)
was encroached by “Arda”. There is no expansion of farm land and enclosure area like today. Many of
today’s farm and enclosure land area are that times grazing head (mata tika). Today everything has
changed. Previously Nearby grazing heads are now taken by farm and enclosure land. Very far grazing
heads (Mata-wayama )also given for other tribes, the productivity of rangeland has decreased and today
the land does not grow grasses like before even if high rainfall rained. So due to “hand palm rangeland
with degradation” (in their local language “Lafti gana harka taate sullen quncaate”) The pastoral
communities of Dhas district were running here and their without solution.
(Source: own field survey, 201 9)

RL- condition Preview

Frequency Percent

100.0

51.9
40.5 341

138 177
72.66

G ood Fair p oor Total

Figure 7: Respondents response on Preview of rangeland condition

34
4.1.5 Cause and Consequences of rangeland degradation

4.1.5.1 Cause of Rangeland degradation

The respondent response revealed that the Causes of ongoing decline in rangeland condition are
due to recurrent drought, population increment, mismanagement, increased privatization of grazing
land, Expansion of cultivated land, inappropriate external interferences, Territorial conflict of land
expansion, sparsely settlement of rural areas and several major impacts related to development of

change in life style and other human activity.

The FGD held in all three PAs (Dhas,Teso-kalo and Gayo) with community representative
participants also approved that either poor or Fair condition of the rangeland due to all the above-
mentioned impacts are very common in the area. They said that “the today rangeland we have is
enclosed area (Kalo) and the vast rangeland area called mata tika (head of grazing) was taken by
other tribes and the border areas near Mata-arba and Raro PAs which have high potential of
rangeland were temporarily inaccessible for grazing due to conflict.

4.1.5.2 Consequences of Rangeland degradation

In short the respondent response and analytical discussion held with FGD in the study district
approved that the degradation of Dhas district rangelands directly affects livestock production,
presents a high risk for food security and biodiversity loss in the area as the end result (Figure 8).

Consequences of Rangeland Degradation

In the study Area Most of the respondent has repeatedly raised:

 Loss of palatable grass species and decline in Productive grass like Alchiso, ogondho, etc
 Increase in unpalatable plants (Gurbii), bush species (Saphansa) and bare land expansion
 Livestock which previously died only by Hagaya drought become unable to pass from
drought of Ganna and Hagayya.
 Average cattle per house hold have highly declined and weakening of pastoralist self-
determination.

End result in:

Increases of dependency on Food Aid (PSNP and emergency Program).
Biodiversity loss

Figure 8: Frame work describe Consequences of Rangeland degradation

35
 The study result lined with the study conducted by (Sandford and Habtu, 2000; Helland, 2001)
which suggested that, the self-determination of the Borana pastoral society is weakened and it
obviously increases their dependence on external support.

4.1.6 Indigenous knowledge in Rangeland management

Table 4: illustrate Indigenous knowledge in Rangeland management

Variable Cases Frequency %tage

Do you manage your rangeland? Yes 341 100

No 0 0
Total 341 100
If Yes, How to manage in your history? Using indigenous knowledge 341 100
Using scientific Knowledge 0 0
Total 341 100

Is there a contribution of IK in rangeland Yes 341 100

management and biodiversity conservation? No 0 0
If yes what are they? Total 341 100

As illustrated in (Table 4) the whole response of the respondents revealed that they manage their
rangeland, because the dwellers of Dhas district are pastoralists’ community whom their livelihood
was based on range-livestock production systems which was well complex. Within these complex
systems, they evolved the successful adaptation using their indigenous knowledge under the harsh
conditions of semi-arid rangeland without any support of external interference due to establishment
of adequate access agreements of customary law ruled by Gada System.

The Participant of FGD confirmed the managing of rangeland in the district was using their
indigenous knowledge, by saying we are Pastoralists, our livelihood was relied on livestock and
livestock also rely on rangeland .So rangeland conservation is our first priority. in their local
language Oromic ”Nu Horsiise bula dha,jiruu fi jireenyi keenya horii irratti hundaa’a ,horiillen

36
lafa dheedumsa irratti hundaa’a kanaafu lafa dheedumsa kunuunsun nuuf filanno duraati”
However, Today the entire respondent said we are in a deteriorating situation due to different
encroached factors like recurrent drought, conflict, human population, devastation of important
social structures and poverty for the majority of the Borana pastoralist of Dhas district population.

The study conducted by (Coppock, 1994; Helland, 1998; Kamara, 2001) in Borana pastoralist of the
other lowland district also supported the idea of entire respondent.

4.1.7 Contribution of Indigenous knowledge in rangeland Management

The greater role of IK in range management was its management institutions make equitable access,
decentralization of Power, Equal distributive and keeps environmental sustainability (Tadesse: 2015)

Contributions of indigenous knowledge in rangeland were assessed based on the support and
consideration given for Rangeland management and improvement in the study area from the past to
present. Then 100% of respondent response revealed that (Table, 5) indigenous knowledge has great
contributions in rangeland reacted issues. Not only rangeland, from analytical discussion with focus
group support and appreciate indigenous knowledge as the base for any fair Management system and
this knowledge were acquired in nature and developed through practices. The major contributions
were discussed as follows:

4.1.7.1 Governing Rangeland and formulate its Utilization system

As the respondent said that the long term existing Indigenous knowledge in the district have their
own institutional structures that help them to shape the way that people use rangeland without
deterioration. Those institutional structures which govern rangeland have their own customary rules
and regulation, though not written, which first created by the Borana prophet (Raaga) called as Moro
Uchuma. These rules and regulations are called seera marraa bisaanii (law regulating pasture and
water). The formulated rule and regulation is carried out through the social structure network, which
ruled by Gada system (the supreme administrative body). Then the proper practices of formulated
rule are supervised and evaluated through “Waldenna” (meeting) and those who break these rules
face punishment. Not only, but also another problem facing the rangeland from external and internal
was sustained by “Dulacha Dheda”. Nowadays even if the different rule and regulations existed the
punishment was break by different interferences and the slaughtering of “Dulacha Dheda for the

37
sake of rangeland issues was declining from time to time .The study conducted by Oba, (1996a) in
the other lowland district of Borana pastoralist also approved similar observation.

Generally, the long term existence of these rules and regulation concluded the great contribution of
Indigenous knowledge for rangeland management in the study area are to conserve rangeland,
evaluate range conditions, to improve pasture and to prepare the community for drought resilience.

4.1.7.2 Strengthen relationship between life and their rangeland, environment

In Borana pastoralist area of Dhas district long history of cultural value of the communities
interconnected life with their rangeland in particular and environment in general without any bias.
This interconnection of communities with their environment has helped communities to use their
traditional knowledge to interpret the behavior of rangeland, nature and forecast weather conditions.
Having this knowledge is very important for communities in the planning, implementing rangeland
management and intervention practices and also to mitigate impact on rangeland. But currently,
Knowledge loss has been already responsible for rangeland and environmental degradation which
leads to increasing the vulnerability and risk for communities.

Little, (2003) also supported that the indigenous system of range management has complex features
reflecting the interrelationships between human adaptation, environmental variability, systems of
land use and local decision-making systems.

4.1.7.3 Shaping of customary rangeland management practices

As respondent said for proper use of rangeland management the indigenous knowledge of the study
area shaped different customary management practices like Communal grazing including Mobility
(Godaansa),Separation of Dry and wet season grazing (Dongora dheeda keeyyachu), Expansion
Traditional communal enclosure (kalo Aada Babbal’isu) ,Practicing private enclosure (kalo Dhunfa
kalachu) ,Herd diversification ,Firing etc. Additional practices such as the rangeland evaluation by
experienced scouts (abuuru) at time of mobility, thematic meetings about rangeland management
(mari, kora), early morning herding (waaree), seasonal watering and salt feeding as well as the
controlled burning practices for shifting gazing on Guba (burnt area), and fura (non-burnt
area).Which have great contribution in rangeland based production system of Borana lowland of
Dhas district.

38
4.1.7.4 Shaping Institutional knowledge on norms

As the dwellers of the district responded that for rangeland management the government policy
currently start the norm from PAs administration to 1:5 (tokko shane ),but our indigenous knowledge
shaped Institutional arrangements and networking within and between pastoral groups for a long
period of time Which extended from Warra (5-7 HH) to Dheeda (Vast unit) which governed by
Borana customs laws (aada seera Borana) These arrangements were elaborated to enforce decisions
among multiple rangeland users and contribute for sustainable rangeland management.

However, currently the respondent response and FGD confirmed that the indigenous knowledge-
based rangeland management of the Dhas pastoralists has lost the previous potential to contribute
sustainable rangeland management. Because even if the creation of the PAs formal administration
was standing for government management system and infrastructure expansion it majorly
concentrated on public security and political control, but gave little consideration to the indigenous
knowledge of rangeland management.

The result lined with the study conducted by (White, 1992; Kirk, 1998) “The disruption of
indigenous institutional structures creates open access situations, increasing insecurity in land use
type and endorsing over-utilizations of the resources.

4.1.7.5 Indigenous Rangeland of suitability Evaluation

As narrated by FGD of Dhas pastoralists “Finna lafa nafaa horii irrra beekan “Means “the
suitability of land is predicted from livestock body condition”. Moreover, Finna (range land
evaluation system) is knowledge based which predict the rangeland condition based on undefined
property of sums up the condition of livestock. The inference is that where livestock drop in body
condition, the grazing landscape lacks Finna. In rangeland which lack Finna, even when there is
sufficient forage production, for some inexplicable reason livestock might continue to lose body
condition. Thus why, at time of Abuuru (Range scout by well experienced person) the Borana
pastoralists of Dhas district closely examine the overall behavior of rangeland with respect to
livestock present in the area. The different playful behavior of cattle, increased activity on the part of
the bulls (Rima), cattle that sleep at night for long periods (Chiisa) which indicate the variability of

conditions. The result lined with the study conducted by (Roba and Oba, 2008).

39
4.1.7.6 Indigenous Method of Estimating grazing capacity and duration of time

Maintaining the balanced rangeland–livestock ratio is one of the basic principles of indigenous range
management. Since, an excessive number of livestock in the rangeland will cause its degradation that
leads to biodiversity loss. When Respondent and FGD of the study area spoke about the estimation
of grazing capacity of their rangelands in the past and today, They said that, in the past the dwellers
of the communities give consideration for all familiarity, capacity and duration of Livestock on
rangeland through moving in different directions at time of mobility, also splitting herd into Warra
and Foora, and stay to Foora for a specific period of time. Moreover, cultural values and long
period personal experiences make it possible to minimize land degradation and make optimal use of
rangeland by giving emphasis for capacity of Area and duration of grazing. But today this interesting
management system is in deteriorating situation.

The result also supported by the study conducted by (Fernandez-Gimenez 2000, Oba et al., 2000,
Oba and Kotile 2001, Mapinduzi et al., 2003, Sheuyange et al., 2005) stated the traditional methods
of estimating the grazing capacity based on the assessment of the vegetation condition and rangeland
classification reflects the pastoralists' familiarity with their environment.

4.1.7.7 Strength of Scientific Knowledge

Indigenous knowledge provides basic idea for improving existing scientific knowledge and a basis
for designing appropriate rangeland management and development policies. The respondent of study
district, said that still most of the time the government took this Indigenous knowledge as the base at
the time of developing community action plans for any rangeland intervention program, but had no
sustainability until monitoring and management of implementing activities. The study result in lined
with other studies stated, communities’ knowledge may provide new insights for improving existing
scientific knowledge (Calheiros et al., 2000; Oba and Kotile, 2001).

Additionally, also supported by other studies (Angassa and Oba, 2008; Roba and Oba, 2009a) which
states a combination of pastoral indigenous knowledge and modern scientific information would
help to provide a better understanding of the environment from the perspective of resource
utilization.

40
4.1.8 Indigenous knowledge practices of rangeland management and their Status

According to result depicted on (Figure 9) there are many indigenous knowledge practices of
rangeland management including new emerged indigenous knowledge practices such as reserved
grazing areas (both Communal and Private enclosure) Separation of Dry and wet season grazing
(Dongora seera keeyyachu) which used as a means of adaptation under changing climatic
conditions, these all IK practices have great contribution in rangeland management.

IK of Rangeland management practices

Frequency Percent

Herd Splitting 25 7.3

Customary Inistitution 73 21.4
Firing 62 18.2
Herd diversification 39 11.4
Set Dry and wet season grazing 104 30.5
Reserved grazing area 198 58.1
Mobility 294 86.2

Figure 9: Indigenous knowledge of rangeland management in study district

4.1.9 The Major Indigenous knowledge practices and Their Description in the study area

4.1.9.1 Mobility

Mobility is one of Indigenous knowledge practice included in Communal or open grazing area which
managed by customary institutions (Abba dheedas) and is commonly accessible to members of the
dheeda community and neighboring communities through negotiation.

As the highest percent, 86.2% (Figure 9) of respondent response illustrated that Mobility is a
predominantly indigenous rangeland management practice in the study area, which is seasonal
movements correspond to the local rainfalls and the rangeland grazing potential. Thus why said

41
“Horsiise bulaan Rooban Jireessa rooba gula yaa’a” in local language. Mean “pastoralism is
rainfall based life moved with a rain”.

Previously As respondent response and FGD approved that the herder of the study area practiced
Mobility to use the existed rangeland through giving consideration for both time and space. This
system was accomplished through well designed system of sending scout (Abuuru) for evaluation of
rangeland potential including water availability. The exploiting of the seasonal fluctuations in
rangeland productivity makes the herders gain access to more balanced forage resources. The study
conducted by Homann (2005) also supported similar observation. But currently many of the
respondent responses and FGD confirmed that the combination of factors such as unavailable
grazing, water resources, existence of claims by different ethnic groups on rangelands, increasing of
settlement in remote grazing areas due to population growth and to get social services, the declining
number of cattle holding per household affect the mobility practice. Herd movements have been
reduced considerably over time and the today existed mobility were opposed to ‘godanna’ (normal
Mobilty replaced by “baqa” (to flee).

How Population growth affects Mobility?

“From FGD held in Gayo PA one elder who justify how Population growth affect Mobility, He said
that Before three/four Abba gada 24-32 Years ago, As the Dhas district we are only one dheeda, the
mata tika (Grazing Head) was free from settlement, now a days due to population growth all this
area was settled by the pastoralist and again also there were increasing of permanent settlement, to
get social services, still as the district level we are asking higher government level to formulate
another formal PA”.(Source: own field survey, 2019.)

How Drought affect Mobility?

“From FGD held in Dhas PA one elder who justify how drought affect Mobility, He said that Due to
recurrent drought majority of pastoralist lost their livestock .then a number of cattle holding per
household decreased and some person have only one to five livestock Called “Guma awwala”.So,
rearing of cattle is around home with the support of private enclosure and he/she engaged in other
livelihood practice like wage and petty trade beside livestock rearing so it is difficult to move with

their livestock”.(Source: own field survey, 2019.)

42
How Conflict affect Mobility?

“From FGD held in Teso-kalo and Gayo PAs some elders whom justify how Conflict restrict
Mobility, they said that In the study area the existence of claims between Somali and Oromo
(Borana) ethnic groups on rangelands leads livestock raiding and insecurity.so, Most of the time due
to fear of livestock raiding and insecurity large expanses of border area around Dokatu, Dhaka
wata,Bojji,Tuma,Raro, M/arba etc. with high potential of grazing have been left unutilized even at
times of severe droughts”.(Source: own field survey, 2019.)

In Borana Pastoralists of Dhas district indigenous knowledge practices have continuously suffered
from a long history of political, economic, and socio-cultural marginalization within different
Government regime. Today the Overall problems have been exacerbated by recurrent and complex
natural calamities such as drought. Thus currently, some parts of vast communal rangeland called
“Dheda Wayama” were converted into enclosed area “Kalo”.

The study conducted by (Desta et al., 2008; Markakis, 2004) sates In Borana Pastoralist of other
lowland district maintaining high levels of mobility within and across landscapes make the most
effective use of scarce resources.

4.1.9.2 Herd splitting

As the study conducted by Godana (2016) Stated that, herd splitting is one of the pastoralist’s
indigenous rangeland management knowledge and It is the practice of dividing the livestock into
separate herds depending on their age, sex and productivity Herd splitting into lactating (stationary
groups) and non-lactating (satellite groups) and sending the satellite groups into remote areas Called
“Foora”

As 7.3% of the respondent response from the study area (Figure 9) illustrated that the communities
split the herds into different divisions in order matched the livestock to the available grazing and
water resources during times of abundance as well as in scarcity. The fact that the analytical
discussion with pastoralist from study area indicated that, pastoralists of the study area stratified
livestock as Loon Warra (non-mobile herds) and loon foora (mobile herds), the stratification of
herds allows easy management of rangelands in order to balance communal grazing area of Mata
tika (Grazing Head) and warra communal grazing. In some cases also to improve degraded

43
rangelands. But, currently due to many problem especially, conflict and Labor problem herd splitting
practice was minimized from time to time.

