Inception Report final 2

Document Sample
Inception Report final 2 Powered By Docstoc

     A UNDP-GEF Government of Ethiopia Project – Implemented by GTZ-IS

                  Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority


                         Addis Ababa, February 2009
Report Number One                                                 February 2009

Abbreviations and Acronyms
Preface                                             Nik Sekhran, UNDP-GEF.
Introduction                                        Ludwig Siege & Lakew Berhanu, PMU

The Workshop Programme
Welcome and Overview                             Workshop Moderators
Speech from Hon. State Minister                  Her Excellency Tadelech Dececho, presented
                                                 by Dr. Kifle Argaw, Director General, EWCA
Presentation on Biodiversity and Protected Areas Nik Sekhran, UNDP GEF
Presentation from Director General of EWCA       Dr Kifle Argaw
Presentation on SDPASE,                          Ludwig Siege, Chief Technical Advisor

Results of the Working Groups:

1.   The revised project outcomes
2.   The revised logical framework of the SDPASE.
3.   The results from the regions/states
4.   The updating the new draft map of the protected areas of Ethiopia.

Closing Speech                                             The Director General, EWCA

Annex 1       Details of assessments, position / policy papers, studies and reports
              (recommended, not all compulsory)
Annex 2       List of participants
Annex 3       Workshop evaluation: analysis of responses from participants
(Note: The annex to the Project Document, pointing out the changes made on the inception
workshop, will follow, after approval from the Project Steering Committee.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

    Acronym                                           Meaning
AWP              Annual Work Plan
CAWM             College for African Wildlife Management (Mweka)
CEO              Chief Executive Officer (of GEF)
CTA              Chief Technical Advisor
DG               Director General
EIA              Environmental Impact Assessment
EWCA             Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority.
GEF              Global Environment Facility
GIS              Geographic Information System
GoE              Government of Ethiopia
GTZ-IS           German Technical Cooperation- International Services
IUCN             International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
KWS              Kenya Wildlife Service
M&E              Monitoring and Evaluation
MoARD            Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MoCT             Ministry of Culture and Tourism
MoFED            Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
NPC              National Project Coordinator
NP               National Park
PA (SP)          Protected Area (Protected Area System Plan)
PES              Payment for Environmental Services
PMU              Project Management Unit
SDPASE           Sustainable Development of the Protected Area System of Ethiopia
SLM              Sustainable Land Management
UNDP             United Nations Development Programme

Preface: Nik Sekhran, Senior Technical Advisor for Biodiversity, UNDP-GEF

May I say at the start how pleased I was to be invited to participate in this Project Inception Workshop for
SDPASE: The Sustainable Development of the Protected Area System for Ethiopia. As most people know,
this project has been a long time in the making, it is extremely gratifying to see the project actually start,
and our congratulations to all those involved in the preparation and approval process.

An Inception Workshop is a normal part of UNDP-GEF Project “Best Practice”. Most project Documents
these days prescribe for an Inception Workshop within three months of Project Start-Up. An inception
workshop allows all stakeholders to reconvene, with the Project Management Team, and to re-look at the
Objectives and Activities of the Project, to revisit the Principles behind the Project, and to strengthen the
partnership between project stakeholders. Partnerships include the co-financiers, between implementing
and executing agencies and the donor agencies; and between different layers of the project from Federal to
Regional Governments; and to Protected Areas and Civil Society on the Ground.

In this case, there is an even greater need to re-examine the Outputs and Activities of the Project
Document; as the details were written over two years ago and the project documentation was signed a
year ago. Much has changed in the Wildlife Sector since then, and it is important to bring the Project, via
the Project Document, up-to-date.

UNDP-GEF wishes to congratulate the Government of Ethiopia on its recent moves to strengthen the
Wildlife and Conservation Sector in Ethiopia; in particular the creation of the new Ethiopian Wildlife
Conservation Authority (EWCA), and the new Wildlife Policy and Regulations. UNDP-GEF would like to
reaffirm that the project philosophy is to support the Government in conservation, though capacity building
for the new institutions and to help implement policy elements on the ground.

The project still fits within the GEF (Global Environment Facility) Priorities for Biodiversity, in helping
countries develop sustainable Protected Area Systems. The scale of Ethiopia’s biodiversity resources need
an extensive and representative system of Protected areas, that maintain biological values as well as
ensuring a continued flow of ecosystem goods and services. This will need considerable capacity and
support to implement given the huge challenges facing conservation through growing population demand
for land and resources, and the newer threats of climate change and variability.

We cannot change the Objectives and Outcomes of the Project (without going back to the GEF); and it was
re-assuring to learn from all participants at the Inception Workshop that these Outcomes were still
relevant. We can however modify the activities to reach these outcomes. The Workshop gave considerable
clarity as to what needed to be changed and emphasised.

We look forward to the project delivering impact. Good Luck with your conservation efforts, in maintaining
this globally and nationally important resource.

Introduction (Lakew Berhanu, Ludwig Siege)

After a long and intensive planning process that took 11 years from project idea to project inception, the
SDPASE (Sustainable Development of the Protected Area System of Ethiopia) started work on the 1st of
October, 2008.
SDPASE is funded by the Global Environment Facility/UNDP. Other funding sources are the Government of
Ethiopia and co-funding institutions like NGOs, bilateral development projects etc.
SDPASE is embedded in the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority. The Authority, founded in 2007, is
still a fledgling institution. It is charged by the Government with the daunting task to bring the protected
area system of Ethiopia, including the National Parks, Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Controlled
Hunting Areas, back on track after decades of political marginalisation and neglect.
Staff numbers will grow tremendously in the next months, reflecting the Government’s decision to re-
federalise nine National Parks, up to now under Regional administration and also the policy to achieve a
density of 1 scout per 10 skm in a National Park.

Critical to the success of revitalising the protected area system will be the mobilisation of additional
funding for wildlife conservation through partnerships. The limited GEF-contribution of 9 Million over 8
years is meant to serve as “seed” money to make the “political” and “business” case vis a vis Government
and potential partners.
It will be of particular importance to give the PA system its due role in the important national programmes,
namely the PASDEP (the poverty reduction strategy) and the Sustainable Land Management Programme
and watershed conservation of the country. Only when achieving this the PA system will be truly
“mainstreamed” in the political processes of Ethiopia and will attract its due share of donor funding.
But to convince partners to enter into partnerships we need “success stories”. There is a dearth of them:
actually right now there is no Park or Sanctuary that fulfils the legal requirement of being free of
settlements and livestock. SDPASE will monitor and support its pilot areas and help creating these success
stories, together with its partners.

EWCA has contracted GTZ-IS as implementing partner of EWCA for the first phase of the project. The role of
GTZ has been agreed upon as technical support and financial administration. The role of EWCA is that of
the Executing Authority.
The results of this workshop, in particular this workshop report, forms the basis for the revision of the
project document and the development of the Annual Work Plan of 2008/09. GTZ-IS is prefinancing the first
3 to 4 months of the implementation, until the AWP will have been developed and approved.
We feel that the workshop has produced valuable results to feed into the development of the Annual Work

According to the evaluation of the workshop by the participants, via a questionnaire distributed at the end
of the sessions, the workshop has been a success. We have noted the critical points, like the provision of
better material and the allotment of more time, and will redress this in future workshops.

We thank all participants for their participation and their valuable contributions.

Alan Rodgers & Lakew Berhanu, Moderators / Facilitators
    It is a critical part of GEF Project Process and UNDP Process, accepted as best practice, and prescribed
    for in the project documentation (prodoc). It is supposed to take place within three months of project
    The Inception Workshop allows

    •   The opportunity for all STAKEHOLDERS to interact with the new incoming Project Management
        Team (and vice versa).
    •   The opportunity to create “Awareness and Partnership” around the project document (important
        here as project preparation was quite some time ago.
    •   The opportunity to discuss beneficial changes to the Project Document, in the light of current
        reality. This again is especially important here, as the Prodoc was drafted over two years ago, and
        was approved well over a year ago. MUCH has happened since then in the wildlife sector of
        Ethiopia since then, and these changes need to be reflected in the project documentation. Indeed
        approval from MoFED was based on the provision that the Prodoc be modified.