4.1.9.3 Herd diversification

As 11.4% of the respondent response revealed that (Figure 10) Herd diversification is one of
indigenous knowledge practices in which the dwellers of the study area practices mixing of herds
like shoat, cattle and camel. These herd composition grazing between land uses types, for the
purpose of drought resilience, risk mitigation and prevent the competition of browses and grazes
plant species due to Grazers and browsers use different layers of the vegetation. Also, these herds’
diversity and composition make it possible for the animals to graze on several species of plants at the
same time, which decreases pressure on the palatable plants in one area and also prevents the
extinction of unpalatable species. So it has a great role in rangeland vegetation balances and
Biodiversity conservation. Additionally, these measures contribute to a more even distribution of
livestock across the rangeland and prevent the competition of browses and grazes plant species. But
currently due to restriction of remote areas from grazing, Labor problem and disease spread
prevalence herd diversification practices was minimized to some extent principally, the study district
selected Shoats which are specialized on survival and adapted to local forage conditions such as
bushes. The result lined with the study Conducted by (Bayer and Waters-Bayer, 1995) which state
currently, pastoralists select ruminant breeds and ecotypes which are specialized on survival and
adapted to local forage conditions.

4.1.9. 4 Reserved grazing areas (Traditional Communal and Private enclosure)

As the (58.1%) of respondent response revealed that (Figure 9) Reserved grazing areas (Kalo) is one
of indigenous rangeland management practice in the study area. During analytical discussion with
pastoralist, all of them repeatedly raised that, the use of reserved grazing areas locally known as kalo
is widely practiced in their area for dry season reserved grazing. These Reserved grazing areas
classified into the Traditional Communal enclosure (Kalo Aada Waliini Kalachu) and Private
enclosure (Kalo Dhunfa Kalachu)

x Traditional Communal enclosure (Kalo Aada Waliini Kalachu): the Traditional Communal
enclosure is one of indigenous knowledge practices and primarily designated for the purpose of

44
 to reserve grasses allowed for Yabbiyyee, Dullacha laafaa (weak cows), Qottiyyo (oxen) and
livestock to be sold for dry season grazing.

The practicing of enclosures introduced into the study area during Gada of Jilo Aga (1976-1984) to
lessen pasture scarcity and enable proper management of formerly degraded areas. It currently
becomes the main rangeland Strategy of the study district.

The Previous study conducted by Godana (2016) stated that, in Borana pastoralists the management
of kalo (enclosure) is by Jaarsa dheeda (elder of grazing) of that reera and it was managed
according to the customary institution. Each member of the village and reera has the responsibility
for the management of the enclosure. If there is the misuse of enclosure the issues has first to be
resolved at the village level by elders of the villages. If the issue has to be focused in-depth, Jaarsa
dheeda has to make decision.

But, currently as this study confirmed that, the management of kalo (enclosure) is managed under
kore Dheeda (Dheeda Committee) and PA leaders. If there is the misuse of enclosure the issues has
first to be resolved at the village level by PA leaders not elders of the villages. If the issue has to be
focused in- depth, Jarsa Dheeda has minimum power/no power/ to make decision if compare with
previous management system. Also in addition to change in management system, disputes about
entering the forage banks (kalo) without consent of the user group, informal payment to single
members of PAs Administration were point to the problem of non-transparent decision making at the
local-level which leads weakness of communities bylaw. Furthermore the Powerful herdsman was
also enforcing the bylaws of “Kalos”.

x Private enclosure (Kalo Dhunfa Kalachu): The respondent responses and fact from FGD
approved that Private enclosure is new emerged (recent innovation) indigenous knowledge
practices in the study area which restrict livestock mobility and creates pressure on the
rangeland. Hence, affects the pastoral livelihood system. As a result, recently the communities’
agreements and government policy apply the policy not establishes enclosures and dig out
previously enclosed area. However, this agreement was not well functional in some area of the
PAs.

45
4.1.9. 5 Customary Institutions

As illustrated from (Figure 9) results, and approved by analytical discussion held with representative
body of the study district, the arrangement of customary Institutions (21.4%) is also indigenous
knowledge practices which Contain different organization from warra level (Small unit) to dheeda
level (wider unit) which has their own rule and regulation of managing their rangeland resources
according to aadaa Borana (Borana custom) which leads by Raba-Gada. The purpose of formulating
institutional structure is for simplifying natural resources management system and also strengthens
linkage of Borana pastoralists. Within these institutional structures different meeting and
management system has accomplished for rangeland issues and pass wrongdoer to the concerned
body called Raba-gada after passed through all institutional arrangements if his/her punishment was
difficulty to solve at all lower level.

4.1.9. 6 Set dry and wet season grazing (Dongora seera keeyyachu)

As 30.5% of respondent response shows (Figure 9), setting dry and wet season grazing which are
seasonal shifts between restricted and open access practiced is one of indigenously rangeland
management techniques which has a great role in rangeland management. As FGD confirmed that in
the study area based on the site location and seasonality rangeland utilization was broadly classified
into two classes:

The first one is pasture utilization far walking grazing (mata tikaa) which kept open to move the
satellite herds called “lafa gue’ssa” like Mat-arba, Raro, Balballa, Dhokattu,Dhaka wata etc. these
remote areas were used during the rainy-seasons called “lafa seera roba”.

The second one is Peripheral grazes areas towards the wells (near settlement) and several pathways
channeled the herds to the watering place called “kara oba” were used as last save areas during
heavy dry season called “lafa seera bona”.

The grazing seasons to be grazed are different for all of the study sites. For instance, in Dhas site,
Web direction is taken to be as dry season grazing and Korman Gali Mountain direction is wet
season grazing. The seasonal grazing area is controlled by customary institution and PAs leaders.
In the study area there was encampment in line (dongora sera) on the grazing area based on
seasonality, even if it’s not fully operation all studied PAs have their own dongora sera,

46
Some of the agreements in the grazing areas have been successfully respected until recent time. But
the co-ordinated allocations of encampments in line (dongora sera) have been increasingly intruded,
due to conflict and droughts influence. not only this, but also the informal PA and woreda border
raised Disputes on the decision of encampment in line (dongora sera) .As participants members of
FGD held in Teso-kalo and Dhas PA raised that Most of the time the three PAs Tes-kalo and Dhas
PAs from Dhas district and Irdar PA from Guchi district, the users claim on pasture within the
grazing area of around Mamo kate due to the absence of well decided encampment in line (dongora
sera)

As the respondent response and analytical discussion held with Focus group approved that in the
Wayama rangeland, the Indigenous Dheeda-level division has played a major role in dividing this
rangeland into dry and wet season grazing units to be used in conjunction with their mobility
strategy.

“As narrated by one elder from FGD participant held at Gayo PA the key strategies of rangeland
management in the study district include a Dheeda level institution for managing natural resources.
These complicated and dynamic strategies of the Dheeda level institution have allowed the
communities to cope with the threats and risks that characterize dry land areas. From long term
history, for properly use of rangeland the headman of Borana Pastoralist including Godana Tuni
Were planning the construction of Pond distribution in the wayama rangeland of the study district to
stratify the community land use system by Dheeda or Madda level. Then they constructed M/arba
Pond for Madda Borbor, Tuma Pond for Madd Goffa,Bojji ponds for Madda laye.so this
indigenously planned distribution of water sources across and within Dheeda/Madda is an
important tool that has been used by Borana pastoral communities in rangeland management
through multilevel decision making and resource planning in the past”.

But, currently as FGD confirmed, these well arrangements of Dheeda/Madda in relation to water
distribution were disturbed and the communities were displaced from their residence place
encroached to one area (Dheeda/Madda) which leads to disorder of rangeland utilization strategies.
Additionally, different imposed factors, including the introductions of dry-season watering ponds
and Motorized water (engine-Pumps) highly affect the seasonal grazing system and Mobility
strategy.

47
4.1.9. 7 Firings (Burning of rangeland)

As the 18.2% of respondent response revealed (Figure 10), firing is one of indigenous knowledge
practices of rangeland management. Based on their IK and long term experience the Dhas pastoralist
burned the rangeland for the purpose of controlling woody species encroachment, expansion of
predators and for parasite induced health problems. The setting of fire implemented under well
planned situation of Classifying rangeland into burned every year (Guba), burned every second year
(Gursumeessa) and not burned or burned 3-4 year (fura). Within this practice the pastoralist planned
to graze livestock on “Guba”, which is the grasses that grow following controlled burning and very
palatable and productive f o r livestock.

However, during Gada of Gobba Bule (1968- 1976) Dergue regime banned the burning of
rangeland and the practice of rangeland burning was also abandoned in Mata Wayama rangeland.
The policy that has banned the burning for rangeland disturbs indigenous range management system
and enhances the chance of unpalatable grass/herb/shrub/bush species to grow.

As one elder from Gayo PA, FGD members raised that even if the rangeland burning practice was
implemented until today our rangeland is not invaded by such unknown plant species and the
interviewed pastoralists still recommended burning has great role in rangeland rehabilitation. But
today, burning is less applicable due to the lack of sufficient fuel load and the risk to set fire on the
dispersed settlement throughout grazing areas.

The study result lined with the official ban on fire was decreed during the dergue regime and this
further disrupted the Borana indigenous range management Hogg (1997) and also Angassa and
Beyene, (2003) stated in today’s situation effective fires might not be achievable because of more
frequent droughts, the lack of sufficient fuel and firebreaks.

48
4.1.10 Preview condition of IK of rangeland management practices and Major Factors
Affecting the practices

Table 5 : Preview condition of IK of rangeland management practices

Variable Cases Frequency Percentage

Is your IK of rangeland management practices are Yes 22 6.5
in stable condition if compare with the previous No 319 93.5
time? If not, what are the Factors affecting IK Total 341 100
practice?

The status and constraints of IK-based range management strategies were measured and explored by
quantitative technique of data collection and analytical discussion with a focus group. As 93.5% of
respondent response revealed that (Table 5) indigenous knowledge practices of rangeland
management were not as before and analytical discussion held with FGD members approved that,
the previously existed very interesting system and unique knowledge (indigenous knowledge) of
rangeland management has been facing serious challenges from many sides and its smooth
functioning has been weakening From time to time.

On the views of discussions with the elders and herders, the factors affecting indigenous knowledge-
based rangeland management was from external interventions like intervention of PAs leader in the
power of elders, inappropriate development concepts such as construction of permanent water
ponds, lack of pastoral oriented extension (Water Shade), ban of burning of rangeland, unavailable
grazing, population growth and settlement in remote grazing areas, existence of claims by different
ethnic groups on rangelands, increasing settlement to get social services, the declining number of
cattle holding per household, Urban development and change of community life style, Climate
change which leads to erratic rain fall and other different encroached factors have been reduced
indigenous knowledge of rangeland Management practices. According to the FGD held in Dhas and
Gayo with community leaders and elders, all the above-mentioned impacts are common in the area.
The study conducted by Homann (2005) also supported similar observation.

49
4.1.10 .1 inappropriate extension services

In the study district the extension services favored crop cultivation within valuable grazing areas
which resulted in an expansion of crop cultivation in all PAs. Currently, the farmland locally called
obru is expanding in the district.

“As one elder of FGD participant from Gayo PA said that Gayo is the center of Arda Jila which
ritual ceremonies such as Gumi Gayo, Gadamoji, Dhawa and others practicing of cultural issues
are carried out in. Due to this, different land use practices like area enclosure and cultivating the
land are prohibited in the area. He said that as the Borana pastoralist land cultivation was started
by Jidda Sele. But, as the madda Gayo it’s started by Wario Huka However, today these all practices
are intruded into the Gayo PA as The household adaptive capacity”.

As the respondent said that currently, a community member fenced small plot of rangeland with the
purpose of cultivation, then the land used as cultivated land for one or two seasons of cultivation and
then will be converted into private kalo. This would highly affect grazing areas of Dhas district.
While the also communities started the expansion of traditional communal enclosures (Kalo Aada
waliin baballisu) as a drought reserve grazing area. The result of the study lined with the study
conducted by Shongolo (1995) and Kamara (2001) in Borana Pastoralist of the other lowland
district.

Shongolo, (1995) stated that “As a different trend study supposed that the Gumi Gaayo of 1988
acknowledged crop cultivation as a means to enhance food security Then, the Gumi Gaayo of 1996
revised crop cultivation as primary cause for the privatization of rangelands and explicitly rejected
the individual ownership of forage-banks (Private kalo).

Recently, the government policies also support this Proclamation. However, still it was not fully
operated due to self-interest and also with the support of wealthy herdsmen.

Kamara (2001) also stated that, In Borana Pastoralist Crop cultivation was reinforced by the
governmental extension service and expanded in the 1990s. During the same time the Borana
pastoralists also started to fence off communal grazing reserves and 13 % of the rangelands are
estimated as enclosed.

50
4.1.10.2 Different external intervention Policies

The rangeland management of the Borana pastoralist particularly Dhas communities has been
severely interfered by different intervention policies which disturb indigenous knowledge practices.
The respondent response revealed that in regards to Government Policy the resettlement
Interventions started at the time of dergue regime highly effect the Borana pastoralist of Dhas district
by removed from its high potential rangeland which has resulted in several adverse impacts on
rangeland and indigenous knowledge of rangeland management. Not only, but also had the
implementation of the formal administration at the PA - level during dergue regime also linked with
the establishment of displaced communities into one place. While, before this implementation
program the south eastern of Borana rangeland was stratified under very vast Dheeda (Grazing unit)
including Gofa and Laye. But, now a days around five to Six Dheeda community were encroached
into one area called Wayama grazing unit which differentiation of its Main parts such as Gofa and
Laye was given for other tribes and some of border areas are temporarily inaccessible due to
conflict. Also, the Unsuitable Government Policy, Including the official ban on burning of rangeland
proclaimed by dergue regime also exacerbated the disruption of the indigenous practicing system of
the study district.

Additionally, a well-intended, but poorly designed pastoral development intervention like Water
point in traditional rainy-season pastures, has disturbed the indigenous knowledge-based of
rangeland management through an imbalance between water and forage resources. For example
today some of large ponds and Motorized pump (Kukuba gala and Dida kako water points) were
constructed in the rainy-season grazing areas and disturbed the seasonal grazing System.

Uniformly under the current federal government of Ethiopia different socio-political emphasis on the
establishing management structure highly affects the Indigenous knowledge practices. For example;
in regards to expansion of PAs the government performed the formation of more Reeras, and PAs
with a number of managers which the community was not happy with such a large number of
managers, which has not been given generous attention customary institutions of range management.
The observed result lined with the study conducted by Homann et al., (2 0 07 ) stated that, the
establishment of PAs by the government since 1970s becomes threat to the indigenous institutions
because it is run by those who have less experience and give less attention to rangeland and also the

51
study conducted by (Bassi, 1997; Gebre Mariam and Kassa, 2001) stated that, the implementation of
the regionalization policy has created political conflicts over resources. The government has
transferred an area of about one third of the Borana rangelands and two important wells to the
Somali Administrative Region. The ensuing socioeconomic and political instability led to inter-
ethnical warfare between the Borana and the Somali communities and made the border areas
temporarily inaccessible.

As the whole result lined with in recent years, most scholars (e.g., Mohammed, 2004; Feye 2007;
Tsegaye 2010; Angassa et al., 2012; Berhanu, 2013) have commented that pastoral societies in
different parts of Ethiopia have less benefited or not at all profited from their common resources due
to inappropriate intervention.

4.1.10 .3 Climate change which leads to recurrent drought

In the study district the climate change which led to occurrence of drought at frequent intervals result
in loss of key dry season, drought reserve grazing areas, Biodiversity loss which contributed to
substantial loss of forage species of high medicinal and feeding values. Because, change in climate
limits the growth of grasses (desirable plant spp.) and initiates the chance for encroachers and exotic
(Unknown and non-desirable plant species) to grow. So, recurrent drought, which leads to loss of
forage species and disease prevalence result in a reduction in livestock number and Insufficient
Economic capacity (low livestock holding capacity of HH) in the Dhas district. Then impoverished
households have settled near the wells (such as ela Gayo, ela Dhas as town) and practicing their way
of life without respecting the traditional pasture regulation. This situation hinders indigenous
knowledge practice of rangeland management, such as mobility.

4.1.10 .4 Privatization of the Communal Grazing Land

As Respondent response and FGD approved that privatization of communal rangeland with the
association of crop cultivation was one of the main problems which highly affect indigenous
knowledge practices and leads to land use change that exacerbate disputes between or in the
communities. The result lined with Kamara et al., (2004) have shown that misleading resource use
policies have affected indigenous property rights and caused an undesirable land use change,
including privatized grazing in the name of crop cultivation.

52
4.1.10 .5 Weakness of institutional Structure

As the FGD from Gayo PA said that previously in the study area the rangeland was governed by our
institutional structure which was elder encounter, like Jaarsa Ardaa, Jaarsa Reera, Jaarsa Madda
and Jaarsa Dheedaa. But today they lost their function and different formal committee, such as a
Dheeda committee (Kore Dheeda) formulated at PA level and predominate the rangeland
management. Not only this, but also younger community members called “Qeerro (youth)” who are
inexperienced in rangeland management and less interest to learn and apply customary rangeland
management system were appointed as dheeda committees and PA leaders. The experienced elders
were excluded from decision making. This has caused destroy of the networks by which the Borana
pastoralists of Dhas district governed the access to rangeland in particular and natural resources as
the general.

The result lined with the study conducted by Homann et al., (2007) .Stated that the establishment of
PAs by the government since 1970s becomes a threat to the indigenous institutions because it is run
by those who have less experience and give less attention to rangeland.

Dalle (2006) conclude that, the younger generation of Borana had limited ecological knowledge and
showed less interest to learn and apply traditional resource management strategies.

4.1.10 .6 The Government Meeting dominates the indigenous

In Borana pastoralist, an Indigenous communication system is essential to transfer the information

and for regular updates of rangeland conditions, water availability and disease risk, as well as
temporary user agreements. The effective dissemination of information is realized on meeting
through agents such as scouts, herders, leaders or traders and also if they held. The co-ordination of
natural resource use strategies with other users ultimately depends on the social networks, developed
within and among different user groups. They come into action by various forms of negotiations, and
shape the decisions upon temporary arrangements (Niamir-Fuller and Turner, 1999).

As the respondent response pointed out that, previously in the study district the Elders from a village
usually hold residential meetings on how to manage and share resources in their territory. At time
when special meetings, including Kora dheeda (Dheeda Meeting) were regularly conducted,
continuous meeting of rangeland management practiced at Arda meetings and a special decision
called “Mura” was passed for rangeland utilization. During this time if cattle herds had to move
53
during rainy seasons to areas of dry season “lafa seera ganna” or move during dry seasons to areas
of rain season “lafa seera Bona” and entering the forage banks (communal kalo) without consent of
the user group, They punished by the special decision Called “Mura .But currently, the indigenous
structures for information transfer and decision making have been weakened due to less practice of
meeting. Also the thematic meetings and regular assemblies about rangeland evaluation and
negotiation of appropriate strategies were practiced less often. This result in Mura is not much
operational and the pan-Borana assembly (Gumi Gayo) also lost the previous power to influence the
development in Borana rangelands.

4.1.10.7 Recurrent Tribal Conflict

As the respondent response and FGD approved that Dhas pastoral land use systems are increasingly
under pressure and surrender to tension and aggression between herders as in the case of the Borana
and Garri. Due to this different site was restricted from grazing.

In the study area the long term Tribal conflict between Borana and Garri were based on pasture and
water related issues. However, currently the conflicts were based on political prerogatives, which
were not supported by research. Due to this conflict between Garri and Borana pastoralists is an
everyday occurrence. This leads imposing of more pressure on the Mata wayama district.

In the study area there was a long term seasonal fluctuation of the land use unit, but currently, Dry-
season grazing area was gradually converted into permanent grazing at time of Conflict and leads
Weakness of IK Practices (Mobility). As the result from FGD approved that, today the full use of the
Wayama pastures was repeatedly restricted due to the conflicts with the Somali or Garri. The
pastoral communities of the study area have observed that this under-utilization of the Wayama
pastures, particularly Raro and Mat-arba site has already caused rangeland degradation by woody
species encroachment. This made the suitability of wayama rangeland more for browser animals
(camels and goats) rather than grazers (cattle and Sheep). So, since the camel is the most favored
stock types reared by Garri ethnic group and they migrated to this encroached area and exacerbate
the claim which leads to the conflict.

The observed result lined with the study conducted by (Homewood and Rogers, 1991; Dodd, 1994)
and (Basset, 2002)

54
 4.1.10.8 Shortage of Labor Availability

As the respondent said that labor availability was also the factors hindering indigenous knowledge
practices. Especially under herd diversification and the mobility of Herd splitting shortage in labor
becomes a bottleneck in the study district. The observed result line with the study conducted by Oba
(1996b) pointed out; labor for herding and Watering is a major constraint of each pastoral family
through the time.

4.1.11 Weakness of indigenous knowledge practices and method of strengthening

Table 6: Weakness IK practices and method of strengthening

Variable Cases Frequency Percentage

Do you think that Weakness of IK is currently a Yes 203 59.5

problem in your areas? No 138 40.5
Total 341 100
Do you think strengthening of IK in rangeland Yes 341 1 00
management can improve rangeland management No 0 0
strategies? If yes, by what ways? Total 341 100

Is there any method for strengthening of IK of Yes 341 100

Rangeland management? What are those methods? No 0 0
Total 341 100

4.1.11 .1 Weakness of indigenous knowledge practices in the study area

The 93.5% of respondent said that (Table 4) the well function of IK is not as before, the pastoralists’
knowledge and strategies in rangeland management are disturbed and the communities are in a
deteriorating situation of livelihood practices. As, 59.5% and 40.5% (Table 6) illustrated that
Weakness of IK is currently problem and the Weakness of IK is not currently a problem in the areas
.So as the highest percentage of respondent result and FGD held in Dhas and Teso-kalo PAs
approved that even if comprehensive factors resist the livelihood practices, indigenous knowledge
Weakness is the base for rangeland disturbance. In case of IK weakness the respondent response and
FGD confirmed that for a long period of time the Community bylaw for rangeland management is

55
strictly obeyed in day-to-day life and accepted as “Hamaa Mudammuddii”. So, that breaking rules
were uncommon. But, now due to weakening of the customary institution, the breaking of bylaws
and not fully operational of Mura (Special decision) forwarded by Gumi-Gayo is common in the
study district. This all situations were great indicators of Indigenous knowledge Weakness.

The study result lined with Oba (1998) has also mentioned the pan-Borana assembly Gumi Gayo did
not possess the authority to prevent the misappropriation of grazing land by pastoralists and non-
pastoralists, and is therefore not fully operational.

4.1.11 .2 Strengthen of Indigenous knowledge in rangeland management.

The 100% (Table 6) of respondent response confirmed that the strengthening of indigenous
knowledge in rangeland management can improve rangeland management strategies. Because:
 There were different tools and System practices created from the indigenous knowledge base
which experienced for a long period of time in rangeland management strategies without
external support.
 From long term history the indigenous knowledge practices have a powerful assembly which
governed by Gada system that deals with creation of new laws, strengthening existing laws, the
correction or amendment of weak laws in order to keep the sustainability of rangeland
management.
 The Indigenous knowledge systems can contribute to global challenges, not only local. So
strengthen indigenous knowledge is strengthen of all integrated Management to overcome
future challenges.

The Entire respondent repeatedly rose that there are different methods of strengthening indigenous
knowledge of rangeland management if properly carried out. These methods are mentioned as
follows:
 Strengthen of responsible persons, particularly community elders able to apply their potential
knowledge in rangeland management.
 Strengthen the pan-Borana assembly Called “Gumi Gayo” possesses the authority to prevent the
misappropriation of grazing land by pastoralists participation and fully Operated the decision
forwarded by the Gumi Gayo assembly.

56
  The Hayu, Kalu, Jarsa madda, Jarsa dheeda, whole Gada leaders and forehead elders should
hold meeting, strengthen customary institution and mobilize the communities strictly to obey
bylaw and Special decision (Mura) for rangeland management and the breaking of rules was
accepted/Punished as “Hamaa Mudammuddii”.
 Strengthen of continuing and regularly conducted a meeting of rangeland management,
including special meetings called “Kora dheeda“(Dheeda Meeting) and all communities should
equally accept the punishment decided as special decision Called “Mura”.
 Strengthen younger generation participation and interest in learning and preservation process of
indigenous knowledge.
 Integrating of both Indigenous and Scientific knowledge without ignorance of each other.
The analytical discussion held with the FGD in all PAs supported the overall response of the
respondent. But , As the fear they repeatedly raised that today different encroached factors such as
conflict, recurrent drought, adaptation strategies, government policy and structure which dominate
Customary institutions were weakened the self-determination of the Dhas pastoral society .So, this
again pose a major constraint on the applicability of indigenous knowledge based range management
if try to strength indigenous knowledge unless, the active collaboration of all stake holder will be
carried out properly.

4.2 Community perception and Contribution of IK in biodiversity Conservation and

Rangeland rehabilitation

Table 7: Community perception and Contribution toward biodiversity conservation and Rangeland
Rehabilitation
Variable Cases Frequency Percentage

What are your perceptions about biodiversity Yes 212 62.2

conservation and Rangeland Rehabilitation, do you No 129 37.8
have an explanation (any understanding) about these Total 341 100
things?

57
Are there a variation of plants diversity in your Yes 341 100
environment / Land use types/, How do you explain No 0 0
the existence of plant diversity in your environment? Total 341 100
How do you know about these explanation(s)? How
important are these to you?

4.2.1 Community perception and Contribution of IK in biodiversity Conservation

Community perception and Contributions of indigenous knowledge in biodiversity conservation

were assessed based on the support and consideration given for conservation of biodiversity,
particularly, plant diversity in different land use types and the general information on emphasizing
given for Plant species in particular and everything including Wildlife as the general from past to
present time in regards to their purpose in the study district. The result agrees with these indigenous
knowledge practices provide a useful source of information for the sustainable use and conservation
of natural resources (Gufu et al., 2008).

4.2.1 .1 Contributions and perception of Biodiversity conservation to put emphasis on plant

Species.

As illustrated from (Table 7) the majority of the respondents in the study area (62.2%) had a good
explanation (Understanding) concept about biodiversity and less in number of respondents (37.8%)
had no explanation (poor understanding) about biodiversity. However, the entire respondent (100%)
illustrated in (Table 7) and analytical discussion with focus group approved variation of plant species
in the environment. Mean that in the study area rangelands are rich in plant species of high in
feeding and medicinal value, which varies in structure and composition. As FGD held in three PAs
approved that largely, medicinal and cultural value of plants forms the core of indigenous knowledge
in plant diversity conservation as particular and biodiversity conservation as the general. Not only
this, their traditional lifestyle, including use of plant for different purposes (Food, feed, Aesthetic
reason, pleasantness, and etc. made the communities closest to the rangeland management and
Biodiversity conservation. The dwellers of the communities use herbal medicines and are
knowledgeable herbalists of the plants. The plants Root, leaves (fresh and dry), twig, steam barks
were Medicines for tumor (Tanacha), wound healer (Mada Fayisu), earache (Dhukuba Gura), Evil

58
 eye (Buda) and etc. in Borana pastoralist of study district Emphasis was not only given for
medicinal plant but also Local healers (Chiresa) who know medicinal plants has great respect in
communities.
As respondent response and FGD approved that, even if no well-planned biodiversity conservation,
this background condition promoted the interest for the conservation and safeguard the threatened
species in different land use type and unit even at time of bush thinning practices. From indigenous
knowledge base also they evaluate the plant decreasing and increments, in order to know changes in
land use. But currently become rare/eroded, due to lessen attention and increased anthropogenic
pressure on plant species .Also traditional healers and some of the communities might have little
concern regarding the value of indigenous knowledge, and the younger generation is not taking
interest in its learning and preservation process of this knowledge. Even the current rangeland
management system has no longer able to support their diverse cultures, plants, and wildlife as
before due approach of indigenous knowledge weakness .This leads to severe rangeland degradation
result end in loss of biodiversity.
Mat-butto (Caralluma

Dakkara (Boswellia
Sariitii (Asparagus

priogonium)
racemosus)

neglecta)

Figure 10: Medicinal, incense and gum plant which communities gave emphasis from knowledge
base even at time of bush thinning.
(Source: Photo by the researcher, 2019)
4.2.1 .2 Perception and Contribution of Biodiversity conservation to put emphasis for wildlife

As raised by FGD members from Gayo and Dhas PAs Borana pastoralist including study districts
have the laws (custom-talk) for everything which stands not only for the benefit of individuals or to
discipline officials but it also extends to animals. Thus why they said that “Seerri Muummee, Seera

59
Saree”! Literally, it may mean as, “A law for a minister is a law for a dog”. So, this background
shows there are laws for everything, even for the dog. These ideas indicate that the concept of rule of
law is supposed not only as the law is superior to any person, but it also extends to natural world
including wildlife. Not only has this, but also the Borana pastoralist including study district had
different seera (Laws) from their Indigenous knowledge base.

For example “Seera Daawwee” included proclamations on proper management of domestic animals
like mules, horses, donkeys, cows, dogs and all wild animals. The elders’ participant from FGD
confirmed that Borana culture, including study district gave great emphasis for whole biodiversity.

Additionally, in regard to the emphasis given for Plant and wild animal (Binensa Rasa) species the
respondent and FGD members repeatedly raised the following ideas:
 According to Kalbessa (2001) different trees have different meanings to Oromo with a great
respect for these plant species in everyday social, political, religious and environmental aspects
of the Oromo people. In the study area the conservation of biodiversity is closely intertwined
with their indigenous Cultures and different purposes obtained from plant/animal. Means the
Dhas district pastoralist give generous attention for whole plant species, particularly for Acacia
tortolis. Because Acacia is a dry season grazing reserve (Pods), a source of wild food, a place
where ritual practices are taking place (Gumi Gayo), and a place of shelter at the times of travel
and war. Additionally, besides, they use different trees are needed for other purposes,
particularly ritual activities, root, branches and leaves of certain trees or shrubs were also
collected for medicinal and other purpose. As example Vernonia plant spp. (Qaxxe) shrubs
Species were used for Hulluqo (the Branches and leaves of certain plants collected for a ritual for
the wellbeing of the people, livestock and the environment)

60
Figure 11: Distribution of Acacia Tortolis as conserved, even around the Homeland in Teso-kalo
PAs
(Source: Photo by the researcher, 2019)

 In regards to the emphasis given for wildlife, in nature the whole Borana pastoralist including the
study district used Nanniga (troughs) for water management, is that cattle should never enter the
open water, but drink the water hauled into troughs made by lime soil. After finishing the
watering of cattle, they leave water in naaniga (trough) or not hauled water into Wells (Elas)
due to the emphasis given for Wildlife, by saying in their local language” Kun Bishaan Leenca
warabeessa”.”Means, “This is Water for lion and Hyena”. But nowadays the emphasis for
wildlife was lessened and they didn’t leave water in naaniga (trough) due to consideration of the
left water May crash a naaniga (trough) .This approved the Evidence of thought given for
Biodiversity conservation in the study district from Indigenous knowledge base. Not only, but
Also during severe drought the communities give odd emphasis for Wildlife which highly
affected by drought in order to safe their life.

61
 Kudu (Gadamsa)
Figure 12: Wildlife Conserved By communities at time of severe drought in the study area.
(Source: Photo by the Ali wariyo and researcher, 2019)

From general view, the principal tool for biodiversity conservation is protected areas, but in the
study area there is no biodiversity conserved area which intentionally closed as the protected area.
However, there were tools and system from the indigenous knowledge base which practiced for a
long period of time and having great contribution in biodiversity conservation. But, currently the
respondent response and FGD confirmed that in the study area of Dhas district Rangeland
degradation due to underutilization of indigenous knowledge and institutions; their roles in
sustainable development were undermined and marginalized leads to Biodiversity loss. The result
supports the study conducted by Weiland and Dedeur waerdere, (2010) stated currently Biodiversity
loss, and deforestation and poverty have long been concerns in developing countries.

4.2.2 Community perception and Contributions of indigenous knowledge in rangeland

rehabilitation

The Contributions of indigenous knowledge for rangeland rehabilitation were assessed from
the point of view in indigenous knowledge practices which have greater role in rangeland
rehabilitation and community understanding on these issues.

As the respondent response and FGD repeatedly raised that there were different Indigenous
knowledge practices primarily designed for other purpose. Even though, have a great contribution in
rangeland rehabilitation. For examples:-`

62
 Traditional range enclosures (kalo): the prime purpose for the kalo to be designated is in order
to reserve grasses for dry season grazing. But also can be used as a method of rangeland
rehabilitation where rangelands are often heavily grazed closing some part of rangeland to allow
the vegetation recover after rested for a specific period of time. Not only, but also creates strong
functional linkages that define problems with rangeland, shape solutions and also have great
economic and range management Implication in the study district .As the FGD held in Dhas PA
confirmed that the communal enclosure of Dhas PAs called Hara and Ade communal enclosures
which rested for five to six years was currently rehabilitated the degraded land (change the
previous condition) to high levels and used as forage bank at the time of drought.
Additionally, enclosures areas have also their own Socio-economic implications .As the result from
FGD held in all PAs revealed that, the current pastoralist enclosures have implication in income
generating activities for both individual owners and Communities PA through the sale of various
commodities from the enclosure sits (fattened livestock, cut grass for the roof, fodder or hay, selling
during dry season grazing). The result line with the study stated, the social and economic
consequences of the range enclosure are varied, depending on the accessibility of the enclosure
benefits to the pastoral households and the environmental goods and services tapped either directly
or indirectly by the society (Makokha et al., 1999; Kitalyi et al., 2002; RAE, 2004).

Intensified Hay Making practices in

Hara Communal Enclosure

Figure 13: Communal enclosure for different Purpose in Dhas District

(Source: Photo by the researcher, 2019)

63
 Set dry and wet season grazing areas (Dongora seera keeyyachu): The traditional pastoralists
of Dhas district used to set a side dry season and wet season grazing areas and kept livestock in
such designated areas, which were not fenced. This also allows regeneration of vegetation after a
specific time of resting.so this indigenous knowledge practice has its own role in rangeland
rehabilitation.
 Mobility :The Periodic grazing through involvement between foora (mobile herds) and warra
(milk herds) which carried out from the indigenous knowledge base is essential to rehabilitate
rangeland in order to maintain rangeland vegetation balance, because the absence of rangeland
utilization can cause competition and leads to encroachment of undesirable plants. . As one elder
from FGD participant held at Gayo PA said that all our indigenous knowledge practices,
including Gargalfanna (Shifting of cattle encampments throughout satellite area) were mediated
the system of rangeland rehabilitation due allow fertilizer (Manures) input and regeneration of
vegetation.