   1    Presentations, from: The Ministry, EWCA – DG, GEF and the PMU

   2    Discussions: In Working Groups (allows work, participation, interaction, understanding)

   3    Evening Dinner: socialise and get to know each other

   4    Conclusions and Way Forward

The workshop programme was relatively flexible, we had the ability to accommodate other inputs and
change the programme as time allowed.

We are conscious that Wildlife Conservation is about wildlife in the Protected Areas and outside.

Both aspects of wildlife are important, and important to this Project.

KeyNote Address.
HE Wro Tadelech Dalecho1, State Minister for Ministry of Culture and Tourism,

Delivered by Dr Kifle Argaw, Director General of EWCA,
Dear Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen

Ethiopia is endowed with plenty of natural resources. It comprises of highlands with a unique biodiversity,
deserts with active volcanoes, steppes where wild animals roam. Moreover the country is known for her
long and glorious history, which manifests itself in many cultural monuments. These cultural sites are a
great attraction for tourists.

I would like to mention here but a few: Lalibela, the churches of Gondar, the Axum obelisk. Some are
UNESCO World Heritage Sites because of their uniqueness. Tourists visit our country to see these cultural
sites, but also because of its ethnic variety. From the Danakil to the Omo valley the visitor can find very
special and interesting ethnic groups, not yet drowned in the great melting pot of globalisation.

Even though Ethiopia’s diversity of wildlife is unique even when compared to its famous neighbouring safari
destinations like Kenya, it is little known to foreigners. The country contains over 6,000 species of plants,
many still undescribed by science, more than 860 bird species (16 endemic species and two endemic
genera), and 279 species of mammals, of which 35 are endemic species.

    The State Minister presented her apologies and was unable to attend.

Ethiopia still has important populations of elephants in all regions except in dry Afar, lions and other
charismatic endemic flagship species, most notably the world’s only grazing primate, the Gelada Baboon,
the Mountain Nyala, the Ethiopian Wolf, the Walia Ibex, the Swayne’s Hartebeest, and the Dibatag. It is
evident that the wildlife of Ethiopia has the potential to contribute significantly to national and local

Income from wildlife and protected areas can benefit local populations, through tourism and consumptive
utilisation. Protected areas play a very important role in the sustainable land management approach of the
Government, because they prevent erosion, drought and desertification, improve microclimates, and buffer
the effects of the climate change.

Protected areas secure the country’s water supply by stabilising the river catchments. Protected areas also
help securing the country’s electricity supply by preventing erosion and the silting of the dams. Through
this mechanism Ethiopia’s PAs have a direct positive impact on economic growth and the industrialisation
of Ethiopia.

The Government has come to realise that in the past this potential has not been adequately tapped and
that wildlife and protected areas have not played their due role in the development debate of the country.
So far our National Parks lack tourism facilities, some existing are in disgrace like in Awash National Park.
They are not really marketed by our tourist operators, even though the wildlife can be spectacular.

But as in many other African countries people and wildlife in the country are competitors for scarce land
and as a result the biodiversity is under severe threat arising mainly from conversion of forest and wildlife
areas to agriculture, virtually open access of local communities to protected areas leading to degradation of

There are more than 30 National Parks, Wildlife Reserves, and Sanctuaries in the country which harbour
wildlife. Outside these areas, large tracts of the country have been declared “Controlled Hunting Areas”,
where tourists hunt wildlife on a sustainable basis for hard currency. The “nominal” protected area system
of national parks, wildlife reserves and sanctuaries, the controlled hunting areas and the forest priority
areas, covers an impressive 14% of the country.
From a biodiversity point of view, some areas are incorrectly sited or too small to maintain the ecological
processes they were created for. Numerous ‘wildlife reserves’ and ‘controlled hunting areas’ provide little
to no protection. Some areas with important biodiversity are not yet represented in the country’s PA
system, like the South Western forests and the Eastern area in the Ogaden, known for its unique
To address these issues, under the proclamation 541/2007, the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority
was created and put under the Ministry for Culture and Tourism. There is a new vision in the Government
to make conservation work and to give it its due role in the development of the country.

Biodiversity is a global challenge. Therefore potential national and international partners have been
contacted and invited to join in the effort. In collaboration with UNDP/GEF, we have developed a joint
project, the “Sustainable Development of the Protected Area System of Ethiopia” project” (SDPASE). The
UNDP Country Office Ethiopia is the Implementing Agency of GEF and as such the contract partner of the
Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority. In agreement with UNDP/GEF, the Authority has charged GTZ-IS,
to provide financial, administrative and technical support.

The project document, which forms the basis for the implementation of the project, is old. Moreover it
should go in harmony with government policy and strategic plan. It therefore needs revision. To plan these
revisions we have come together here. We need to work hard together hand in hand. I would also like to
take this opportunity to request all our national and international partners to provide us with the necessary
support to achieve our goals. The door is wide open for partnership!

I wish you success with the re-planning process!

Presentation by Nik Sekhran, Senior Technical Advisor for Biodiversity. UNDP-GEF.
Nik Sekhran presented the GEF approach to Biodiversity management.

Unprecedented loss of Natural Capital
 We depend on natural ecosystems to provide goods, such as food and medicine and services such as
    pollination, carbon sequestration, nitrogen fixation and hydrological system regulation.
 The livelihood strategies and food security of the poor often depend directly on functioning ecosystems
    for goods and services.
 The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concluded that almost 60% (15 out of 24) of the
    ecosystem services that support life on Earth are being undermined as a result of human activities. The
    report found that two service groups, namely fisheries and freshwater provision, are now degraded
    beyond levels that can sustain current demands
 In the 20th century, the human population grew from 1.65 to 6.5 billion people.
 Humanity is now living beyond the planet’s ecological means
 50% of the land surface has been transformed and some 40% of the primary productivity is captured by

The goal of GEF’s biodiversity program is the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, the
maintenance of the ecosystem goods and services that biodiversity provides to society, and the fair and
equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.
GEF has 4 Strategic Objectives
     Sustainable Protected Area Systems
     Mainstreaming Biodiversity
     Safeguarding Biodiversity
     Access and Benefit Sharing

…….to assist developing countries and countries in transition to develop their own capacity to manage
biodiversity so as to sustain the delivery of the ecosystem goods and services on which human
development depends

5.1. Mainstreaming biodiversity management objectives into economic sector activities, to ensure that
production practices maintain essential ecosystem functions
 Transforming Sector Governance
 Market Transformation (Supply Chains)
 Focus on Barrier Removal
In 40 Countries

5.2. Unleashing the economic potential of PAs, so that they can fulfil their management functions, are
sustainably financed, and contribute to sustainable development.

 Ecosystem Governance
 Accessing, Combining and Sequencing Funds
 Focus on Barrier Removal
In 70 Countries

Recent studies have highlighted that in certain countries PAs contribute significantly to economic
development, in particular through the use values from tourism.
Challenge remains to uncover use values and to catalyse investment in PAs to optimise and sustain tangible
economic benefits

In Ethiopia this means:
Building a vibrant nature based tourism industry, based on Ethiopia’s biodiversity, culture and aesthetic

Challenges Going Forward: Climate Change
Land use change remains the largest threat to biodiversity and to the provision of adequate ecosystem
Climate change will exacerbate biodiversity loss and increase overall management costs

    - Nature Based Adaptation (safeguarding natural capital to reduce vulnerability)
    -    Reducing losses of Carbon Reservoirs in Forests and Wetlands
Two approaches:
a. Mitigation: to avoid the unmanageable
b. Adaptation: to manage the unavoidable

 Terrestrial protected areas cover 12.2% of land area, but contain 15.2% of global carbon stock
 PAs contain proportionally more carbon than other land (but 85% of carbon is outside PAs)
 Strengthening PA network in areas of high deforestation pressure and high carbon could be one
    strategy to reduce emissions.