4.3 Community Perception toward different Land use types

4.3.1 Community Perception toward Private enclosure

The Community Perception toward Private enclosure was assessed from the point of view of Private
enclosure in regards to ways of starting, its importance and limitation. As narrated by FGD In the
study area, recurrent drought was common and there are many households that have no access to
private enclosures. Most of the time herd owners in this system are forced to graze their livestock in
the open range, where the competition of scarce pasture resources is very high; this forced to
establish Private enclosure in open range which used during the dry season. These situations
exacerbate the problem of overstocking on the open range and forcing rangeland shrinkage of the
district. On the other hand, some of the ex-pastoralist (Poor) uses private enclosures as income
generation, and the pressure for further enclosure expansion within communities.
As respondent response and FGD approved that since private enclosure (Kalo) has also created
strong functional linkages that define problems with rangeland, shape solutions at a time of drought
and also range management implication in the study district. However the communities appraised
many problems come up with a private enclosure such as rangeland shrinkage and disputes
expansion between and within communities. So recently, the government intervention programs with
supportive ideas from customary institutions develop a set of interventions that assist the pastoralists

64
to improve their livelihoods; they do not necessarily have to establish enclosures and dig out
previously enclosed area. The studies conducted by Makokha et al., (1999) also support this
observation.

4.3.2 Community Perception toward cultivated land

As the FGD of Dhas and Teso- kalo PAs raised that “Akkuma Nami Galani Fuudhe Oomacha
qabata jedhan or “Endeavor indicator proverb “new emerged indigenous knowledge practices like
land cultivation and private enclosure introduced due to tried to overcome economically disastrous
situation. In the district pastoralist communities have adopted crop cultivation, to prevent or
minimize the sale of livestock and to recover from poverty or food insecurity. However, currently
there was highly expansion of crop cultivation with association of private enclosure. But has a little
contribution for the introduced purpose to sustain food security due to unreliable rainfall. Since, has
led to an expansion of private enclosures on communal land. So, most of the study area pastoralists
criticized Expansion of crop cultivation into grazing areas, by stating the combination of conflict
restricted area and private enclosure associated with land cultivation have great extent to fuelled land
degradation and shrinkage in the in Dhas district. Nevertheless, some of cultivated land owner’s
communities with the support of government policy considered as one of the few means to improve
food security if the rainfall is available. The communities also agreed on cultivation of the small
scale of land without comprehensive with private enclosed as adoptive capacity.

4.3.3 Community Perception toward Communal enclosure and Communal Grazing

As the FGD held in all PAs raised that in rangeland management practices Borana pastoralists of
Dhas district use enclosed and unenclosed areas in one area of the range site based on their own
purpose. The enclosure trend is likely to be adopted in the area before three decades as the adoptive
response strategies experienced from neighbor communities called “Guji tribe” as the Borana. Then
from such experiences the study district closed the area for strategies of rangeland rehabilitation with
comprehensive of reserving dry period feed for livestock. This leads to Variation in plant diversity
between the enclosed and un- enclosed areas. Which result in even highly desirable grass species
such as Digitaria naghellensis (Ilmogori), cymbogon commutatus (Alchiso), Themeda triandra
(Gaaguro),Pennisetum mezianum (Ogondhicho), Cenchrus ciliaris (Mat-guddees) are found in
Enclosure area and absent/very rare in open area.

65
 As the whole analytical discussion with Focus group approved that, from Communities perception
indigenous knowledge practices of Traditional communal enclosure are the most appropriate and
appreciable strategies for rangeland rehabilitation with the response of conserving plant diversity.

The result lined with the study conducted by Oba (1998) stated that, fencing-off of commonly used
forage-banks (kalo) were originally adopted from the neighboring Guji tribe as an adaptive response
to the decline of grazing resources.

Most of the time due to open range the unclosed areas (Communal grazing) were disturbed by the
grazing competition, which leads to degradation ensues in the open grazing areas. Because they own
it communally and the free access of the common they would not care more. This result in the poor
management of communally owned rangeland without powerful by laws in current situation. The
study conducted by Mureithi (2006) also supports this idea.

4.4 Interventions of Rangeland management and Biodiversity conservation

Table 8: Intervention of Rangeland management and Biodiversity conservation

Variable Cases Frequency Percentage

Are there Interventions of Rangeland management and Yes 341 100
Biodiversity conservation in the study area? If yes, What No 0 0
are they? Total 341 100
Is the way they work compatible with that of local peoples' Yes 224 65.7
knowledge? No 117 34.3
Total 341 100

Is the intervention having the response of biodiversity Yes 294 86.2

conservation and rangeland rehabilitation or existence of No 47 13.8
different plants and stability of the area? Total 341 100

As the finding of this study indicates that, different intervention practices were carried out for the
rangeland management (100%), the implementation of intervention was less integrated with
indigenous knowledge practices (65.7%) and the carried out interventions had response indirectly,

66
in biodiversity conservation and rangeland rehabilitation (86.2%) (Table 8).The FGD held in Teso-
kalo and Gayo PAs approved that different intervention practices were carried out for the rangeland
management to overcome the problem with the rangeland. However, Even if these development
interventions are made for the communities’ absence of Sustainable communities’ participation and
less empowerment of communities are the main problems of rangeland intervention program. Not
only, but also there is less or no emphasis given for biodiversity conservation in planned form in the
study district.

4.4.1 Rangeland management Intervention practices

4.4.1.1 Water Shade (Sulula) Management

As the analytical discussion with FGD approved that, Watershed (Sulula) management is the
current nationally intended natural resource management effort. Its construction was implemented
about six years ago in the district. For its implementation the community is mobilized for
participation in watershed management planning at the same time and all PA have its own
sulula/Water shade. The objectives are to restore the degraded landscape and conserve soil from
erosion. Within the implementation system first the experts from pastoralist bureau delineated the
water shade area using GPS, then pastoralists’ fence these areas with spiny or thorny shrub or tree
branches. Based on the base map they classify the land as the intervention needed. If the land is
hilly landscape, then change the slope into a terrace. They dig ditches inside the fenced area, and put
a rock on top of the ditch .This is called “Daga qotu” which used to change the current water flow,
and direct the water flow into these ditches. Also they perform different water conservation structure
like Half-moon, Eyebrow, Micro-basin and etc. for water retention purpose. At the time of bush
encroachment problem only fencing communal land and implementing bush thinning activities.

However, FGD approved that within this rangeland management intervention, the interest of
community was fencing communal land and bush thinning. But many of these methods tended to
place more emphasis on soil and water conservation activities called “daga qotu” this leading to
failure of water shade functionality, due to lack of embracing the needs and priorities of the pastoral
communities , because different findings suggested that local community participation is crucial for
successful implementation of any development program. In other words, before embarking on a

67
major rehabilitation programme, the objectives and implications should be carefully examined
(Miller and Hobbs, 2007).
Not only, but also problematic of government intervention was less in performance, particularly in
dry land areas including the study district. Since, the planned watershed activities were not adapted
to the pastoral activity calendar due lack of user participation. This idea supported the implemented
interventions were less integrated with indigenous knowledge practices of the communities. the
result consistent with

4.4.1.2 Expansion of traditional communal Enclosure (Kalo Aada waliini Baballisu)

As the FGD held in all three PAs approved that Expansion of traditional communal Enclosure (Kalo
Aada waliin Baballisu) is one of the interventions carried out for rangeland management from
communities indigenous knowledge base, but supported by both government and non-government
strategies. These were started due to establishment of enclosures was found to be one of the ways to
improve the condition of the rangelands in the district all PAs have their own traditional communal
enclosure which closed by the Communities using thorny bush. If the rain starts the dheeda
committees come together decided not to use enclosed area and the fenced maintenance activities are
initiated by the Abba Rera (Head of rare) and Abba Gare (Head of sub-rare) or elders from
rangeland users. Today engaging in certain rangeland management enclosure maintenance and other
developmental activity were set as criteria to get the aid. In such occasions, indigenous knowledge
was weakened and rangeland rehabilitation can be conducted as a result of its integration with food
aid program and cash form.
Generally, as the analytical discussion with FGD approved that Indigenous knowledge has
responded in rangeland rehabilitation and conserving plant diversity. The communal enclosure
approach and water shade management practices in the study district responded for rehabilitating
degraded rangeland by restricting from disturbance and allow regeneration of vegetation. But, most
of the time the fully success of intervention practices is failed due to less communities participation,
less empowerment of implemented activities, interference of erratic rainfall , potential of intervened
area anthropogenic activities and etc.

68
Figure 14: Rangeland Rehabilitated through Traditional communal enclosure and hay making profit
obtained from the area by the technical support.
(Source: Photo taken by the Jarso Sora, 2019)

As the whole, In terms of both government and non-government intervention in rangeland

management program different development agencies such as ACF, JICA, IGAD, CIFA, Mercy
corps and Save the Children have been working in Dhas district rangelands. In doing so, however,
the degree to which these agencies tried to integrate indigenous institutions into development
process was limited and less empowerment of communities. As a result, they could not come up with
good improvement and not win much support from Community for sustainable development. Over,
as the whole, our findings suggest that local community participation is crucial for successful
implementation of any development program, optimal use of resources, and long-term
environmental sustainability. The result also lined with a study conducted by Watson (2003).

4.5 Preference ranking of sustainable indigenous knowledge practices

The rank ordering of indigenous knowledge practices is used to determine the most preferable of
indigenous knowledge practices based on a contribution in rangeland management, implications of
conserving plant diversity and community perceptions toward the practices. Since, the previously
existing indigenous knowledge practices were hindered by different factors and the continuities of
pastoralism is under pressure and surrendered to tension and aggression unless to seek the most

69
 sustainable indigenous knowledge practices. Then most important is given the highest number and
Preference ranking was computed by taking the response of respondent and approved by the
analytical discussion with FGD members as follow.

Table 9: Preference ranking of sustainable indigenous knowledge practices (N=341)

IK practices No. of respondent percentage Ranking

Mobility 287 84.2 % 1
Communal enclosure 272 79.8% 2
Private enclosure 69 20.2% 7
Herd diversification 167 49% 6
Customary institutions 242 71% 4
Set dry and wet season grazing 254 74.5% 3
Firing/Burning rangeland 193 56.6% 5

As illustrated from the results (Table 9), highest percent of respondents indicated that Mobility
(84.2%) in terms of herd splitting or without move with total family, Expansion of traditional
Communal enclosure (79.8%), Set dry and wet season grazing (74.5%) and strengthen Customary
institutions (71%) were more preferred indigenous knowledge practices. Since these practices have
great role in rangeland management and plant biodiversity conservation and appreciable toward
community perception. The analytical discussion with FGD also approved the results of preference
ranking if the following points are taking into account.
 The Existence of claims or Tribe conflict between Borana and Garri which imposing more
pressure on mata wayama rangelands were solved.
 Strengthen the bylaw of recent innovation rangeland management practice (traditional
communal enclosure) which highly appreciated and great contribution in current rangeland
management.
 All PAs and neighboring district arranged their settlement and decided encampment in line
(dongora sera) with successfully respect.
 Empowered the elders and developing the capability and interest of the young generation in
range management.

70
 Table 10: Summary of Major IK practices, contribution in Biodiversity conservation and RL rehabilitation and Factors hindering the
Practices

IK practices of Contribution in Biodiversity Factor Hindering IK Practices

rangeland Management conservation and rangeland Or initiate IK practices problem
rehabilitation

Mobility  Improve pasture and conserve  Unavailable grazing(Mismanagement)

plant diversity  Water resources problem
 Balance rangeland utilization  Population growth, Increasing settlement to get social
and prevent encroachment due services and settlement in remote grazing areas
absence of Utilization  Existence of claims by different ethnic groups on rangelands
 Resting For specific period (Clan Conflict),
rehabilitate rangeland  The declining number of cattle holding per HH.
Expansion of  Rehabilitate RL by restricting  Climate change, which leads to erratic rainfall.
traditional Communal from disturbance and Allow  Disobeying of Bylaw, Special decision (Mura) and decree
enclosure regeneration proclaimed by Pan-Borana assembly (Gumi Gayo).
 Improve pasture and conserve  Weakness of institutional Structure which leads to RL mg’t
plant diversity were appointed by inexperienced persons (Leader and Qero)
 Conserving Multipurpose plants  Intervention of PAs leader in the power of elders
 Safeguard Threatened plant  Mismanagement of RL (Unavailable grazing and encroached
species. of Grazing land by non- user)
Private enclosure  Rehabilitate RL by restricting  Not pastoral oriented extension support
from disturbance and Allow  Climate change, which leads to erratic rainfall
regeneration  Urban development and change of community life style
 Improve pasture and conserve  Disobeying of Bylaw, Special decision (Mura) and decree
plant diversity proclaimed by Pan-Borana assembly (Gumi Gayo).
 Conserving Multipurpose plants  Intervention of PAs leader in the power of elders
 Safeguard Threatened plant spp.  Rangeland fragmentation

71
Herd splitting  Balance rangeland utilization  Shortage of Labor availability
and prevent encroachment due  Climate change, which leads to erratic rainfall
absence of Utilization  Clan conflict for land use expansion
 Allow regeneration after resting,  Urban development and change of community life style
 Inappropriate development concepts like Expansion of Water
sources and Farmland
 Ban of burning of rangeland
 Population growth, Increasing settlement to get social
services and settlement in remote grazing areas
 The declining number of cattle holding per household
 Spreading of disease
 Rangeland fragmentation
Herd diversification  Balance layer of vegetation and  Shortage of Labor availability
prevent extinction of unpalatable  Climate change, which leads to erratic rainfall
spp.  Urban development and change of community life style
 To prevent competition and  Interventions policies to improve pastoralist livelihood which
encroachment of undesirable disturb IK practices (Leads Shrinkage of (Dheeda)
plant spp.  Weakness of institutional Structure which leads to RL
management were appointed by inexperienced persons
(Leader and Qero (youth)
 Spreading of disease.
Customary institutions  Evaluate range condition  Different intervention practice to improve pastoralist livelihood.
 Improve pasture of degraded  Climate change, which leads to erratic rainfall
Land  Clan conflict for land use expansion
 Planning, implementing, and  Urban development and change of community life style
mitigating impact of RL  The Government Meeting dominates the IK
 Conserving plant diversity based  Weakness of institutional Structure which leads to RL mg’t
on their purpose were appointed by inexperienced persons (Leader and Qero)
 Intervention of PAs leader in the power of elders

72
  Disobeying of Bylaw, Special decision (Mura) and decree
proclaimed by Pan-Borana assembly (Gumi Gayo).
 Political marginalization of pastoralist
Set dry and wet season  Improve pasture and conserve  Undefined Dongora seera and dispersed Settlement
grazing plant diversity  Different intervention practice to improve pastoralist
 Balance rangeland utilization and livelihood
prevent encroachment due  Climate change, which leads to erratic rainfall
absence of utilization  Clan conflict for land use expansion
 Resting for specific period  Urban development and change of community life style
rehabilitate RL  Disobeying of Bylaw, Special decision (Mura) and decree
proclaimed by Pan-Borana assembly (Gumi Gayo).
 Interventions policies which disturb IK practices (Leads
Shrinkage of Dheeda)
 Weakness of institutional Structure which leads to RL mg’t
were appointed by inexperienced persons (Leader and Qero)
 Inappropriate development concepts like Expansion of Water
sources and Farmland
 Increasing of Population growth and dispersed settlement
 Mismanagement of RL (Unavailable grazing and encroached
of Grazing land by non- user).
Firing/Burning  Prevent plant competition and  The official ban on fire
rangeland encroachment of undesirable plant  Lack of sufficient fuel load
spp.  Fear of the risk to set fire on the scattered
 Improve regeneration of palatable encampments/village
plant spp.
 Prevent RL degradation by woody
spp.

73
4.6 Implication of indigenous land use practices for Biodiversity conservation and
Rangeland rehabilitation

This study brought information into view on the vegetation assessment to understand the current
indigenous knowledge of rangeland management and its implications for biodiversity
conservation and rangeland rehabilitation, then the vegetation survey was investigated
throughout four selected land use type (Communal enclosure Vs. Communal grazing, cultivated
land Vs. Private enclosure or Kalo) which are Adjacent to each other. Then the existing plant
species in a different growth form Tree, Shrubs, Forbs and overall herbaceous including legumes
were recorded. To justify Implication of those land use types in terms of Vegetation plant
diversity, richness, evenness and similarity of the land use vegetation were calculated and
compared using SAS software and Shannon wiener index Formula. Since, the final purpose is to
know the condition of those land use types and decide/recommend applicable and sustainable
management for rangeland based on their implication in biodiversity conservation. Since, to
know the rangeland condition and decide applicable management for rangeland measuring
biodiversity is a special circumstance.

Figure 15: At time of recording the existing plant spp.in different land use type
(Source: Photo taken by Jarso Sora, 2019)

74
4.6.1 Result for Implication Measurements from Vegetation Data Collection
The results of implication measurement such as significant different using SAS software and
Shannon Wiener index (Species diversity, Richness, Evenness indices), Similarity and
Dissimilarity of land use types detailed as follows:

To justify the implication of indigenously practiced land use types in biodiversity conservation
A complete list of trees, shrubs, forbs and overall herbaceous including legumes species were
collected from each systematically selected plot .Then As an overall view of recorded plant
species from the established sample quadrats at the study districts, a total of 93 plant species (11
tree, 39 shrubs, 25 fobs and 18 overall herbaceous spp.) Were encountered (Appendix -5).

4.6.1.1. Implication of communal enclosure and Communal Grazing for Biodiversity

conservation
4.6.1.1.1. Diversity, Richness, evenness and similarity of two land use type
Diversity, evenness, richness is thus measured by recording the number of species existed in
these two land use types. These components may be examined separately or combined with some
form of an index like the Shannon diversity index in order to recommend most sustainable
indigenous knowledge practices. Then the Summary of the computed adjacent land use types
(communal enclosure and Communal Grazing) Shannon-Wiener diversity, Richness, and
Shannon evenness for the entire vegetation of the study species is presented in (Table 11).