Adaption in PA-systems:
    • Modelling of projected climate change
    • Assessment of impacts on conservation targets
    • Assessment of impacts on ecosystem services
    • Revision of protected area system design
    • Consolidation of protected areas
    • Fire management strategies

Adaption in PA-corridors:
   • Development of PA corridors to include ecological gradients

    •  Use of all PA governance types, including state, private, indigenous and community conserved
   • social assessments to understand how neighbouring communities are affected by CC
Adaption in National Parks:
   • Inclusion of PAs in Climate Change Action Plans
   • Revision of land use plans
   • Revision of coastal zone management plans
   • Inclusion of biodiversity considerations in all sectoral plans
   • Recognition of nature-based infrastructure as cost-effective adaptation measure

    • SDPASE is a start--- intended to build an enabling environment for the PA system to contribute to
       the economy; if successful, there is huge opportunity .
    • Need to build credibility in the sector– recognizing that there is huge competition for investment in
       PAs from other countries in Africa

Presentation by Director-General EWCA, Dr Kifle Argaw
Dr. Kifle presented the change in Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation.

1. The resource potential:
    • 277 species of Mammals (31 endemic),
    • 862 species of Birds (16 endemic),
    • 201 species of Reptiles (9 endemic)‫‏‬
    • 63 species of Amphibians (24 Endemic)‫‏‬
    • 150 species of Fish (4 endemic)‫‏‬
2. List of Protected Areas
    • 16 National Parks,
    •     4 Wildlife Sanctuaries,
    •     8 Wildlife Reserves,
    • 18 Designated Controlled Hunting Areas.
3. Main wildlife areas in the country
     Southern part of the country; the Omo river basin and the Mago valley in the south are
         noted for species
     West and south west lies the Gambela region, the Savannah and swamps of Gambela,
         south west forests and Welega.
     Rift Valley, the Abijata and Shalla Lakes, Yangudi-Rassa and Afar lowlands Awash and
     East and south East Babile, Garale and Ogaden region , Yabello ,Hararge ,Bale and Arsi.
     North and North west Qafeta Sheraro and Semien Mountains, Alatish, Welo and Gojjam
         high lands.
4. Why change was needed?
Existence of real “pain” about how work was done,
There was organisational strategy for change
Commitment of senior leadership to bring organisational change
Aim of the change: Analysing the current process and to design new efficient and effective wildlife
Expected outcome:
     To design new wildlife conservation process
     To bring new institutional arrangement with clear vision, mission objective and plan
     To bring community based wildlife conservation
     To build committed and capable working force
     To deliver effective and efficient service delivery for the pubic.
5. Major problems identified:
     Absence of community participation in wildlife conservation
     Lack of coordination between federal and regional organisations and stake holders
     Inefficient service delivery
     Lack of attention for the sub sector as a development agenda
     Poaching and habitat destruction: farmland expansion and grazing land extension,
       widespread poaching

In the process written and unwritten rules on which the process is based were identified. Old
assumptions were checked and replaced with new assumptions.
6. Stake holder analysis:
Stakeholders were identified and interviewed: tourists, communities living around PAs, private
investors, federal and regional institutions, international and national development partners and
The following major needs and expectations were identified:
Sustainably managed PAs with a large mega diversity, large species composition, intact
ecosystems, free from human and livestock pressure,
An efficient and effective wildlife conservation system supported by modern technology and
capable working force, full community participation and benefit sharing.
7. Institutional set up:
3 technical and 5 supportive departments were endorsed. The human resource-needs for head
office and NPs were proposed with regard to professional composition and numbers, support
process composition and numbers of scouts/rangers.
8. Laws and regulations:
 Wildlife Conservation Policy: endorsed
 Wildlife Conservation Proclamation: 2 endorsed (18 for the gazettement of Parks will be done
    in future)
 Wildlife Conservation Regulations: one endorsed
 Wildlife Conservation Directives: prepared, awaiting the regulations

 Wildlife Conservation Technical manuals and Guidelines: four
9. Mission Statement:
        To sustainably conserve and manage Ethiopian wildlife resources through active
        participation of local communities, mainly for the benefit of Ethiopians and moreover the
        global community, and pass to the next generation as a heritage.
10. Vision:
        To be a leader in wildlife conservation and eco tourism
11. Value Statements:
 We conserve and manage Ethiopia’s wildlife scientifically and responsibly
 We will be evaluated by our customer’s satisfaction
 We will work for the benefit of Ethiopians
 We will work to maximise the benefit from the sector
 We shall be accountable for ethical rules
 We give priorities for gender and youths
 We ensure sustainable development by engaging ourselves in a dynamic and continuing

In the planning process, three major Strategic Themes have been identified:
Theme 1: Wildlife Protection and Development
Theme 2: Improving National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuary management
Theme 3: Wildlife Utilisation

The main activities are:
Establish new Pas and transboundary NPs
Redemarcate and legalise existing PAs
Improve management of endangered and endemic wildlife species
Minimise and render solutions for human wildlife conflict
Control illegal trade in wildlife and its products
Conduct and coordinate research
Establish community conservation areas
Prepare Management Plans for PAs
Prevent and control wildlife diseases
Administer and manage federal NPs and Sanctuaries
Strengthen the federal wildlife protection system
Establish a national management system for NPs and Sanctuaries
Involve communities in wildlife protection
Strengthen wildlife education
Relocate communities that have encroached on PAs by creating alternative livelihoods
Maximise income from sustainable utilisation of wildlife
Promote the wildlife resource of the country
Encourage private investors and provide technical support to them:

       Licensing for utilisation, sport hunting, trapping, taxidermy, export, CITES certificates,
       hunting for locals, filming, research, tourist guiding

Long-Term (stretched) Objectives:
    All PAs will be designated and legalised by full participation of the communities
    If people still exist in newly gazetted NPs and wildlife sanctuaries, they will be relocated by
       creating alternative livelihoods.
    The protection of a specified number of key mammals and bird species will be improved
    3 reserves will be upgraded to NPs, 3 trans-frontier-parks will be established
    3 NPs will be restocked with wild animals
    The local communities living around 18 wildlife conservation areas will benefit from
       ecotourism by establishing their own conservation areas and by rendering services to
    The current annual revenue from wildlife (nine Million Birr) will be increased by 60 %
    Conservation education will be conducted for 20000 local communities around wildlife
    Prevention and surveillance on 4 transmissible wild animal diseases
    15 NPs, 3 sanctuaries, 18 controlled hunting areas and the concerned regional and national
       offices will be connected by radio
    Website will be established
    Infrastructure inside 15 NPs and 3 sanctuaries will be improved or established (offices,
       roads, lodges, camps, residences etc)
    In one year the scout density will be improved from one scout/114 skm to one
    Service delivery cycle time will be reduced by 50% in 1 year

Let us work together to save wildlife!!

Presentation by Dr Ludwig Siege, Chief Technical Advisor SDPASE. PMU in EWCA.
Ludwig Siege presented the need for replanning of the SDPASE:

1: The objectives of the workshop have been formulated as:
    • To redesign and realign the project objectives and activities in order to enhance the
       performance of the sector in line with its aims, vision, mission.
    • Redesign and adapt the strategic plan based on the priorities of the sector.
But there are limits to the redesigning:
The outcomes cannot be changed without going back to GEF HQ, but the ways and means to
achieve the outcomes can be adapted according to the new developments and challenges.

2. Background:
The biodiversity and the ecosystems of Ethiopia are of great international significance.
They are also spectacular and often unique.
The majority of the country falls into one of two Biodiversity Hotspots. The Ethiopian Highlands
comprise over 50% of the Eastern Afromontane Hotspot. Over 40% of the Horn of Africa Hotspot
falls within Ethiopia.
What are the problems of this biodiversity?
The Prodoc names a few:
            • Increasing demand for natural resources, and an over-dependence on natural
                resources, few alternatives
            • Poor agriculture planning, no inter-sectoral coordination, policy not harmonized,
                little political will
            • No incentives for conservation by stakeholders, and no stakeholder participation
            • Wildlife damage crops, no rewards

The use of the biodiversity in Ethiopia is often unsustainable.
           • Overgrazing, erosion,
           • Food insecurity, hunger,
           • Silting of dams, power cuts,
           • Dwindling wildlife.