For two adjacent land use types in all plant growth forms, the land use are significant (P<0.05)
differences in terms Overall herbaceous and shrub plant species, but not significant (P>0.05)
differences in terms of trees and Forbs (Appendix, 7). However, in regards to the average of all
plant growth forms recorded in two land use types, there is significant (P<0.05) differences.
Means, communal enclosure had high plant diversity.

As the whole, the reason for land use significant in terms of overall herbaceous and shrubs
growth form was due to higher palatable and productive grass specie including locally threatened
grass such as Cymbogon commutates (Alchiso), Cenchrus ciliaris (Mat-guddesa), Digitaria
naghellensis (Ilmogori) and Pennisetum mezianum (Ogondhicho) that are also reported by
respondents to be present inside the enclosure area and absent outside enclosure. Likewise
presence of highly desirable shrubs species composition such as Blepharispermum pubescens

75
(Banya) which highly favorable for goats and Vernonia plant species (Qaxxe) which have been
highly observed inside communal enclosures rather than communal grazing due to proper
management including restricted from disturbance was indications to land use significant in
terms of shrubs. Likewise, the result support might be support shrub-herbaceous plant theory of
Gilad et al., (2004), where establishment of one form of plant life synergies that of another.

In addition to significant comparing the diversity of the vegetation of the two land use types
(Communal enclosure and communal grazing) adjacent to each other using Shannon formula,
such as a Shannon diversity index, richness and evenness of all plant growth of the vegetation at
communal enclosure was higher than that of communal grazing (Table 11). Our results of higher
species diversity in enclosed areas have also been observed in Ethiopia (Aerts et al., 2006;
Yayneshet et al., 2009; Mekuria and Veldkamp, 2012) and in Kenya (Oba et al., 2001) and also
other study also confirmed that the communal enclosures are important sites for plant
biodiversity conservation. Thus, attention should be given to the communal enclosure
conservations as they are used as means of in-situ conservation of plant biodiversity.

Figure 16: Some of locally threatened plant Species Cenchrus ciliaris (Mat-guddesa), which
present in communal enclosure.
(Source: Photo taken by Jarso Sora, 2019)

76
 Table 11: Summary of biodiversity implications measurement values in selected land use types.
Plant spp. Communal enclosure versus Communal grazing
growth Form Communal Enclosure (LT1) Communal grazing(LT2)
Shannon wiener Richness Evenness Shannon wiener Richness Evenness
index(H) index index(H) index
Trees 1.09 2.57 2.18 1.06 2.43 2.10
Shrubs 2.20 8.07 2.15 1.89 6.03 2.08
Forbs 1.47 4.17 1.96 1.31 3.6 1.92
Overall
1.65 3.91 2.07 1.26 2.77 2.09
herbaceous
Moreover, regarding communal grazing from the vegetation field assessment and community
based knowledge, in most of the rangelands of the study district heavy grazing pressure due to
unsuitable grazing system (Competition) in communal grazing exacerbated by climate change
has resulted in the disappearance of the most productive and palatable grasses and their
replacement by unpalatable and less desirable plant species in Forbs growth form such as
Indigofera volkensii (Gurbii Hoola) which highly affect grass species (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Communal grazing Area invaded

by less palatable and undesirable plant
species called Indigofera volkensii (Gurbii
Hoola) which highly affect grass species.

Generally from the land use significant result, consequence of the range enclosure is the
extraordinary difference inside and outside the fence in vegetation conditions due to periodically
restricted from disturbance and proper management of enclosed area. Therefore, good condition
of vegetation, including presence of threatened grass species inside enclosure implicit for
contribution of enclosure in range rehabilitation and plant biodiversity conservation.

77
These results support observations in previous studies which lower species diversity in open
rangelands due to repeating of disturbance from livestock or humans, influences species
diversity (Cumming, 1982).

Communal Enclosure Communal grazing

Figure 18: Variation in adjacent land use types (Communal enclosure and Communal grazing)
(Source: Photo by researcher, 2019)

4.6.1.2 Implication of communal enclosure and communal grazing for rangeland

Rehabilitation

Implications of using enclosures for rehabilitating degraded rangeland in Dhas district have
indicators in conserving of plant diversity. As concluded from the implicit of enclosures shows
that practicing of communal enclosure (traditional kalos) is one of the outstanding example,
which were significant to convert severely degraded rangeland into Productive grassland. As
indicated from Figure (18) variation of two land use types above and the Figure (19) below
shows rangelands outside enclosure (communally grazed area) in the district are highly degraded
and under serious threats. Conversely, the enclosure areas were in apposite condition.

Verdoodt et al., (2010) reported that rangeland enclosure fostered regeneration of both annual
and perennial grasses. Thus the result concluded, as both survey vegetation and interview result

78
confirmed that there is an implication of IK in biodiversity conservation and rangeland
rehabilitation. The implication shows, the contribution of indigenous knowledge in rangeland
management and biodiversity conservation can be encouraged if appropriate traditional
management strategies such as strengthen practicing of communal enclosures is continued in
appropriate and sustainable manner.

Figure 19: Highly degraded grazing land and rehabilitated rangeland using an enclosure
(Source: Photo taken by Jatani Galgalo, 2019)

4.6.1.3 Implication of private enclosure and cultivated land for Biodiversity conservation

4.6.1.3.1 Diversity, Richness, evenness and similarity of two land use type

In the study district the implications of private enclosure and cultivated land in the rangeland
were analyzed by evaluating the perception, including ways of practices in the communities and
assessing plant diversity. Diversity, evenness, richness is thus, measured by recording the
number of species. These components may be examined separately or combined in some form of
an index like the Shannon diversity index in order to recommend most sustainable indigenous
knowledge practices. Then the Summary of the computed adjacent land use types (private
enclosure and cultivated land) Shannon-Wiener diversity, Richness, and Shannon evenness for
the entire vegetation of the study species is presented in (Table 12).

For two adjacent land use types comparing in all plant growth form, the land use is significant
(P<0.05) difference in terms of all plant growth form Trees, shrubs and Overall herbaceous plant
species except forbs which land use is not significant (P>0.05) difference (Appendix,9) .The

79
reason for land use significant in terms of all plant growth form except forbs is due to inadequate
and non-profitable adoption of farming Practices as coping strategies which result in loss of
habitat, species and rangeland shrinkage which also reported by respondents. The observed result
lined with the study conducted by (Reid et al., 2004) which suggested that, In case of cultivation
expansion the consequences of this practice are loss of habitat and species, an increase in air
pollution and the release of carbon into the atmosphere.

Similarly, as obtained from interview and field observation result, recently in the study district
due to the scarcity of rainfall the land dig out for cultivation is left over without included in
either rangeland use or cultivated land. Some of its left with invasion of non-palatable forbs plant
species which leads to reject the result of significant (P>0.05) difference and the other is left as
bare lands (Figure 20). Thus, also the respondent response approved the expansion of cultivated
land put further pressure on pastoralist’s rangeland vegetation and result in reducing biodiversity.

Cultivated land Invaded By non- Cultivated land left as bare land

desirable Forbs Plant Species

Figure 20: Due to scarcity of rainfall the lands dig out for cultivation, which left over without
included in either rangeland use or cultivated land.

In addition to significant comparison, comparing the diversity of the vegetation of the two land
use types (private enclosure and cultivated land) adjacent to each other using Shannon formula,
the Shannon diversity index, richness and evenness of all plant growth of the vegetation at
private enclosure was higher than the cultivated land (Table 12) and also less similarity index
(42.1%) was observed between two land use types from Sorenson’s similarity test (Table 13).

80
 Table 12: Summary of biodiversity implications measurement values in selected land use types.
Private enclosure vs. cultivated land

Plant spp. Private enclosure versus Cultivated land

growth Private enclosure (LT3) Cultivated land (LT4)
Form Shannon wiener Richness Evenness Shannon wiener Richness Evenness
index(H) index index(H) index
Trees 1.03 2.25 2.14 0.23 0.24 1.29
Shrubs 2.09 8.37 2.15 1.19 3.22 2.14
Forbs 1.44 4.82 1.88 1.29 4.45 1.83
Overall
1.63 4.29 2.26 1.18 2.92 2.12
herbaceous

4.6.1.4 Implication of private enclosure and cultivated land for rangeland rehabilitation

The expansion of cultivated land puts further pressure on pastoralist’s rangeland vegetation,
through means of clearing plant species which result in reducing biodiversity and attributed to
privatization, which led to the shrinkage of rangeland which exacerbates conflict between
communities. Generally in terms of Cultivating land the implications are deterioration and
fragmentation of the rangeland which leads to biodiversity loss and also in terms of Sorenson’s
similarity test less similarity (42.1%) was observed between two land use types (Table 13).

So, the associated private enclosure (kalo dhunfa) has great implications to rehabilitate degraded
land and conserving plant diversity; but it’s attributed of privatization of range land and has no
appreciation from communities. The result lined with the study conducted in Baringo rangelands
(Verdoodt et al., 2010) which pointed out that individual management decisions play a critical
role in promoting successful rangeland rehabilitation.

4.6.2 Implication results of Sorenson’s similarity index of paired land use types

Sorenson’s similarity index exhibited the degree of similarity of the land use types in the type of
species they are composed of (Table 13). The highest similarity (90.2 %) was observed between
Communal Enclosure (Communal kalo) and Private enclosure (Private kalo) but there was
negative communities perception toward private enclosure. Furthermore, for comparison of land
use type’s similarities with each other, to some amount there are far away from them. This

81
 similarity analysis depends on the species presence/absence data and there is no consideration of
density or abundance data.

Table 13: The Sorenson’s index of similarity of the land use types

Pair of Land Use Types A B C SC =(2C/A+B) % of % of

Similarity Dissimilarity
Communal Enclosure(Communal 81 56 46 0.672 67.2 32.8
Kalo) Vs. Communal grazing
Private enclosure (Private kalo) Vs. 83 31 24 0.421 42.1 57.9
Cultivated land
Communal Enclosure (Communal kalo) 81 83 74 0.902 90.2 9.8
Vs. Private enclosure (Private kalo)
A=Plants recorded in first land use types/habitat 1/, B= Plants recorded in second land use
types/habitat 2/, C= Plants recorded in both first and second land use types/habitat 1 and 2/,
SC= Sorenson’s coefficient.

4.6.3 General result of implications of four selected land Use types in Rangeland

From the general view of comparing four selected land use types the two enclosure types (private
enclosure and Communal enclosure) led to great implications in biodiversity conservation and
rangeland rehabilitation. The result of study district shows both rangeland enclosures has
significantly improved the range condition and biodiversity conservation. The result Also in line
with the study conducted by Mekuria and Veld Kamp, (2012) indicated that increased species
diversity in enclosed areas is one of the indicators of success rangeland restoration in the
formerly degraded communal grazing lands.

Whereas the degradation and less plant biodiversity arises in the open grazing areas and
cultivated land. Besides, evaluating the community perception toward private enclosure, the
private enclosure owned individually, the free access of the common was restricted; they would
care more and have great implication for biodiversity conservation. However, there was a
negative perception of communities toward private enclosure .This result also supported by the
study conducted by Verdoodt et al., (2009) and Mureithi (2006).

Since the evaluated components (significant variation and Shannon) was examined separately or
combined in some form of index like the Shannon diversity index in order to recommend most
sustainable indigenous knowledge practices. The general result of the study concluded that due

82
less expensive and highly acceptable (Positive perception) by the communities, communal
enclosures have sustainability of any positive rehabilitation and the success of the conservation
activities which enables people for sustainable range management in a today changing system.

Generally diversity, evenness, richness is, thus measured by recording the number of species.
Since Measures of species diversity are usually seen to be key indicators for the well-being of
conservation systems. Samples of plant species diversity have often been noted for prioritizing
conservation activities because they reflect the underlying ecological processes that are
important for management (Lovett et al., 2000).

4.6.4 Integrating indigenous and scientific knowledge in the future

As respondent and different authors approved that indigenous cultures and their
knowledge systems can contribute to global challenges not only local. However, less emphasis is
given for the integration with scientific knowledge which result in underutilization of indigenous
knowledge, institutions and their roles in sustainable development were undermined and
marginalized,

So, the applicable integration of indigenous and scientific policy on rangeland management and
Biodiversity conservation would require a strong external support and official recognition from
the higher government level to plan until lower class of PAs.

The paper will conclude with a reflection on the role of IK in the rangeland and the importance
of having an integrated system of knowledge, in which indigenous peoples will have the
opportunity not only to share their experiences to overcome future challenges, but also to
become active agents of change by being involved in the decision making processes .the result
consistent with the study conducted by (Ayana and Gufu,2008) ,stated combining this
knowledge with scientific knowledge provides a more complete understanding of environment
from the perspective of utilizing the resources. Additionally, Ngaido and McCarthy (2002)
pointed out, the common basis for legitimacy in negotiations between a traditional and formal
institution needs to be emphasized.

83
 CHAPTER FIVE

5. CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATION

5.1 Conclusions
Currently, the result of a study conducted in Dhas district shows that the rangeland condition is
declining and the unique knowledge (IK) of the community in rangeland management is also not
functioning well as before .This has also considerable impacts on rangeland which result in loose
of plant diversity and the decline in the livelihoods of pastoralists. Since, this study was targeted
to assess the role of IK in rangeland management with implication for biodiversity conservation
and rangeland rehabilitation i n selected PAs of Dhas district, Borana Zone, Southern Ethiopia.
Hence, the main findings of the research are summarized below. From overall study, the
researcher concluded that, Indigenous knowledge has great role in rangeland management from
its original base. However currently, different indigenous knowledge practices were hindered by
numerous interrelated factors such as inappropriate extension service, Recurrent Tribal Conflict ,
Government Meeting dominates the indigenous, Weakness of institutional Structure, Climate
change which leads to recurrent drought, Privatization of the Communal Grazing Land, Different
external intervention Policies and etc. Thus long term deteriorated of IK from time to time put
further pressure on rangeland of the study district, result in biodiversity lose and also getting the
livelihood of pastoralist communities into tension and aggression. According to survey and
vegetation assessment conducted in the study district the result shows that indigenous knowledge
practices like communal enclosure was well appreciated and has a great role in rangeland
management with great implications of biodiversity conservation and rangeland rehabilitation.
And also highly profitable as drought reserved fodder bank for the communities if appropriate
management, which supported by scientific policy was formulated. Therefore, reducing the
impacts of encroaching factors hindering indigenous knowledge practices and enhance
Sustainable rangeland management; strengthen IK and integrated management system (linking of
IK and Scientific knowledge) particularly, focusing on appropriate traditional management
strategies such as strengthen practicing of communal enclosures in continued and appropriate
way in the study district.

84
5.2 Recommendation
The following recommendations are important and need to be considered for the future
interventions of addressing the problem and enhancing the sustainability of rangeland
management:

 Previously in the district IK practices have great contribution for rangeland management and
also provide information base for any management system. However, recently become less in
function. This result in increasing of the district rangeland degradation from time to time.
Even if Rangeland degradation is a major threat not only to the livelihoods of the pastoral
communities but also to biodiversity loss. This should obviously be regarded as a community
and societal problems, not simply the only concern of pastoralist. So in future development
direction all stakeholders such as government, private sectors, any local and international
NGOs, pastoralists, public etc. should stand beside pastoralist in supporting strengthen of IK
and integrating indigenous with scientific knowledge for sustainable management of
rangeland including biodiversity conservation.
 The largest assembly called Gumi Gayo which Held in Gayo PA, which f revised rules and
regulations every 8 years in Borana should give emphasizing for the problem with high
potential of rangeland area (Mata-wayama district) and also empower local leaders, elders
should have to binding community bylaws and exercise their previous appreciable IK without
any bias and appreciating and strengthen the arrangement of settlement for the purpose of re-
establish official grazing encampment line (dongora seera).
 As concluded from the study result, new innovated indigenous knowledge practices of
traditional communal enclosure (Kalo Ada waliini Bablisu) has great role in plant
biodiversity conservation and is also one of the outstanding example which were significant
for convert severely degraded rangeland range land (rehabilitate)and is the most urgent, an
effective, low-cost, reliable system or measure have great priorities of the pastoral
communities, so all stake holders should support the wise expansion and appropriate
management of communal Enclosure (Kalo Ada Bablisu) until sub-class of PA level.
 Currently, within Dhas district both traditional and scientific rangeland management systems
have no longer consider and able to support the diversity of plants and wildlife. Since, the
communities are unaware of the biodiversity conservation with the exception of culture base
knowledge. Because, no well-planned conservation strategies have been adopted in the study

85
 area .this leads severe rangeland degradation which result in destruction of the multipurpose
plants including medicinal, incenses and gum plants etc. So more emphasis should be given
for rangeland management system with integration of biodiversity conservation in the future
plan to create sound and integrated conservation strategies.
 The previous long term Tribe conflict between Borana and Garri in Dhas (Mata wayama)
district were based on pasture and water related issues. However, currently the conflicts were
based on political prerogatives of territory expansion, which were not supported by research.
Due to this conflict between Garri and Borana pastoralists are an everyday occurrence and
this leads imposing of more pressure on wayama rangeland and deteriorated sustainable
indigenous knowledge practices. So, the solving of problems would require a strong external
support and official recognition from both Federal and regional government the support of
research.
 Finally, the applicable integration of indigenous knowledge and scientific policy on
rangeland management and Biodiversity conservation in the study district would require a
strong external support and official recognition from the higher government, so the
government should give emphasis for this integration plan.

86
 6. REFERENCES

Abdulahi, M., 2005. The changing nature of pastoral conflicts in South-Eastern Ethiopia, pp.99
Adams, J., 2010. Species richness: patterns in the diversity of life. Springer Science and Business
Media. james
Aerts, R., Maes, W., November, E., Negussie, A., Hermy, M. and Muys, B., 2006. Restoring dry
Afro-montane forest using bird and nurse plant effects: direct sowing of Olea europaea
ssp. Cuspidata seeds. Forest Ecology and Management, 230 (1-3), pp. 23-31.
Ahmed, S. 2003. A multi-stage stochastic integer programming approach for capacity expansion
under uncertainty. Journal of Global Optimization, 26 (1), pp. 3-24.
Alemayehu, M., 1998. The Borana and the 1991-92 Drought: A rangeland and livestock resource
study. Institute for Sustainable Development (ISD), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Allsopp, N., Laurent, C., Debeaudoin, L.M. And Samuels, M.I., 2007.Environmental perceptions
and practices of livestock keepers on the Namaqualand Commons challenge
conventional rangeland management. Journal of Arid Environments, 70 (4), pp.740-754.
Amaha K., 2006.Characterization of rangeland resources and dynamics of the pastoral
Production system in the Somali region of Eastern Ethiopia. A Ph. d Thesis Presented to
the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. 232p.
Anderson, D.M., 2016.The beginning of time, Evidence for catastrophic drought in Baringo in
the early nineteenth century. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 10 (1), pp. 45-66.
Angassa, A. and Baars, R.M., 2000. Ecological condition of encroaching and non‐encroached
rangelands in Borana, Ethiopia. African Journal of Ecology, 38(4), pp.321-328
Angassa, A. and Beyene, F., 2003. Current range condition in southern Ethiopia in relation to
traditional management strategies: the perceptions of Borana pastoralists. Tropical
Grasslands, 37 (1), pp. 53-59.
Angassa, A. and Oba, G., 2008. Herder perceptions on impacts of range enclosures, crop
farming, fire ban and bush encroachment on the rangelands of Borana, Southern
Ethiopia. Human ecology, 36 (2), pp. 201-215.
Angassa, A., 2002. The effect of clearing bushes and shrubs on range condition in Borana,
Ethiopia. Tropical Grasslands, 36(2), pp.69-76.

87
Angassa, A., and Tolera, A. 2006. The effects of physical environment on the condition of
rangelands in Borana. Tropical Grasslands, 40(1), p.33.
Angassa, A., Oba, G. and Stenseth, N.C., 2012. Community-based knowledge of indigenous
vegetation in arid African landscapes. Consilience, (8), pp.70-85.
Babbington, A.J., Carrasco, H., Peralbo, L., Ramón, G., Trujillo, J. & Torres, V. 1993. Rural
peoples’ knowledge, farmer organizations and regional development: Implications for
agricultural research and extension agricultural administration. Research and
Development network paper, No. 41. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Balm ford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R.E., Jenkins, M.,
Jefferiss, P., Jessamy, V., Madden, J. and Munro, K., 2005. Economic reasons for
conserving wild nature. Science, 297 (5583), pp.950-953.
Basset, G., Cliquet, G. and Fady, A., 2002. Management de la distribution (No.halshs-00076598)
Bassi, M., 1997. Returnes in Moyale Districts, Southern Ethiopia: New Ideas for an Old Inter-
Ethnic Game
Bayer, W. and Waters-Bayer, A., 1995. Forage alternatives from range and field: pastoral forage
management and improvement in the African dry lands. In Living with uncertainty: New
directions in pastoral development in Africa (pp. 23-4). Practical Action Publishing.
Bedeke, W. and Nigatu, L., 2015. Assessment of vegetation composition and productivity of
rangeland as affected by altitude and grazing pressure in Kuraz District of South Omo
Zone, South Western Ethiopia. Assessment,5(23).
Behnke, R.H. and Scoones, I. 1993. Rethinking range ecology: implications for rangeland
management in Africa. In: R. H. Behnke, I. Scoones and C. Kerven (Eds.). Range
Ecology at Disequilibrium: New Models of Natural Variability and Pastoral Adaptations
in African Savannas. London, ODI (Overseas Development Institute). Pp. 1-30
Bekele, N. and Kebede, G., 2014. Rangeland degradation and restoration in semi-arid areas of
Southern Ethiopia: the case of Borana rangeland. International Journal of
Environmental Sciences, 3 (2), pp. 94-103.
Berhanu, K., 2013. Opportunities and Challenges for Wildlife Conservation and Ecotourism
Development of Alatish National Park. Northwest Ethiopia.
Bicker, A., Sillitoe, P. and Pottier, J. eds., 2004. Development and local knowledge. Routledge.

88
Biggs, S.D., 1989. Resource-poor farmer participation in research: A synthesis of experiences
from nine national agricultural research systems (No. F/630.711 O3/3).
Boku , T. and Oba, G., 2010. Is poverty driving Borana herders in southern Ethiopia to crop
cultivation? Human Ecology, 38(5), pp.639-649.
Boku , T., 2000.Individualizing the commons: Changing resource tenure among Borana Oromo
of Southern Ethiopia. Unpublished Master Thesis, Addis Ababa University.
Boku, T. and Oba, G., 2009. Policy-driven inter-ethnic conflicts in Southern Ethiopia. Review of
African Political Economy, 36 (121), pp. 409-426.
Calheiros, D.F., Seidl, A.F. and Ferreira, C.J., 2000. Participatory research methods in
environmental science: local and scientific knowledge of a limnological phenomenon in
the Pantanal wetland of Brazil. Journal of Applied Ecology, 37(4), pp.684-696.
Coppock, D.L. Ed., 1994. The Borana plateau of southern Ethiopia: synthesis of pastoral
research, development, and change, 1980-91 (Vol. 5). ILRI (aka ILCA and ILRAD).
Cumming, D.H.M., 1982. The influence of large herbivores on savanna structure in Africa. In
Ecology of tropical savannas (pp. 217-245). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg..
Dawit, A., 2000. Pastoralism and pastoral production system .In Conference of Ethiopian Society
of Animal Production, 8, Addis Abeba (Ethiopia), 24-26 Aug 2000.Ethiopian Society of
Animal Production.
Desta, S., Berhanu, W., Gebru, G. and Amosha, D., 2008. Pastoral drop out study in selected
weredas of Borana zone Oromia regional state. Addis Ababa: CARE International in
Ethiopia.
Dika G., 2016. The Role of Indigenous Knowledge in Rangeland Management in Yabello
Woreda, Southern Oromia, Ethiopia. Arts, Social Sci J, 7 (172), p.2.
Dodd, N., 1994. The sociology of money: economics, reason & contemporary society. Polity
Press.
DRM., 2018. Disaster and Risk Management Office, quarterly assessment report of Borana
pastoralists Dhas district.
EEA., 2003.An inventory of biodiversity indicators in Europe. Tech. rep. European
environmental agency, Copenhagen.
EEA., 2007.Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010: Proposal for a First Set of Indicators
Monitor Progress in Europe. Tech. Rep. European environment Agency, Copenhagen

89
Fathom D., Uprety, Y., Asselin, H., Bergeron,Y., And Boucher, J.F., 2012. Contribution of
traditional knowledge to ecological restoration: practices and applications. Ecoscience,
19 (3), pp. 225-237.
Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., 2000. THE ROLE OF MONGOLIAN NOMADIC PASTORALISTS
'ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE IN RANGELAND MANAGEMENT. Ecological
applications, 10 (5), pp. 1318-1326.
Feye, Y. and Ebro, A., 2007 Pastoralists Perception about Range Resource utilization and
Range Condition Assessment in Gewane District of the Afar Regional State, Ethiopia
(Doctoral dissertation, Haramaya University).
Flintan, F., Boku, B. and Eid, A., 2011. Rangeland fragmentation in traditional grazing areas and
its impact on drought resilience of pastoral communities: Lessons from Borana, Oromia
and Harshin, Somali Regional States, Ethiopia. Oxfam: Oxford, UK.
Forbes, B.C., Stammler, F., Kumpula, T., Meschtyb, N., Pajunen, A. and Kaarlejärvi, E., 2009.
High resilience in the Yamal-Nenets social–ecological system, west Siberian Arctic,
Russia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (52), pp. 22041-22048.
Ford, J. and Martinez, D., 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge, ecosystem science, and
environmental management. Ecological Applications, 10 (5), pp. 1249-1250.
Gamtessa, K., Emana, B. and Tiki, W., 2005. Livelihood diversification in Borana pastoral
communities of Ethiopia-prospects and challenges. Downloaded from Gemtessa
Livelihood Diversification in Borana Brief_Final1
Gebre Mariam, A. and Kassa, G., 2001. Conflict prevention, management and resolution:
capacity assessment study for the IGAD sub-region. Phase2: implementation. Conflict,
Disasters & Development Group: Center for Development Studies, university of
LeedsLs2 9JT UK
Gemedo, D., Maass, B.L. and Isselstein, J., 2006. Encroachment of woody plants and its impact
on pastoral livestock production in the Borana lowlands, southern Oromia, Ethiopia.
African Journal of Ecology, 44(2), pp.237-246.
Gemedo-Dalle, Isselstein, J. and Maass, B.L., 2006.Indigenous ecological knowledge of Borana
pastoralists in southern Ethiopia and current challenges. The International Journal of
Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 13(2), pp. 113-130.

90
Gemedo-Dalle, Maass, B.L. and Isselstein, J., 2006.Rangeland condition and trend in the semi-
arid Borana lowlands, southern Oromia, Ethiopia. African Journal of Range and Forage
Science, 23 (1), pp. 49-58.
Gemedo-Dalle, T., Maass, B.L. and Isselstein, J., 2005. Plant biodiversity and ethno-botany of
Borana pastoralists in southern Oromia, Ethiopia.Economic Botany, 59(1), pp.43-65.
Gemedo-Dalle., 2004. Vegetation ecology, rangeland condition and forage resource evaluation
in the Borana lowlands, southern Oromia, Ethiopia.
Gilad, E., von Hardenberg, J., Provenzale, A., Shachak, M. and Meron, E., 2004. Ecosystem
engineers: from pattern formation to habitat creation. Physical Review Letters, 93 (9),
p.098105.
Gufu O., P. Byakagaba and Ayana Angassa,(2008). Participatory monitoring of Biodiversity in
East Africa Grazing lands. Land degradation and Development. 19: 636-648.
Halladay, P. and Gilmour, D.A., 1995. Conserving biodiversity outside protected areas: the role
of traditional agro-ecosystems (Vol. 20).IUCN.
Heady, H.F., 1999.Perspectives on rangeland ecology and management. Rangelands, 21(5),
Helland, J. 1998. Institutional Erosion in the Dry lands: The Case of the Borana Pastoralists.
EASSREA, 14(2):50-7
Helland, J., 2000. Institutional erosion in the dry lands: The case of the Borana pastoralists. In:
Manger, L., Ahmed, A.G.M. (Eds.), Pastoralists and Environment: Experiences from the
Greater Horn of Africa. Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and
Southern Africa (OSSREA), Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, pp. 19-50.
Helland. J. 2001 .Land Tenure in the Pastoral Areas of Ethiopia. International Livestock
Research Institute Campus. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Hendy, C. and Morton, J., 2001. Drought-time grazing resources in Northern Kenya.Pastoralism,
Drought and Planning: Lessons from Northern Kenya and Elsewhere, pp.139-179.
Hogg, R., 1997. Introduction. In Pastoralists, ethnicity and the state (Ed R. Hogg).
Homann, S., 2005. Indigenous knowledge of Borana pastoralists in natural resource
management: a case study from southern Ethiopia. Cuvillier Verlag.
Homann, S., Risch kowsky, B., Stein bach, J. and Kirk, M., 2007. Towards Endogenous
Development: Borana Pastoralists’ Response to Environmental and Institutional
Changes.

91
Homewood, K.M. & Rodgers, W.A., 1991. Maasailand Ecology: Pastoralist Development and
Wildlife Conservation in Ngorongoro. Cambridge University Press, Tanzania.
Horak, M., 2005.Adding value to indigenous knowledge through scientific innovation. Retrieved
from World Bank: http://www.World Bank.org/afr/ik/GRA/horak. Pdf.
Houde, N., 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and opportunities
for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecology and Society, 12 (2).
Huqqa, G., 1999. The 37th Gumi Gayo assembly. Gada: the Oromo: traditional, economic and
socio-political system. Norwegian Church Aid: Addis Ababa.
Hussein, A., Mishra, V.K., Semwal, K. and Kumar, D., 2012. Biodiversity status in Ethiopia and
challenges. Environmental pollution and biodiversity. India: Discovery Publishing
House Pvt Ltd, pp.31-79
ITTO, 2002. ITTO Guidelines for the restoration, management and rehabilitation of degraded
and secondary Tropical forests. International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)
Policy Development Series No. 13, ITTO, Yokohama.
Jayaraman, K., 1999.A statistical manual for forestry research. Forestry research support
program for Asia and the Pacific.
Kalbessa.W. 2001. Traditional Oromo Attitudes towards the environment an argument for
environmentally sound development. Social Science Research Report Series - no. 19
Kamara, A.B., Mc Carthy, N. and Kirk, M., 2001. The effect of environmental variability on
livestock and land-use management: The Borana plateau, southern Ethiopia (No. 581-
2016-39460).
Kamara, A.B., Swallow, B. and Kirk, M., 2004.Policies, interventions and institutional change in
pastoral resource management in Borana, Southern Ethiopia. Development Policy
Review, 22 (4), pp. 381-403.
Kent, M. and Coker, P.1994. Vegetation description and Analysis. A Practical Approach. John
Willey & Sons Ltd., England.
Kidane G., 2006. Rangeland potential, quality and restoration strategies in north-eastern
Ethiopia: a case study conducted in the southern afar region (Doctoral dissertation,
Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch).
Kitalyi, A., Musili, A., Suazo, J. and Ogutu, F., 2002. Enclosures to protect and conserve. For
better livelihood of the West Pokot community. Technical Pamphlet, (2).

92
Kris M. Havstad., Peters, D.P., Skaggs, R., Brown, J., Bestel meyer, B., Fredrickson, E., Herrick,
J. and Wright, J., 2007. Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States.
Ecological Economics, 64 (2), pp. 261-268.
Little, P. D., 2003.Pastoral Ecologies: Rethinking interdisciplinary paradigms and the political
ecology of pastoralism in East Africa. In African savannas: Global narratives and local
knowledge of environmental change, ed. Bassett TJ, Crummey D.161–177. Oxford:
James Current.
Lovett, J.C., Rudd, S., Taplin, J. and Frimodt-Møller, C., 2000. Patterns of plant diversity in
Africa south of the Sahara and their implications for conservation management.
Biodiversity & Conservation, 9(1), pp.37-46.
Luseno W.K., Kamara A.B., Swallow B.M., McCarthy N.and Kirk M., 1998. Community
Natural Resource Management in Southern Ethiopia. SR/GL-CRSP Pastoral Risk
Management Project Technical Report No.3/98 Utah State University, Logan.17pp
Makokha, W., Lonyakou, S., Nyang, M., Kareko, K.K., Holding, C., Njoka, T.J. and Kitalyi, A.,
1999. We work together: Land rehabilitation and household dynamics in Chepareria
Division, West Pokot District, Kenya (No. 22).Regional Land Management Unit
(RELMA).
Mapinduzi, A.L., Oba, G., Weladji, R.B. and Colman, J.E., 2003. Use of indigenous ecological
knowledge of the Maasai pastoralists for assessing rangeland biodiversity in
Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology, 41(4), pp.329-336.
Margalef, R., 1972. Homage to Evelyn Hutchinson, or why there is an upper limit to diversity.
Connection Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Markakis, J., 2004. Pastoralism on the Margin (pp. 2-37). London: Minority Rights Group
International.
Martin G J., 1995 . Ethno botany: a methods manual. Chapman and Hall, London, Uk. pp. 34-37
MEA, M.E.A., 2005..Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing. Biodiversity synthesis. World Resource
Institute, Washington, USA.
Mekuria, W. and Veldkamp, E., 2012. Restoration of native vegetation following exclosure
establishment on communal grazing lands in Tigray, Ethiopia. Applied Vegetation
Science, 15(1), pp.71-83.