Just to illustrate the magnitude of the sustainability problem:
Ethiopia has now around 77 Million inhabitants.
With a growth rate of 3 percent/annum, the population will be double that in 2032.
That means that Ethiopia will have 154 Million inhabitants by then.
Thus, demand on natural resources will at least double.
This challenge has to be met. This will require a huge effort by people and Government of
But it can be met only when the use of the natural resources is sustainable.

3. Sustainability:
„A harvest/utilisation that does not compromise the harvest/utilisation of future generations“.
One usually defines 3 types of sustainability in the context of conservation:
Ecological, financial, social.
Sometimes „institutional“ is added.
There is a hierarchy in these types of sustainability:
Without financial sustainability (sustainable financing) ecological sustainability cannot be
Acceptance of PAs and wildlife by local communities and political leaders is also a precondition for
the ecological sustainability of a PA-system.

4. Mainstreaming PAs:
There are many benefits derived from biodiversity, through tourism, consumptive utilisation and
ecosystem services
Ecosystem services include:
          Protected areas help preventing erosion and desertification, improve microclimates,
             amelioration of the effects of the climate change
          PAs can secure the country’s water supply and agriculture by stabilising the river
          PAs also help securing the country’s electricity supply by preventing erosion and the
             silting of dams.
But: protected areas and wild animals go hand in hand with considerable opportunity costs, i.e.
income foregone by not using a protected area otherwise.
In the long run, PAs have to show that they represent a form of land use which is beneficial for the
people and the nation. In this the PA system is in competition with other forms of land use.
If wildlife conservation and protected areas do not contribute productively to poverty reduction
but on the contrary limit available resources which otherwise could be used to alleviate poverty,
this form of conservation has no political future.
PASDEP: In the present PASDEP protected areas and wildlife are only mentioned in the text with 9
lines (out of around 210 pages), and in the indicator matrix in 3 lines (out of 51 pages and several
hundreds of indicators)

6. The SDPASE:
GOAL: Ethiopia’s biodiversity, ecosystems and ecological processes are effectively safeguarded
from human-induced pressures and adequately represented in a sustainable Protected Area
System that is contributing significantly to economic development, both locally and nationally
PROJECT PURPOSE (stage One): Enabling frameworks and capacities for managing the system of
protected areas that have biodiversity, ecosystem and ecological process conservation as a major
objective will be emplaced
OUTCOME 1: Protected areas are mainstreamed in the development framework in Ethiopia and
receive greater political support.
OUTCOME 2: Appropriate policy, regulatory and governance frameworks in place, leading to
redefinition of protected area categories and reduced land-use conflict
OUTCOME 3: Institutional arrangements and capacity for protected area planning and
management emplaced, leading to improved PA management
OUTCOME 4: New protected area management options and partnerships trialled, and replicated
through partnerships catalyzed across protected area estate (Co-Finance)
OUTCOME 5: Financial sustainability plan developed and demonstrated (for implementation in
Phase II)
PROJECT PURPOSE (Stage Two): Working in an enabled environment, sustainable management of
the system of protected areas that have biodiversity, ecosystem and ecological process
conservation as a major objective is ensured

The task of the Workshop is to redesign the outputs so that they fit the present reality.

There are trigger indicators to move to stage 2:
   1. The Ministry of Water Resources has amended its policy to include a protected area
       component for watershed management and protection.
   2. Strategies for implementation of Wildlife Policy and Proclamation in place.
   3. The Sustainable Land Management Program and Blue Nile Development are funding
       protected area establishment, development and management in relevant areas
   4. A 16% increase in the METT scores for the four demonstration sites recorded by the end of
       the first stage
   5. Six further sites (including at least two new sites) will be benefiting from co-financing and
       partnerships and will be being implemented using the produced and disseminated good
       practice model
   6. The guidelines for limited harvesting (sport hunting and timber) concessions are agreed, in
       place and enacted in four concession areas which will act as demonstration sites for
       replication in the second stage period.
   7. Decision on components of Trust Fund in place
These triggers cannot be changed without going back to the GEF council, which is impractical.


(Note that the slightly late start and the long presentations meant that the original programme was
shortened and the first two working groups were coalesced). There was one set of Groups on day one, and
a second set of Groups on day two.

Each session was around two and a quarter hours, with start-up- explanation (10 minutes), main discussion
(90 minutes) and Feedback Session (35 minutes). Within each session there were 5 separate working
groups (with 50 people – this was some 10 people per group – less on day two). The people in the groups
were mixed – so each group had wardens, experts, hunters, civil society, donors etc. (The moderators
helped to do that!)

WORKING SESSION ONE (the earlier One and Two) on Day One: There are 5 Outcomes in the Project. Each
Group addressed one Outcome. The groups read the detail of the Outcome and discussed the outputs
planned for the Outcome. In particular the groups discussed:

       What has happened already in progress to that outcome in the last year?
    1   Are the Outputs and activities that are planned still relevant?
    2   Are there gaps which need to be added to the suggested outputs activities?
    3   Does the sector have the capacity to deliver these outputs, what capacities are needed?
    4   Who are key partners in delivering these outputs?
    5   Are indicators / targets suggested for the Outcome still relevant, can they be strengthened?

WORKING SESSION TWO Day Two: There were five themes to discuss. Each Group discussed one of the
following themes:

    1. Training needs for EWCA / partners (all levels, short skill courses and longer term training)
    2. Sustainable finance in all aspects – including tourism, PES, carbon
    3. Project Assessments, Analyses, Frameworks and Studies suggested in the project, are they still
       relevant? Are their gaps? How do you prioritise?
    4. Community Issues in Conservation in Ethiopia
    5. The Hunting Industry in Ethiopia – How it Contributes to Conservation

NOTE that Groups 4 and 5 were included as a result of discussion on day one. Groups were largely open,
although hunters were in group 5, many NGOs in Group 4 and many Wardens EWCA staff in Group 1

Outputs were conclusions as to relevance, needs, gaps, priority setting, partnerships, ways forward.


Main results of the group work were
1. The revised project outcomes
2. The revised logical framework of the SDPASE.
3. The results from the regions/states
4. The updating the new draft map of the protected areas of Ethiopia.


     UNDP GEF stated that we cannot change the Outcomes without going back to GEF Secretariat / Council for
     approval. We can however “tweak” the wording to improve clarity.

     That we have done – in three ways: increasing clarity, making the wording reflect an outcome and
     emphasis to the key issue. The changes are shown in the table below:

     1: The Project Goal and Project Purpose remain as they were. These are:

     2: The five Outcomes for Stage One remain virtually the same, but are slightly reworded to reflect new
     realities: the institution is created (and the key emphasis is now strengthening the institutions), and the
     policy is in place (and the key emphasis is implementing the provisions of the policy).

No       Initial Wording of Outcome              Comment                     Revised Wording of Outcome (Dec 2008)
                  (Sept 2006)
1    Wildlife Protected Areas are        Not formulated as an          Protected Areas and Wildlife Conservation are
     mainstreamed into national          Outcome                       mainstreamed into the Development Framework of
     development frameworks                                            Ethiopia, with greater political support and funding
2    Policy, regulatory and governance   Assumes the frameworks        Policy, regulatory and governance frameworks are
     frameworks are in place and         were not in place (the 2006   supported, leading to redefinition and implementation of
     functioning.                        situation),                   PA categories, with reduced land-use conflict.
3    Protected Area Agency has           Strengthened to include       Increased institutional capacity for Protected Area
     capacity for planning and           focus on improved PAs, as     Planning and Management, leads to functional system
     managing the PA system Plan for     well as system, and stress    plan and improved Protected Area Management.
     Ethiopia                            increased capacity
4    New Protected Area management       Not formulated as an          New Protected Area Management Options are piloted,
     partnerships are piloted and        Outcome                       developing best practice to be replicated across the PA
     replicated                                                        system.

5    Financial sustainability plan       Not formulated as an          Mechanisms for financial sustainability for Ethiopia’s
     developed and demonstrated          outcome                       Protected Area System are developed and demonstrated,
                                                                       for scale-up in Stage 2.

     Outcomes for Stage 2. These are left as they were, and will be readdressed as the project moves closer to
     the achievement of indicators and targets within Stage one, and assesses progress to reaching triggers
     necessary to reach Stage two

     Outcome Targets and Indicators. These are reformulated, and have quantifiable targets, which could be
     monitored beyond the life of the Project

     Outputs: There was a lack of clarity in the wording of the Outputs in the voluminous Project
     Documentation, with different level of emphasis between the Proposal, the text in Prodoc, the CEO

      An Outcome is a “change in the status quo” due to impact from the project. Merely having wildlife mainstreamed is
     not enough, that mainstreaming needs to lead to significant change in the system

template and the log-frame. This lack of clarity was stressed during the Stakeholder consultations in the
Inception Workshop.

Outputs are being reworded, using more conventional Output language (i.e. ensuring that an Output is a
level or stage that can be achieved, and can be assessed by targets and indicators). The Outputs are
attached to more conventional real time indicators, with quantitative targets. Outputs have been written
into the updated log frame.


                                          LOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR SDPASE (REVISED DECEMBER 2008)

GOAL: Ethiopia’s biodiversity, ecosystems and ecological processes are effectively safeguarded from human-induced pressures and adequately
represented in a sustainable Protected Area System that is contributing significantly to economic development, both locally and nationally

                 Outcome and Output                                                                          Indicators

PROJECT PURPOSE Stage One: Enabling frameworks and            Protected Area System Plan approved and functional
capacities for managing the system of protected areas         Protected Area System plan shows >60% of PAs are legally gazette, with management plans and staff
that have biodiversity, ecosystem and ecological process       capacity.
conservation as major objectives will be implemented          Protected Area system plan has increased representation for ecosystem coverage, goods and services

OUTCOME 1: Protected Areas are Mainstreamed in the            Second Generation PASDEP includes strengthened text and indicators and targets for Protected Areas.
Development Framework in Ethiopia, with Greater               Policy and Strategy papers in other sectors seek linkage with Protected Areas
Political Support.
                                                              Overall funding for Wildlife Sector increases from Government, Donor and Business sectors.
OUTCOME 2: Policy, Regulatory and Governance                  Modalities for enactment of policy and new legislation in place.
Frameworks are Supported, leading to redefinition of          Policy and regulations are under implementation, through System Plans and PA GMPs.
protected area categories and reduced land-use conflict
OUTCOME 3: Institutional Capacity for Protected Area          Institutional re-structuring, mandate definition and staffing complete in HQ, key regions and PAs.
Planning and Management Leads to Improved PA                  Net improvement in management effectiveness of protected area estate
Management                                                    Adoption of good practice model for each category of protected area
OUTCOME 4: New Protected Area Management Options              Good practise models (success stories) available, documented and used for dissemination
and Partnerships are Trialled, and Replicated through
Partnerships Catalyzed Across the Protected Area Estate
(Mainly Co-Finance)
OUTCOME 5: Financial Sustainability for Wildlife            Ethiopia has a functional Financial Sustainability Plan for PAs approved, with components on tourism, PES,
Conservation in Ethiopia is Developed and Demonstrated     Carbon., and increased government / donor support
(for Implementation in Phase II)

PROJECT PURPOSE (Stage Two): Working in an enabled                          Indicators to be developed as Stage 2 approaches, validated by Mid Term Evaluation
environment, sustainable management of the system of
protected areas that have biodiversity, ecosystem and
ecological process conservation as a major objective is
OUTCOME 1: Systemic capacity for protected area
management consolidated. Indicators below:
OUTCOME 2: Sustainable financing mechanisms
contributing to protected area budgets. Indicators below:
OUTCOME 3: Replication of good practice model across
protected area estate catalyzed
OUTCOME 4: Protected areas mainstreamed across all
relevant sectors
                                                                    DETAILED FRAMEWORK FOR STAGE ONE

     Purpose/Outcome/Output                               Indicators                                 Baseline                  Target Internal Mid Term          Target End of Stage One

PROJECT PURPOSE (Stage One):                   Protected Area System approved           No such plan in place                Draft plan under discussion    Protected Area System Plan
                                              and functional                                                                                                  approved and adopted
Enabling frameworks and capacities for         Protected Area System Plan             Only 2 out of the 20 NPs and        Over 25 % of PAs are legally      Over 60 % of PAs are legally
managing the system of protected areas that   shows >60% of NPs and Sanctuaries       Sanctuaries are gazetted             gazetted                           gazetted, others with gazettement
have biodiversity, ecosystem and ecological   are legally gazetted                                                                                            plans.
process conservation as a major objective      Protected Area System Plan has           No PA system plan                 All major biomes and              All NPs and sanctuaries are on
are emplaced                                  increased representation for                                                 ecosystems have some coverage,     the WCPA-list with correct
                                              ecosystem coverage, goods and                                                especially the South-western       boundaries
                                              services                                                                     forests, the Ogaden.                Case for PAs for ecosystem
                                                                                                                                                              services is adopted, with first PAs
OUTCOME 1 Protected Areas and                  Policy and strategy papers in          No other sector with partnership    One sector with approved          2 sectors with approved
Wildlife Conservation are                     other sectors seek linkage with PAs     with wildlife                        partnership with wildlife sector   partnership with wildlife sector
                                               Overall funding for wildlife sector    Federal Government 6,8 Million      Federal Government 12             Federal Government direct 15
mainstreamed into the                         increases from Government, Donor        Birr/annum                           Million Birr/annum                 Million Birr/annum, plus indirect 5
Development Framework of                      and business sectors                                                                                            Million
Ethiopia, with greater political
support and funding

1.1 Major indicators from this PA       Indicators and targets are              Indicators and targets not                PASDEP of 2011-2016                 PASDEP of 2011-2016
plan have been adopted in the          “populated”, and the wildlife sector     populated                                  recognises PAs and wildlife as       recognises PAs and wildlife as
                                       contribution to Ethiopia development                                                important elements of sustainable    important elements of sustainable
second gen. PASDEP                     is documented and disseminated                                                      development of the country           development of the country.
                                        Second generation PASDEP                PASDEP includes only 3 indicators, 9      The real economic impact of         PASDEP continues to use
                                       includes strengthened text, indicators   lines text on wildlife                     wildlife and PAs satisfactorily      wildlife / PA indicator statistics
                                       and targets for PAs and wildlife                                                    described in the PASDEP
1.2 Increased protected area in         Number of SLM watershed                 None (although starting discussion        Two watersheds under formal         Four (including Region and
major watersheds of the                programmes seeking protected area        via IFAD’s SLM Programme)                  discussion as to PAs for watershed   private sector and community
                                       status within catchments including                                                  and potential PES                    agreements)
sustainable land management            forests                                     Zero %
program                                 Area and % of protected area                                                       10,000 ha of PA including           20,000 ha of PA including
                                       within target catchments including                                                  forests established, >5% of          forests established, >10% of
                                       forests                                                                             watershed                            watershed
1.3 Linkage with and adoption by        National Tourism Master Plans             Emphasis is minor                       Two national and regional           All national and regional
tourism sector of protected areas as   and Programmes with increased                                                       tourism plans with detailed links    tourism plans with detailed links to
                                       emphasis on wildlife tourism                                                        to wildlife sector                   wildlife sector
one of the key marketing strategies     Number of tourists in NPs               Baseline is 2007 (see EWCA                Increase by 15% over 2007 in        Increase by 40% over baseline
                                       continues to increase, with increase     statistics)                                revenue in Nechsar, Bale, Simien     in nos and revenue in the 5 PAs plus
                                       in revenues to govt.                                                                Abiata Shala, Awash                  Mago, Omo
                                        Number of local                           Baseline is 2007 (>5)
                                       community/private sector ecotourism                                                    Increase by 30%                     Increase by 50%
                                       sites increases                             Baseline is 2007 (>5 local products)
                                        Increase in wildlife tourism                                                         Increase by 50%                     Increase by 50%
                                       promotion products (film, brochures,
OUTCOME 2: Policy, regulatory and       Modalities for enactment of             New wildlife policy & proclamation,       Implementation guidelines           Guidelines are implemented
governance frameworks are              policy and new legislation in place.     regulations approved; guidelines           published                            across PA system.
                                        Policy and regulations are under       pending                                     Guidelines for business             GMPs for 6 PAs follow
supported, leading to redefinition     implementation, through System            No guidelines for GMPs, other            planning, management planning        regulations and are under active
and implementation of PA               Plans and PA GMPs.                       implementation guidelines                  available.                           implementation
categories, with reduced land-use                                                                                           Draft GMPs follow regulations