93
Miller, G.T., and Spool man, S. 2010. Environmental Science, Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole,
Cengage Learning.
Miller, J.R. and Hobbs, R.J., 2007. Habitat restoration—Do we know what we’re doing?.
Restoration Ecology, 15(3), pp.382-390.
Mohammed, Y., 2004. Pastoral and land tenure issues and development in the middle of Awash
valley (Doctoral dissertation, Msc Thesis. Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, 130 p Google Scholar).
Müller, B., Linstädter, A., Frank, K., Bollig, M. and Wissel, C., 2007. LEARNING FROM
LOCAL KNOWLEDGE: MODELING THE PASTORAL-NOMADIC RANGE
MANAGEMENT OF THE HIMBA, NAMIBIA. Ecological Applications, 17(7), pp.
1857-1875.
Mureithi, Njoka-Njiru, E., Njarui, M.G. and Abdulrazak, S., 2010. Effect intercropping
herbaceous legume on dry matter yield and nutritive value of the feedstuffs in semi - arid
regions of eastern Kenya. Agricultural Tropical et Subtropica, 39(4), pp.255-262.
Mureithi, S.M. 2006. The effect of enclosures on rehabilitation of degraded semi-arid land in
Lake Baringo Basin, Kenya.Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Ghent University Belgium.
Nabhan, G.P., 2000. Interspecific relationships affecting endangered species recognized by
O'odham and Comcac cultures. Ecological Applications, 10 (5), pp. 1288-1295.
Nakashima D. & Rou´ M. 2002: Indigenous Knowledge, Peoples and Sustainable Practice.
Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change.
Napier, A. and Desta, S., 2011, November. Review of pastoral rangeland enclosures in Ethiopia.
PLI.
NEMA, Goel, A.K., Tamrakar, A.K., Nema, V., Kamboj, D.V. and Singh, L., 2005. Detection of
viable toxigenic Vibrio cholerae from environmental water sources by direct cell duplex
PCR assay. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 21 (6-7), pp. 973-976.
Ngaido, T. and McCarthy, N., 2002. Pastoral land rights. In World Bank Regional Land
Workshop in Kampala, Uganda.
Niamir-Fuller, M. and Turner, M.D., 1999. A review of recent literature on pastoralism and
transhumance in Africa. In Managing mobility in African rangelands: The legitimization
of transhumance (pp. 18-46). Practical Action Publishing.

94
O' Brien, K.J. 2010. An Ethics of Biodiversity: Christianity, Ecology, and the Variety of Life.
Washington: Georgetown University Press.
O’ Flaherty, R.M., Davidson-Hunt, I.J. and Manseau, M., 2008. Indigenous knowledge and
values in planning for sustainable forestry: Pikangikum First Nation and the White
feather Forest Initiative. Ecology and Society, 13 (1).
Oba, G. and Kaitira, L.M., 2006. Herder knowledge of landscape assessments in arid rangelands
in northern Tanzania.Journal of Arid Environments, 66(1), pp.168-186.
Oba, G. and Kotile, D.G., 2001. Assessments of landscape level degradation in southern
Ethiopia: pastoralists versus ecologists. Land Degradation and Development, 12(5), pp.
461-475.
Oba, G., 1996. Shifting identities along resource borders: becoming and continuing to be
Boorana Oromo. Being and becoming Oromo: Historical and anthropological inquiries,
pp.117-131.
Oba, G., 1998. Assessment of Indigenous Range Management Knowledge of the Boran
Pastoralists of Southern Ethiopia. (Part I). Report to Borana Lowlands Pastoral
Development Program, BLPDP/GTZ, Nagelle Borana.
Oba, G., Post, E., Syvertsen, P.O. and Stenseth, N.C., 2000. Bush cover and range condition
assessments in relation to landscape and grazing in southern Ethiopia. Landscape
Ecology, 15(6), pp.535-546.
Oba, G., Vetaas, O.R. & Stenseth, N.C. 2001. Relationships between biomass and plant species
richness in arid-zone grazing lands. Journal of Applied Ecology 38, 836-846.
Olsson, P. and Folke, C., 2001. Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for
ecosystem management: a study of Lake Racken watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems, 4(2),
pp.85-104.
PDO ., 2017 pastoral Development Office , Guideline of Socioeconomic information of Borana
pastoralists Dhas district.
RAE, 2004. Rehabilitation of Arid Lands Trust. Fact Sheet RAE. Kampiya Samaki.Marigat,
Kenya. https://www.feeding knowledge.net/home/-/bsdp/6701/en .GB
RAE,2005. Rehabilitation of Arid Lands Trust Fact Sheet.RAE Kampiya Samaki.Marigat,
Kenya.

95
Reid, H., Huq, S., Konate, M., Rahman, A., Sokona, Y. and Crick, F., 2004. Mainstreaming
adaptation to climate change in least developed countries (LDCs). Climate Policy, 4(1),
pp.25-43.
Rist, L.,Shanker, R.U., Milner-Gulland, E.J. and Ghazoul, J., 2010. The use of traditional
ecological knowledge in forest management: an example from India. Ecology and
Society, 15(1).
Roba, H.G. and Oba, G., 2008. Integration of herder knowledge and ecological methods for land
degradation assessment around sedentary settlements in a sub-humid zone in northern
Kenya. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 15(3),
pp.251-264.
Roba, H.G. and Oba, G., 2009. Efficacy of integrating herder knowledge and ecological methods
for monitoring rangeland degradation in northern Kenya. Human Ecology, 37(5), pp.589-
612.
Rutherford, M.C., Powrie, L.W. and Husted, L.B., 2014. Herbivore-driven land degradation:
consequences for plant diversity and soil in an arid subtropical thicket in south-eastern
Africa. Land Degradation & Development, 25(6), pp.541-553.
Sandford, S. and Habtu, Y., 2000. Emergency response interventions in pastoral areas of
Ethiopia.
Shannon, C.E., 1948.A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical
journal, 27 (3), pp. 379-423.
Sheuyange, A., Oba, G. and Weladji, R.B., 2005.Effects of anthropogenic fire history on savanna
vegetation in northeastern Namibia. Journal of Environmental management, 75(3), pp.
189-198.
Shongolo, A., 1995. The Gumi Gaayo assembly of the Boran: a traditional legislative organ in
the modern world. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 119, pp.26-52.
Singleton, S. and Taylor, M., 1993. The communal resource: Transaction costs and the solution
of collective action problems. Politics & Society, 21(2), pp.195-214.
Smith, R. L., 1992. Elements of ecology. 3rd Ed. West Virginia University. Harper Collins
Publishers, New York.
Stevenson, M. G., 1996. Indigenous knowledge in environmental assessment. Arctic, 49: 278–
291.

96
Sulieman, H.M. and Ahmed, A.G.M., 2013. Monitoring changes in pastoral resources in eastern
Sudan: A synthesis of remote sensing and local knowledge. Pastoralism: Research,
Policy and Practice, 3(1), p.22.
Tadesse, S. G., 2015. Indigenous Practices of Rangeland Management: Constraints and Prospects
in Borana Pastoralists of Southern Ethiopia, Oromia Regional State. doi: 10.1016/0378-
4274(85)90046-3.
Tsegaye, D., 2010. Afar pastoralists in a changing rangeland environment. Norwegian
University of Life Sciences.
Turner, N.J., Ignace, M.B. and Ignace, R., 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom
of the original peoples in British Columbia. Ecological applications, 10 (5), pp. 1275-
1287.
Verdoodt, A., Mureithi, S.M. and Van Ranst, E., 2010. Impacts of management and enclosure
age on recovery of the herbaceous rangeland vegetation in semi-arid Kenya. Journal of
Arid Environments, 74 (9), pp. 1066-1073.
Verdoodt, A., Mureithi, S.M., Ye, L. and Van Ranst, E., 2009. Chronosequence analysis of two
enclosure management strategies in degraded rangeland of semi-arid Kenya. Agriculture,
ecosystems and environment, 129 (1-3), pp. 332-339.
Verlinden, A. and Dayot, B., 2005. A comparison between indigenous environmental knowledge
and a conventional vegetation analysis in north central Namibia. Journal of Arid
Environments, 62 (1), pp. 143-175.
Watson, E.E., 2003. Examining the potential of indigenous institutions for development: a
perspective from Borana, Ethiopia. Development and change, 34 (2), pp. 287-310.
Weiland, S. And Dedeurwaerdere, T., 2010. Change in forest governance in developing
countries. In search of sustainable governance arrangements. International Journal of the
Commons, 4(2), pp.683-686.
Whalley and Hardy ., 2000 .”Measuring botanical composition of grasslands’’
White, R.B., 1992. The application of estimation procedure for monitoring pasture yield and
composition in exclosures and small plots. tropical grasslands 30,314-318.
Wiegleb, G. and Felinks, B., 2001. Primary succession in post-mining landscapes of Lower
Lusatia—chance or necessity. Ecological Engineering, 17(2-3), pp.199-217.
Wilson, B.R., 2002. Religion in sociological perspective. Oxford Univ. Press.

97
World Bank., 2005. Integrating the Indigenous Knowledge of Borana Pastoralists into Rangeland
management strategies in Southern Ethiopia.
World Resource Institute., 1988. Rehabilitation and restoring degraded lands. 215-233. Basic
books Inc., New York.
Yamane, T.., 1967. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed., And New York: Harper and
Row.
Yayneshet, T., Eik, L.O. and Moe, S.R., 2009. The effects of exclosures in restoring degraded
semi-arid vegetation in communal grazing lands in northern Ethiopia. Journal of Arid
Environments, 73(4-5), pp.542-549.

98
 7. APPENDICIES

Appendix 1- Questionnaires for data collection

The conducted research on role of indigenous knowledge in rangeland management with
implications for biodiversity conservation and range rehabilitation in Dhas district will require
your truthful response which are important to success my study. So I kindly request you to give
response clearly and truthfully.

1. Full name of respondents’ ____________________________

Sex- Male Female  Age: 25-3536-4546-55 56-65 66 above
Place of residence: _____________________________
2. What type of production system do you use?
Pastoralist  Agro pastoralists  Crop production  others
3. What are the income sources of the household?
A) Livestock rearing B) Livestock rearing and cultivation C) Petty Trade D) Others (specify)
4. What are the preview conditions of current rangeland if compare with previous time?
Excellent  Good  Fair  Poor 
How you justify and what are the reasons behind this? If the rangeland condition was Fair/poor
what are the cause and consequence of rangeland degradation?
5. Do you manage your rangeland? Yes No 
6. By what ways you are managing your rangeland in past and present history
7. Is there IK of rangeland management practice in your area? Yes  No
8. Is there a contribution of IK in rangeland management practices? Yes  No 
9. What are the Contributions of IK in Rangeland management?
10. What are the IK of rangeland management practices in your area past and present?
11. Is your IK of rangeland management practices are in stable condition if compare with the
previous time? Yes No 
12. If the Answer of Question No.11 is no what are the factors affecting IK knowledge of
rangeland management?
13. What are consequences those factors?
14. Do you think that Weakness of IK is currently a problem to your areas? Yes  No
 How you Justify it?

99
 15. Do you think strengthening of IK in rangeland management can improve rangeland
management strategies? Yes  No 
If yes, by what ways?
16. Is there any method for strengthening of IK of Rangeland management? Yes  No 
If yes, what types of the method are there?
17. What are your perceptions about biodiversity conservation and Rangeland Rehabilitation, do
you have an explanation about these things?
18. How do you explain the existence of plant diversity in your environment? How do you know
about these explanation(s)? How important are these to you?
20.Is there any improvement in rangeland management as a result of interventions for
conservation and rehabilitation? Yes  No 
21. If the answer of Question No.20 is yes, what are those intervention practices? Is the way
they work compatible with that of local peoples' knowledge? Yes  No 
How do you think so in the future?
22. Is the contribution of IK in rangeland management having the response of biodiversity
conservation and rangeland rehabilitation or existence of different plants and stability of the
area? Yes  No  ,mention the means of response?
23. Among IK practice of rangeland management, which of them are selective for sustainable
rangeland management (Continuity of pastoralism) in terms of current condition, by considering
responses for biodiversity conservation and rangeland rehabilitation existence of different plants
and stability of the area.

No. IK of Rangeland management Contribution in Biodiversity Factors hindering the

practices Conservation and rangeland practices
rehabilitation
1
2
3

24. What would you suggest in the future to strength IK, follow and manage sustainable
rangeland practice to some extent in order to improve the livelihood of the communities live in
Dhas district?

100
 Appendix 2: Checklist /Points of Discussion for Focus Group (FGD)

Good morning or good afternoon? My name is Hussein Aliyo and I am from Madda Walabu
University Department of Range ecology and Biodiversity (Msc. Programme). I am currently
conducting research on Borana pastoralists of Dhas District on “Role of Indigenous knowledge in
Rangeland management: implications for Biodiversity conservation and rangeland Rehabilitation”. I
want you to participate in group discussion .Are you voluntary? Your name is not mentioned in
relation to the information you provide. The information you give me is used only for the purpose of
this academic research. You have right not to answer the questions if you do not want.

1. What is the current condition of your rangeland look like in comparison with the past?
2. By what ways you are managing your rangeland in past and present history?
3. What are the Contributions of indigenous knowledge in Rangeland management?
4. What are the IK of rangeland management practices in your area?
5. Is the IK of rangeland management practices are in stable condition if compare with the
previous time? If no, explain the reason, factors affecting IK and consequences those factors?
6. Do you think that Weakness of IK is currently a problem in your areas? If yes, Justify it in
regards rangeland issues
7. What are your perceptions regarding biodiversity conservation and rangeland Rehabilitation,
do you have an explanation about these issues?
8. How do you explain the existence of plant diversity, are there variations of plant diversity in
different land use unit of your area? What do you think about the variation of those plants?
9. What are the community perceptions looking like on different land use types, Communal
grazing, Communal enclosure (Kalo), Private enclosure (kalo), and cultivated land in relation to
rangeland management and other profitable?
10. Are their extinct and endanger plant species in your area? If yes, what is the reason and
response in relation to different land use type?
11. Is there any intervention practice of rangeland management for conservation and
rehabilitation activities? If yes, what are they? Is it compatible with community IK?
12. Is the contribution of IK in rangeland management having the response to biodiversity
conservation and rangeland rehabilitation or existence of different plants and stability of the
area? If yes, by what means?

101
 13. Among IK practice of rangeland management, which of them are selective for sustainable
rangeland management (Continuity of pastoralism) in terms of current condition, by considering
responses for biodiversity conservation and rangeland rehabilitation or existence of different
Plants and stability of the area? Order them.
14. What would you suggest in the future to strength IK, to follow and manage sustainable
rangeland practice to some extent in order to improve the livelihood of the communities live in
Dhas district?

Appendix 3: Format of Vegetation data collection (VEGETATION ASSESMENT)

Name of PA: _______________________________________

Site:__________________________________________

Blo Land Name Of No. Name Of Subplots Tot/ Name of Subplots Tot/
ck Use Tree((T/S) Shrubs In 1 2 3 4 5 Avr Forbs and 1 2 3 4 5 Avr
type In 30*30m 10*10m Overall
herbaceou
s in 1*1m

NB: Block is the site Contain 2 adjacent LUT; we have 10 Blocks in one PA which contain 5
Blocks which have a pair of Communal Grazing and Communal Enclosure, And 5 other
blocks which contain pairs of Private enclosure and cultivated land.

102
Appendix 4: Socio-economic information of respondents

Sex Male 197 57.8%

Female 144 42.2 %

Age Group 25-35 48 14 %

36-45 94 28 %
46-55 95 28 %
56-65 59 17 %
66 Above 45 13 %

Production systems Frequency Percentage

Pastoralist 308 90.3%
Agro-pastoralist 33 9.7%
Crop production - -
Others - -
Total 341 100.0

Sources of income Frequency Percentage

Livestock Rearing only 216 63.3%
Livestock rearing and cultivation 37 10.9 %
Petty trade or Small Business 42 12.3 %
Others 46 13.5%
Total 341 100.0

103
 Appendix 5: Overall encountered plant spp.in four selected land use types and Sorenson’s
similarity test

No. Scientific Name Local Name Growth Form CE CG PE CL

1. Acacia nilotica Burquqqee Trees 1 1 1 0
2. Acacia tortilis Dhaddacha Trees 1 1 1 1
3. Delonix baccal Baalanjii Trees 0 1 0 0
4. Delonix elata Sukeellaa Trees 1 0 1 0
5. Boscia mossambicensis Qalqacha Trees 1 1 1 0
6. Commiphora erythraea Agarsuu Trees 1 1 1 1
7. Sesamothamnus rivae Lalaaftoo Trees 0 0 1 0
8. Sterculia stencarpa Qararrii Trees 1 0 1 0
9. Terminalia brownii. Birreessa Trees 1 0 1 0
10. Acacia bussei Hallo Trees 1 1 1 1
11. Erythrina melanacantha Weleensuu Trees 1 0 1 0
12. Abutilon hirtum Gurbii daalatii shrubs 1 1 1 1
13. Acacia drepanolobium Fuleensa shrubs 1 1 1 1
14. Acacia mellifera Saphansa guraacha shrubs 1 1 1 1
15. Acacia oerfota Waangaa shrubs 1 1 1 0
16. Acacia reficiens Sigirsoo shrubs 1 1 1 0
Hidhaadhoo (Saphansa
17. Acacia senegal diimaa) shrubs 1 1 1 0
18. Balanites aegyptiaca Baddana lu’oo shrubs 1 1 1 1
19. Balanites rotundifolia Baddana okolee shrubs 0 1 1 0
20. Blepharispermum pubescens Baanyaa shrubs 1 0 1 0
21. Boswellia neglecta Dakkara shrubs 1 1 1 0
22. Commiphora africana Hammeessa dhiiroo shrubs 1 1 1 0
23. Commiphora kua Callaanqaa shrubs 1 0 1 0
24. Commiphora tenuis Angullee shrubs 1 1 1 0
25. Cordia gharaf Madheera raphachoo shrubs 1 1 1 0
26. Cordia ovalis Madheera hoffee shrubs 1 0 1 0
27. Euphorbia cuneata ssp. Bursa shrubs 1 0 1 0
28. Grewia evolute Harooressa shrubs 1 1 1 0
29. Grewia tembensis Dheekkaa shrubs 1 1 1 0
30. Grewia tenax Saarkama shrubs 0 1 1 0
31. Grewia villosa Ogomdii shrubs 1 1 1 0
32. Hibiscus boranensis Bungaala shrubs 1 1 1 1
33. Hibiscus sparseaculeatus Dunuunnuu shrubs 0 1 1 0
34. Hildebrandtia obcordata Capha qarama shrubs 1 0 1 0
35. Ipomoea donaldsonii Dhaliyyee shrubs 1 0 1 0
36. Ipomoea hildebrandtii Omborokkee shrubs 1 1 0 1
37. Plectranthus ignarius Barbaaressa shrubs 1 0 1 0
38. Premna schimperi Xaaxessaa shrubs 1 0 1 0