2.1 Policy frameworks for Wildlife      Key components of Policy and              No such strategies                      Strategy is in place and            GMPs and business plans for
Conservation supported at Federal,     Regulatory Frameworks with                                                          approved                             the major areas incorporate

Regional and Local levels              implementation strategies in place                                                                                      strategic concepts.
                                        Policy strategy components are        Strategic components not yet in PA                                              GMPs for 6 PAs follow
                                       written into PA management plans       plans                                      Management Plan Guidelines           regulations and are under active
                                       and work plans                                                                   incorporate strategy concepts          implementation
2.2 Policy implementation               X Strategies with action points      No such strategy papers                    Two (e.g. tourism, hunting,           Four strategies are under
supported through development of       are under implementation, nationally                                             sustainable financing) are under       implementation
key strategies and position papers.

2.3 Strategy implementation             Strategies are implemented in        No such formalised strategies in place.   At least two strategies in all          Strategies lead to lessons
piloted in priority Protected Areas    PAs, including border marking, anti-                                             demonstration sites and at least       learned analysis and tool kits.
                                       poaching reduces illegal off-take &                                              one strategy started in additional      At least two strategies in place
and Landscapes, developing             illegal grazing and cultivation                                                  4 sites.                               in 8 sites.
synergies to Outcomes 1, 3, 4 and 5.   stopped, AIG, EE inputs

2.4 Protected Area categorization       No unfeasible mandates for PA         Some mandates presently not              Mandates of selected PAs              Mandates of PAs reflect real
modified to suit Ethiopian situation   authorities                            feasible: (e.g. NPs free of people)       reflect real situation on the ground   situation on the ground

OUTCOME 3 Increased institutional       Institutional re-structuring,           Restructuring on its way              Restructuring complete in HQ, 2         Restructuring in 5 regions and
capacity for Protected Area            mandate definition and staffing                                                  regions and 3 PAs                      10 PAs
                                       complete in HQ, key regions and PAs.
Planning and Management, leads to       Net improvement in                    All Protected Areas in Ethiopia have     METT scores of pilot areas            System METT score (calculated
functional system plan and             management effectiveness of            a METT score < 40                         increased by 10 points on the          by the average METT score across
improved Protected Area                protected area estate                                                            average                                the system using only the areas
                                        Adoption of good practice model         No good practice models yet            Good practice models                 included in the baseline score, and
                                       for each category of protected area                                              described and propagated               readjusted once new areas are
                                                                                                                                                               assessed or are designated)
                                                                                                                                                               increased by 12 points on average.
3.1 New Institutions at Federal         EWCA has internal structure           Initial structures in place              All sections of EWCA with clear       Sections producing clear annual
Level with Clarity of Mandates,        reviewed, with TOR and mandates         New staff being recruited (Dec          mandates, TOR with targets.            reports documenting conservation
                                       agreed.                                2008)                                      Two landscapes have trial            success.
Internal Structures, and regional       EWCA has developed working            Still uncertainty as to optimum         cooperative arrangements with           At least three Landscapes have
linkages in place.                     modalities with Regions over           landscape working                         Regional authorities.                  cooperative governance
                                       conservation management at regional                                                                                     arrangements between Region and
                                       level.                                                                                                                  Federal authorities.
3.2 National Protected Area System      Gap analysis complete and used        Only rudimentary understanding of        Gap analysis report available         New PAs started in identified
Plan Developed Using Gap Analysis,     for improving PA system                gaps in PA system                         and integrated in economic study       Gaps (like Coffee forests etc)

Approved and Under


3.3 Both Protected Area System and    Individual protected areas use        No business planning at the               2 business plans at PAs             Business plans and monitoring
Individual Protected Areas Use       business planning as a standard tool   protected area site level                  enacted                              systems adopted in 4 demonstration
                                     for protected area management           No business planning at system level                                          sites and their regional support
Business Planning as a Tool for      planning and monitoring                 No staff with business planning skills    System business case               authorities
Management and Monitoring             Staff with appropriate business                                                 propagated by study (“A primer on
                                     planning skills (Master’s level                                                   the economic arguments….”)
                                     business planners, socio-economists,                                               Staff with business planning
                                     and environmental economists)                                                     skills in place
                                     employed by protected area
3.4 Wildlife Staff at HQ and Field    Career development planning for         Career planning does not occur          Career plans available for          >70 %of staff have career
Level with Functional Capacity and   staff within protected areas                                                      senior staff                         development plans (including
                                     organization exists                                                                                                    training opportunities). 6 trainings,
Skills                                Staff skill level of EWCA meets         Systematic training do not exist        Training started according to      + 3 MScs)
                                     requirements of mandates                                                          staff development plan, at least 3    Individual M&E system and
                                                                                                                       trainings                            incentive mechanisms in place
3.5 Institutional Capacity for        Number and quality of graduates       Scout training facility does not exist    Scout training facility             In-country training institutional
Training in Wildlife is Built and    from training institutions adequate     Warden training not practical            established                          capacity starts producing the
                                                                            enough                                      Assessment of training             required personnel
Functional                                                                                                             institutions complete, contracts      Scouts are trained and up to
                                                                                                                       issued for warden level training.    their tasks
OUTCOME 4: New Protected Area         Good practise models (success         No good practise models available,        METT scores for                     METT scores for demonstration
Management Options are piloted,      stories) available, documented and     demonstration/pilot sites have still low   demonstration sites increased by 6   sites increased by 16 %
                                     used for dissemination                 METT scores                                %
developing best practice to be
replicated across the PA system

4.1 Lessons Learned on                Good practice models applied to       Few lessons learnt available (African     2 good practise models                 4 good practice models
Management Modalities available      other sites                            Parks, FZS)                                available                                 available and applied

from pilot sites

4.2 Landscape Level Management in     Management effectiveness of           No joint management committee             2 joint management                  Joint management committees
Place, with functional Joint         limited harvesting areas               exists                                     committees are functioning           established in 4 demonstration sites
                                      Joint management committees in        No limited harvesting areas using         New utilisation guidelines          Four limited harvesting areas
Management Committees at             place and functioning                  guidelines                                 applied in 2 cases                   using agreed regulations /
                                                                                                                                                            guidelines (Trigger for Stage 2)

Selected Sites

4.3 Piloted Interventions in Priority      Strategic interventions prioritised   None at present                             At least 2 different interventions    At least two different
Protected Areas, and Landscapes.          within EWCA – SDPASE are planned                                                   in two PAs                            Interventions in 6 PAs
                                          and implemented in pilot PAs

OUTCOME 5: Mechanisms for                  Ethiopia has a functional              Government provides bulk of               Sustainable financing options        Sustainable Finance Plan is
financial sustainability for Ethiopia’s   Financial Sustainability Plan for PAs   financing (<20% needs). 0% offset by       are available and discussed,          approved. Decisions on possible
                                          approved, with components on            generated revenues. No retention           Government input increases.           Trust Fund mechanisms are made.
Protected Area System are                 tourism, PES, Carbon., and increased    scheme                                                                           PES and Tourism fund flows start.
developed and demonstrated, for           government / donor support
scale-up in Stage 2

5.1 Financial Sustainability Plan is       Financial sustainability plan is         No sustainable financing plan exists    Sustainable financing options        Sustainable financing plan
developed for Protected Area              developed, decided upon and being                                                  modelled and tested                   adopted

5.2 Tourism contributes                    Tourism income is retained in the      No lodges within demonstration              Investors apply for sites          Each demonstration site has
significantly to recurrent costs for      demonstration sites                     sites                                                                            appropriate visitor accommodation
                                                                                   No retention                              Proposals for retention             in place
demonstration sites                                                                                                          schemes available                      Retention schemes in place

5.3 Co-finance secured for a further       The sector has forged strong             No co-financing for these sites         2 Co financing agreements            The further sites are partly
four further sites (Beyond Initial        partnerships with donors, NGOs for                                                 have been signed                      funded from new sources
                                          these sites, based on success stories
Demonstration Sites)                      (see Outcome 4)


Six regions were present and gave a short overview over the state of affairs in their regions:

Not present were Afar and Beneshangul Gumuz.

Regions                                                                           Important PAs

Amhara       Has founded a successful Protected Area Authority. The               Simien, Alatish NPs.
             Authority has fulfilled 3 out of 4 demands of UNESCO to strike
             Simien from the list of the world natural heritage sites. Task nr.   New PA: the Blue
             4 remains, the resettlement of the people living inside its          Nile below Bahir
                                                                                  Dar. Denkoro Chaka-
                                                                                  Forest, Community
             New park: Blue Nile, Denkoro Chaka-Forest.                           Conservation Area:
             New areas under scrutiny.

             Agency has close to 200 staff. There is strong political support.

Gambella     PAs are under the Culture, Tourism, Parks and Hotels                 Gambella NP
             Commission. Gambella is the only NP. Not much emphasis by
             regional authorities on PAs and biodiversity. Only 1 warden and
             2 scouts posted for the 5000 skm of the park. Border not known
             or ignored by authorities. Consequently investments and
             settlements widespread in park.

             Controlled hunting areas presently not allocated, despite an
             abundance of wildlife in some areas: white-eared Kob, Mrs.
             Gray’s Lechwe.

Oromia       PAs are under the Bureau of Agriculture. Bale NP is the most         Bale, Abiata Shalla,
             important one. GNP for Bale approved by Regional                     Kuni Muktar, Yabello
             Government: Several Controlled Hunting Areas. All PAs,
             especially Abiata Shalla NP, are under huge population

SNNPR        PAs are under the Culture, Tourism, Parks and Hotels Agency.         Omo, Nechsar,
             The agency has created 2 new NPs: Maze and Chebera                   Mago, Yabello,
             Churchura. Between Mago and Omo a new community                      Maze, Chebera
             conservation area is being established.                              Churchura.

             Poaching more a threat than in other regions. Quote: Hamer. “I       Community
             prefer to shoot government cattle (buffalos) than slaughter my       Conservation Areas
             cattle”.                                                             promoted.

             There is strong political support and a large number of staff.

Somali       PAs are under the Bureau of Agriculture and are heavily              Gerale
             understaffed. Abundance of wildlife and endemic species of

             plants and wildlife especially in the Ogaden area, but only one
             new Park, Gerale, no hunting areas.

Tigray       PAs are under the Bureau f Agriculture. So far one National        Kafta Shiraro
             Park, Kafta Shiraro, which shares its border with Eritrea and is
             important for Elephants because it harbours the northernmost
             population of Elephants in Africa. 5 new areas under scrutiny.
             No hunting areas.


The PMU of SDPASE gave out a few copies of a new draft GIS computerized map of the Protected
Areas of Ethiopia, super-imposed on a topographic map of Ethiopia. This map was prepared at the
Technical University College GEO3 by Prof. Meissner.

The PMU asked for comments on the map as to correctness and completeness. Are some PAs
missing? Should we include potential Protected Areas? Those who got copies were asked to
contact the PMU ( with comments.

Those who would like copies – please ask the PMU – the file size by email is around 2 MB. The map
is shown on the title page (but is best shown on A3 paper). The map is shown on the title page.


   THERE WAS GREAT INTEREST – Most people and all working groups expressed interest in
    SDPASE, and saw value in SDPASE as a conservation Project in Ethiopia.
   All Groups in their Feedback said that SDPASE was relevant, was necessary (and was very late
    in starting).
   All groups said that there was a need for updating content of project documentation


   EVERYONE said: This is a very complex document (set of documents) to understand. There is a
    need to make the core parts of the document (goal outcome outputs) much clearer, to
    outsiders, to partners and to those charged with implementation or parts of implementation.
   Everyone said that the project needs to prepare better sets of documents for working groups.


•   The wildlife conservation sector has progressed since the Project Document was first drafted.
•   The sector has progressed in the last year since The Project Document was signed

•   Key issues were the Proclamation setting up the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation AUTHORITY; and
•   The new approved policy and regulations


•   Comments were that the first stage of reform was in place (i.e. policy, new institution), but
    that now the policy needs to be enacted, and capacity of the new EWCA needs to be built.
•   There has been a huge increase, but most needing training and skills.
•   A recurring comment was the main progress was at HQ – Federal level – there now needs to
    be attention at REGIONAL level.


•   The five Outcomes were all relevant
    a) Mainstreaming (making PAs relevant to the national development process)

    b) Moving the policy process forwards; from preparing to implementing policy.

    c) Institutional Support: Focus on Capacity and Training

    d) Learning from On Ground Experiences

    e) Sustainable Financing

BUT underneath these large level OUTCOMES, i.e. at output / activity level

    •   There is much less clarity:
    •   The Project should therefore develop a clearer logframe / results matrix to provide such
    •   This logframe would focus on Outputs and Activities
    •   Once this is done, there is value in sharing this with Stakeholders to validate the process –
        partners – priority.


       One obvious outcome of the workshop was the positive networking between participants.
        This was obvious from listening and observing workshop process, and this was reinforced
        by the results of the Evaluation Forms. All groups of people wanted more and continued
        contact with each other. This was said by regional staff, by EWCA and by the NGOs, donors
        and civil society. The project must learn from that and invest in networking, which is an
        essential first step to experience sharing, best practice dissemination and overall
        knowledge management. Inviting the wardens (the staff on the ground, the cutting edge!)
        is essential.
       The new structure of the wildlife sector, with what were National Parks managed by the
        Regions, to National Parks which are managed by the Federal EWCA, but which remain
        surrounded by buffer zones of forest and people / regional land, will need quite complex
        networking and partnership strategies that focus on the landscape level.

     Such landscape planning is an essential part of the developing Protected Area SYSTEM of


  •   Project feedback was largely general. Participants did not have clarity of documentation to
      be more specific.
  •   The Project needs to focus on “HOW TO” do things.
  •   The Proclamation / Policy bullet points need fleshing out in strategy papers
  •   A clear priority remains the linkage to Regions – in both broad institutional terms, and from
      the Project viewpoint
  •   Revising documentation for update and clarity is a priority.
  •   Develop draft position papers on key issues
  •   The presentation on sustainable finance was compelling. We should use the Project to
      attract more resources, from government, from donors and from new emerging sources
      via PES (tourism, water, carbon)
  •   The project should maintain principles of capacity building, sustainability and partnership.
      You have the beginnings of stakeholder consultation process. BUILD ON THAT. Have part
      two of the workshop, when there has been updating, when there is greater clarity within
      each outcome. Bring in main partners.

       These are arranged in five main categories:

           1) Mainstreaming into national development processes
           2) Economic analyses and financial support, business planning
           3) Training, skill development
           4) Protected Area System planning
           5) Specific position papers
       Please note that the following list is tentative. Priorities might change in view of developments in EWCA and the sector, and papers listed below
       might be developped and supported by other agencies/donors. Not all studies/papers have the same priority, thus some might be dropped
       reflecting changes in priorities.

                                                         DETAILS OF ASSESSMENT AND STUDIES ETC


1.1.    Integrating (and institutionalizing) M & E process about Protected Areas into PASDEP. This includes the indicators and targets agreed on at
        PASDEP start-up in 2006. Study will develop protocols for such data collection and modalities to integrate.

1.2.    The integration of EIA process on wildlife areas into PASDEP, with specific reference on reducing conflict between conservation and “unplanned”
        development. The consultant will produce Guidelines for future EIA process and use past case history to illustrate issues.

1.3     A study on Protected Area impact on SLM / Land Degradation, e.g. around Simien in Amhara Region (dry mountains) and new Ogaden in Somali
        Region (arid) PAs. The aim is to contrast in and out PA situations, comparing resource status and livelihood implications.