104
39. Rhus ruspolii Daboobessa shrubs 1 1 1 0
40. Solanum giganteum Hiddii loonii shrubs 1 1 1 1
41. Solanum schimperianum Hiddii qixii/Re'e/ shrubs 1 1 1 1
42. Solanum somalense Hiddii gaagee/xirooftu shrubs 1 1 0 1
43. Vernonia cinerascens Qaxxe dhaltu shrubs 1 1 1 0
44. Vernonia phillipsiae Qaxxe korma shrubs 1 1 1 0
45. Anthospermum herbac Guunguma korbeessaa Forbs 0 1 1 0
46. Asepalum eriantherum Gurbii adii Forbs 1 0 1 0
47. Asparagus racemosus Sariitii Forbs 1 1 0 1
48. Aspilia mossambicensis Hadaa Forbs 1 0 1 0
49. Blepharis ciliaris L. Jiliboo Overrall Herbacous 1 1 1 1
50. Bothriochloa insculpta Luucolee Overrall Herbacous 1 1 1 0
51. Caralluma priogonium Matabuttoo Forbs 1 0 1 0
52. Cenchrus ciliaris L. Mata guddesessa Overrall Herbacous 1 0 1 0
53. Chrysopogon auheri Alaloo Overrall Herbacous 1 1 1 0
54. Chlorophytum gallabatense Miirtuu Forbs 1 1 1 1
55. Cissus aphyllantha Cophii soodduu shrubs 1 1 0 0
56. Cissus rotundifolia Cophii Kooraa shrubs 0 1 1 0
57. Cladostigma hildebrandtioides Gaalee Overrall Herbacous 1 0 1 1
58. Commelina africana Qaayyoo Forbs 1 0 1 0
59. Cyathula orthacantha Hanqarree Forbs 1 0 1 0
60. Cynodon dactylon Sardoo Overrall Herbacous 1 1 1 1
61. Dactyloctenium aegyptium Ardaa Overrall Herbacous 1 0 1 0
62. Digitaria milanjiana Hiddoo Overrall Herbacous 1 1 1 1
63. Digitaria naghellensis Ilmoogorii Overrall Herbacous 1 1 1 0
64. Acmella caulirhiza Goorisa Overrall Herbacous 0 1 1 1
65. Eragrostis heteromera Saamphillee Overrall Herbacous 1 0 1 1
66. Erythrochlamys spectabiis Xaaxessaa harree shrubs 1 1 1 0
67. Euphorbia crotonoides Uuroo Forbs 1 0 0 1
68. Gnidia stenophylla Aarsaa Forbs 0 0 1 0
69. Heteropogon contortus Seericha Overrall Herbacous 1 0 1 0
70. Aristida kenyensis Biilaa Overrall Herbacous 1 1 1 1
71. Indigofera spinosa Qilxiphee gaalaa Forbs 1 1 1 1
72. Indigofera volkensii Gurbii hoolaa Forbs 1 1 1 1
73. Justicia odora Agaggaroo harree Forbs 1 1 1 0
74. Kleinia squarrosa Xixiixxuu Forbs 1 0 1 0
75. Ocimum basilicum L Hancabbii Forbs 1 0 1 0
76. Ocimum forskalei Urgoo dhadhaa Forbs 1 1 1 1
77. Otostegia erlangeri Harcaa Forbs 1 0 1 0
78. Panicum maximum Loloqaa Overrall Herbacous 1 0 1 0
79. Pennisetum mezianum Ogoondhicho Overrall Herbacous 1 0 1 0

105
80. Sansevieria ehrenbergii Cakkee shrubs 0 1 1 0
81. Sorghum species (No. 302) Melaa Overrall Herbacous 1 0 1 0
82. Lannea floccosa Handaraka shrubs 1 1 1 0
83. Tephrosia pentaphylla Darguu Forbs 1 0 1 1
84. Themeda triandra Gaaguroo Overrall Herbacous 1 0 1 0
85. Zaleya pentandra Araddo Forbs 1 0 1 0
86. Becium verticillifolium Urgoo haxaawoo Forbs 1 1 1 1
87. Cymbogon commutates Alchiiso Overrall Herbacous 1 0 1 0
88. Lantana rhodesiensis Midhaan dubraa Forbs 1 1 0 1
89. Cucumis dipsaceus Buratee Forbs 1 0 1 0
90. Solanum incanum L. Hiddii waatoo shrubs 1 0 1 1
91. Tragia pungens Dobbii Forbs 0 1 0 1
92. Oxygonum sinuatum Mogorree Forbs 1 1 0 1
93. Gloriosa superba L. Oomaa Forbs 0 1 0 0

NB: (0=Absence, 1=Present) (CE=Communal enclosure, CG=Communal Grazing,

PE=Private enclosure, CL=Cultivated Land)

106
 Appendix 6: Total number of individual of all plant species (N) and number of plant
species(S) recorded block per land use types from Communal Enclosure and Communal
Grazing.
Blocks Numbers of plant spp.in Numbers of plant spp.in In terms
communal enclosure area (LT1) communal grazing area (LT2) of PAs

overall overall
Trees Shrubs Forbs Total Trees Shrubs Forbs Total
Herbaceous Herbaceous
B1 6 19 37 45 107 6 31 40 15 92 T/kalo
B2 6 38 19 51 114 8 26 41 32 107
B3 6 24 25 62 117 6 42 24 22 94
B4 7 15 30 58 110 11 22 26 44 103
B5 6 20 32 48 106 6 27 27 23 83
B6 7 24 6 73 110 4 9 40 31 84 Gayo
B7 13 28 31 63 135 9 12 51 16 88
B8 7 22 21 42 92 4 22 26 32 84
B9 7 17 19 64 107 7 18 31 26 82
B10 7 35 61 40 143 4 36 59 11 110
B11 8 19 11 45 83 7 17 8 18 50
B12 11 29 9 48 97 9 19 5 13 46
B 13 9 23 13 62 107 6 33 12 30 81 Dhas
B14 16 43 12 55 126 9 17 18 12 56
B15 9 24 8 54 95 6 12 23 10 51
Numbers of plant spp.in Numbers of plant spp.in
Blocks communal enclosure area (LT1) communal grazing area (LT2) In terms of
PAs
overall overall
Trees Shrubs Forbs Total Trees Shrubs Forbs Total
Herbaceous Herbaceous
B1 4 9 8 6 27 3 12 6 3 24
B2 3 14 7 6 30 4 8 8 3 23 T/kalo
B3 4 10 7 7 28 3 10 5 4 22
B4 4 8 7 6 25 4 7 4 4 19
B5 3 9 8 6 26 3 9 6 4 22
B6 4 10 3 6 23 3 6 6 3 18 Gayo
B7 2 13 6 7 28 3 7 8 5 23
B8 3 13 6 7 29 2 10 4 4 20
B9 3 10 6 5 24 4 6 6 5 21
B10 3 12 8 5 28 2 11 8 3 24
B11 3 9 5 6 23 3 8 3 6 20
B12 4 12 4 7 27 4 7 2 4 17
B 13 3 11 5 7 26 3 9 3 5 20 Dhas
B14 5 12 4 8 29 2 9 2 4 17
B15 4 10 4 8 26 4 6 5 5 20

107
Appendix 7: SAS Analysis, Output for comparison of Total number of individual of all plant
species (N) and number of plant species(S) recorded block per land use types from Communal
Enclosure and Communal Grazing.
Dependent Variable: Trees
The data for trees were not normal; hence it was inverse transformed for analysis.
ANOVA
Source of variation
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F

Blocks 14 0.036 0.003 2.07 .0925

land use 1 0.007 0.007 5.6 0.0329
Error 14 0.018 0.001
Corrected Total 29 0.061

 The land use is significant, hence we go for mean separation

The means were back transformed and presented
Land use Mean Std Dev Lettering
CE 8.33 2.92 A
CG 6.80 2.08 B

Dependent Variable : Shrubs

ANOVA
Mean
Source of variation DF Sum of Squares Square F Value Pr > F
Blocks 14 1102.20
Land use 1 45.63 78.73
Error 14 1062.87 45.63 1.04 0.4734
Corrected Total 29 2210.70 75.92 0.6 0.4511
 Since the land use is not significant we do not separate the means
Land use Mean Std Dev
CE 25.33 7.99
CG 22.87 9.53

108
Dependent Variable :Forbs
ANOVA

Sum of Mean
Source of variation DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F

Blocks 14 5262.00 375.86

5.47 0.0015
Land use 1 313.63 313.63 4.56 0.0508
Error 14 961.87 68.70
Corrected Total 29 6537.50
 Since the land use is not significant we do not separate the means
Land use Mean Std Dev
CE 22.27 14.49
CG 28.73 15.31

Dependent variable : Overall Herbaceous

Source of variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value
Pr > F
Blocks 14 1780.67 127.19 2.02
0.1001
Land use 1 7520.83 7520.83 119.56
<.0001
Error 14 880.67 62.90
Corrected Total 29 10182.17
 The land use is significant, hence we go for mean separation
Land use Mean Std Dev Lettering
CE 54.00 9.52 A
CG 22.33 9.97 B

SAS Output in terms of number of plant species (S) recorded from communal
enclosure Vs. Communal grazing
Dependent Variable: Trees
The data for trees were not normal; hence it was inverse transformed for analysis.

109
ANOVA
Source of variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Blocks 14 0.096 0.007 1.03 0.4815
Land use 1 0.010 0.010 1.5 0.2405
Error 14 0.094 0.007
Corrected Total 29 0.200

 Since the land use is not significant we do not separate the means
The means were back transformed and presented

Land use Mean Std Dev

CE 3.47 0.74
CG 3.13 0.74

Dependent variable: shrub

ANOVA
Source of variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Blocks 14 49.87 3.56 1.14 0.4069
Land use 1 45.63 45.63 14.56 0.0019
Error 14 43.87 3.13
Corrected Total 29 139.37
 Since the land use is significant we do separate the mean
Land use Mean Std Dev Lettering
CE 10.80 1.78 A
CG 8.33 1.88 B

Dependent Variable: Forbs

ANOVA
Sum of
Source of variation DF Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Blocks 14 73.47 5.25 3.17 0.0195
Land use 1 4.80 4.80 2.9 0.1109
Error 14 23.20 1.66
Corrected Total 29 101.47
 Since the land use is not significant we do not separate the means
Land use Mean Std Dev
CE 5.87 1.64
CG 5.07 2.05

Dependent Variable : Overall Herbaceous

110
 ANOVA
Sum of
Source of variation DF Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Blocks 14 14.80 1.06 1.71 0.1641
Land use 1 40.83 40.83 65.96 <.0001
Error 14 8.67 0.62
Corrected Total 29 64.30
 The land use is significant, hence we go for mean separation

Land use Mean Std Dev Lettering

CE 6.47 0.92 A
CG 4.13 0.92 B

111
 Appendix 8:Total number of individual of all plant species (N) and number of plant species(S)
Recorded block per land use types from Private Enclosure and Cultivated land.
Blocks Numbers of plant spp.in Numbers of plant spp.in In terms
Private enclosure (LT3) Cultivated land (LT4) of PAs
overall
Tree overall
Trees Shrubs Forbs Herbaceou Total Shrubs Forbs Total
s Herbaceous
s
B1 7 21 32 35 95 4 5 25 18 7 T/kalo
B2 2 8 27 41 78 0 7 32 16 2
B3 5 13 19 49 86 1 4 29 40 5
B4 4 28 34 52 118 1 6 36 28 4
B5 5 22 44 79 150 1 11 56 28 5
B6 11 51 56 61 179 1 10 47 27 11 Gayo
B7 15 36 50 51 152 3 11 54 41 15
B8 8 43 53 47 151 0 4 19 30 8
B9 4 40 7 75 126 3 15 24 69 4
B10 10 26 26 31 93 0 1 24 8 10
B11 9 18 9 27 63 1 8 29 16 9
B12 8 31 12 62 113 1 6 40 35 8
B 13 4 20 12 49 85 1 12 27 29 4 Dhas
B14 9 18 10 30 67 3 8 34 11 9
B15 9 33 23 71 136 4 19 16 26 9
Blocks Numbers of plant spp.in Numbers of plant spp.in In terms
Private enclosure (LT3) Cultivated land (LT4) of PAs
overall Tree overall
Trees Shrubs Forbs Total Shrubs Forbs Total
Herbaceous s Herbaceous
B1 5 11 6 4 26 3 3 4 3 13
B2 1 5 6 5 17 0 3 7 4 14 T/kalo
B3 4 6 6 5 21 1 3 5 4 13
B4 3 10 8 4 25 1 3 6 4 14
B5 3 9 6 5 23 1 6 6 4 17
B6 5 16 10 8 39 1 4 5 3 13 Gayo
B7 4 15 8 7 34 2 6 6 4 18
B8 3 9 9 5 26 0 1 4 4 9
B9 3 10 4 4 21 2 5 4 4 15
B10 4 12 7 6 29 0 1 4 2 7
B11 3 9 3 6 21 1 5 6 3 15
B12 4 11 5 7 27 1 5 5 4 15
B 13 2 9 6 7 24 1 5 5 5 16 Dhasi
B14 3 9 3 5 20 2 5 7 4 18
B15 3 11 4 5 23 2 6 3 4 15

112
Appendix 9: SAS Analysis, Output for comparison of Total number of
individual of all plant species (N) and number of plant species(S) recorded
block per land use types from Private enclosure and cultivated land.

Dependent Variable: Trees

 The data for trees were not normal; hence it was square root transformed for analysis.
ANOVA
Source of variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Blocks 14 7.72 0.55 1.69 0.1675
Land use 1 18.17 18.17 55.81 <.0001
Error 1 4 4 . 5 6 0 . 3 3
Corrected Total 29 30.45
 The land use is significant, hence we go for mean separation
The means were back transformed and presented
Land use Mean Std Dev Lettering
PE 7.33 3.39 A
Cl 1.6 1.40 B

Dependent Variable: Shrubs

The data for Shrubs were not normal; hence it was square root transformed for analysis.

ANOVA
Source of variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Blocks 14 17.67 1.26 1.59 0.1972
Land use 1 39.59 39.59 49.96 <.0001
Error 14 11.09 0.79
Corrected Total 29 68.35
 Since the land use is significant we do separate the means
Land
use Mean Std Dev Lettering
PE 27.20 11.85 A
Cl 8.47 4.66 B

Dependent Variable: Forbs

ANOVA
Source of variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Blocks 14 4203.80 300.27 2.4 0.0561
Land use 1 202.80 202.80 1.62 0.2233
Error 14 1748.20 124.87
Corrected Total 29 6154.80
 Since the land use is not significant we do not separate the means

113
 Land use Mean Std Dev
PE 27.60 16.79
Cl 32.80 11.97
Dependent Variable : Overall Herbaceous
ANOVA
Source of variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Blocks 14 5756.20 411.16 5 0.0024
Land use 1 3808.13 3808.13 46.32 <.0001
Error 14 1150.87 82.20
Corrected Total 29 10715.20
 The land use is significant, hence we go for mean separation
Land use Mean Std Dev Lettering
PE 50.67 16.43 A
Cl 28.13 14.95 B

SAS Analysis Output in terms of number of plant species (S) recorded from
communal enclosure Vs. Communal grazing

Dependent Variable: Trees

ANOVA
Source of variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Blocks 14 17.87 1.28 2.27 0.0684
Land use 1 34.13 34.13 60.75 <.0001
Error 14 7.87 0.56
Corrected Total 29 59.87
 The land use is significant, hence we go for mean separation
The means were back transformed and presented
Land use Mean Std Dev Lettering
PE 3.33 1.05 A
Cl 1.20 0.86 B
Dependent Variable: Shrubs
ANOVA
Source of variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Blocks 14 89.20 6.37 1.41 0.2663
Land use 1 276.03 276.03 60.89 <.0001
Error 14 63.47 4.53
Corrected Total 29 428.70
 Since the land use is significant we do separate means
Land use Mean Std Dev Lettering
PE 10.13 2.85 A
Cl 4.07 1.67 B

114
 Dependent Variable: Forbs
ANOVA
Source of variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F

Blocks 14 37.20 2.66 0.86 0.6125

Land use 1 6.53 6.53 2.1 0.1689
Error 14 43.47 3.10
Corrected Total 29 87.20
 Since the land use is not significant we do not separate the means
Land use Mean Std Dev
PE 6.07 2.09
Cl 5.13 1.19

Dependent Variable: Overall Herbaceous

Sum of
Source of variation DF square Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Blocks 14 13.47 0.96 0.89 0.588
Land use 1 24.30 24.30 22.38 0.0003
Error 14 15.20 1.09
Corrected Total 29 52.97

The land use is significant, hence we go for mean separation

Land use Mean Std Dev Lettering
PE 5.53 1.25 A
Cl 3.73 0.70 B

115