1.4.    To compile learning, and best practices on Sustainable Land Management within documentation to feed into a larger workshop on PA – SLM
        interactions in general at a later stage in project.

                                                          DETAILS OF ASSESSMENT AND STUDIES ETC

1.5.   A field study on Protected Area and Poverty issues, with reference to selected Ethiopian protected areas (and transfer skills in such studies).
       Study will look at positive and negative impacts and opportunities for improvement. Note that this feeds into later studies on community support,
       training curricula, tourism linkages etc. Outputs include:

       1) Detailed documents (with statistics) on impacts of Protected Areas on Local Livelihoods (including lost opportunity costs).

       2) An understanding of these impacts within wildlife sector at all levels.

       3) Recommendations to reduce negative consequences and improve positive feedback.


2.1    To develop the overall “Business Plan” for the Wildlife Sector, looking at long-term needs and contributions from Federal/Regional levels. Factor
       in the growing linkages from tourism and PES process. Advise on planning at system and PA level. This leads to Stage 2 of Project. Key Outputs

       1) The optimum and essential costs scenarios for the Wildlife Sector, factoring in major new PAs / staffing are outlined

       2) Funding strategies are outlined showing present and anticipated government allocations, compared with regional norms. To review the existing
       financing / business plans models and enabling legislation for ALL the regional wildlife units in Ethiopia.

       3) To analyze the scope for PES (Payment for Ecological Services) issues around PAs - looking at potential for watershed services to the PA
       system. Strategies to meet gaps between requirements and probable funding are outlined (looking at PES, Tourism, Carbon, Hunting etc)

2.2    To prepare the detailed economic assessment of Ethiopia’s PA system. (“Making the Economic Case”). This incorporates tourism and PES
       planning information as outlined in Outcome 1.

       Part two of the study uses this information to show growing importance of PA system to macro-economic and local micro-economic systems in
       country, and show how to use this information to advocate for funding flows.

       Part three of this study links the PA Business Plan models to the economic arguments.

2.3    Agreement on PES structures within Federal and Regional Authorities.

2.4    To list the main elements of existing wildlife policy and legislation and institutional arrangements on federal and regional level and their linkages
       with other sectors etc in other regions. The study will present federal and regional law and policy and institutional set ups and consequences for
       action on field level. The study provides lessons on best practice at regional level.

                                                          DETAILS OF ASSESSMENT AND STUDIES ETC

2.5    Ensure all PAs are on IUCN WCMC list. This study will work with authorities to improve PA gazettement reporting process. Key outputs include:

       1) Clarity on PA categories, linking international typology to national categories.

       2) Agreement on the functions of the UN List of PAs, Updating Ethiopia’s database

       3) Advice on PA categories of value in Ethiopian context


3.1.   An updated Training Needs Assessment for “In-Service Training”, and develop the Training Programme for all staff cadres (work with Training

3.2.   To develop a training framework for Wildlife Guards - (Training Needs Assessment, Curriculum and Methodology) working with new Dept Training
       Officer and co-finance partners for Guard (Scout) cadres. Providing links to Kenya Ranger Training School and others.

3.3.   To develop a training framework for new Wildlife wardens (Training Needs Assessment, Curriculum and Methodology) working with new Dept
       Training Officer and appropriate training institutions. Providing links to CAWM Mweka Tanzania and KWS School Kenya)

3.4.   To develop the overall Knowledge Management system for the sector, including databases, computerized and hard copy records. Advise on
       learning, and planning KM at federal regional and at PA level. This leads to Stage 2 of Project. Key outputs are:

       1) A “SWOT” assessment of existing formal and informal knowledge management systems in Ethiopia’s “wildlife sector”.

       2) Recommendations for strengthening such knowledge and information management, from government, NGOs and Academia

       3) Demonstrations of KM mechanisms including web sites, databases, library storage etc.


4.1.   GAP-analysis: To advise on PA system ecological coverage, looking at total gaps and inadequacies in terms of size and design. Set out a bio-
       geographic planning framework, which fits into GIS planning structures. This leads to Stage 2. Key Outputs are:

       1) Building on the PA System analysis from PDF B, assess the current bio-geographic analysis of Ethiopia

       2) Assess the coverage of current PA network against the best of bio-geographic and ecological systems (real & potential PAs)

       3 Make recommendations for further improvements to PA system (new PAS, upgrading, dispersal, corridors, fragmentation)

                                                          DETAILS OF ASSESSMENT AND STUDIES ETC

4.2.   To describe best practises of business and management planning in the sector, especially experiences from partner’s initiative. To develop
       national guide lines.

4.3.   To develop plans for an overall cost-effective GIS system for the wildlife sector (learn from Forests). Select local technical partners to undertake
       training and set up systems. Advise on needs at federal / regional level. Key outputs from this “planning consultancy” include:

       1) Assessment of current GIS situation in Ethiopia (training, practitioners, skills) with special reference to past forest expertise

       2) An agreed outline of GIS Options for wildlife sector (including costs and benefits)

       3) An approved contract setting out the development of a GIS system.

4.4.   To assist EWCA in carrying out species conservation plans, analyse the consequences of these plans for the PA system, demonstrate
       coordination with broader Africa scale plans for e.g. Elephant, Lion conservation.


5.1.   To examine best practice, opportunities and constraints within existing working partnerships (Region to Development Partner, PA to Development
       Partner, PA and Region to varied donor groups and larger NGOs; and PAs with the Private Sector) with a view to determining best practices for
       future partnership. .

5.2.   Service Contract to University of Addis Ababa to commission student small scale field studies in priority PAs, to build greater partnership between
       biodiversity researchers and wildlife sectors. Contract covers 3 years, to be governed by joint committee to decide criteria, priorities and timing.
       Amounts increase as University builds capacity. Key Outputs include:

       1) A network of wildlife researchers established, with greater awareness in academia of wildlife problems.

       2) A set of research outputs that address priority issues in PAs

       3) Protected Area field staff participate in field research and resource surveys, with linkages to academia.

                                                        DETAILS OF ASSESSMENT AND STUDIES ETC

5.3.   Service contracts to two field based civil society groups to undertake awareness raising, leading to increased cooperation amongst communities
       around conflict PAs. Details of PAs to be decided after Inception process, but key outputs include:

       1) Greater factual knowledge of background to community – conservation conflicts which can inform management

       2) Knowledge can feed into management Plan and Community planning frameworks

       3) A greater capacity in country to address socio-economic issues within the wildlife sector

5.4.   A review of the hunting sector: lessons and best practices on quota setting, hunting management and reserve conservation, as a technical study
       to EWCA, involving local and international hunting organisations. Key Outputs include:

       1) A review of present hunting concessions (historical trends in quota use, revenues and beneficiaries)

       2) Strengthening of the private sector association with linkages top PA management and resident communities.

       3) Recommendations for improving conservation management in key hunting areas of Ethiopia.

                                    ANNEX TWO: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS (and contacts)
No.           Name                Organization                 Position           Tel                  E-mail

1     Sanne Van Aarst       HOA-REC                  Program Officer         0913 122900

2     Dr. Yirmed Demeke     Wild for Sustainable     Coordinator             0911 643388

3     Didumo Adar           CTPAC                    Communication Officer   0911 397714

4     Aklilu Kebede         EWCA                     Expert                  0911 050451

5     Kahsay G/Tensay       EWCA                     Department Head         0911 742003

6     Dr. Zelealem Tefera   FZS                      Representative          0911 406483

7     Dereje Dejene         UNDP                     Team Leader             0911 374837

8     Abiyot Hailu          Awash National Park      Warden                  0911 835780

9     Lakew Berhanu         SDPASE                   NPC                     0911644889

10    Fride G/Yesus         EPAA                     Manager                 0111 552140

11    Edward Dwumfour       World Bank               Env. specialist         0911 501199

12    Berhanu Jilcha        Bale Mountain NP         Warden                  0911 957530

13    Adane Tsegaye         Chebra Churchura         Warden                  0913 357056

14    Alehgne Taye          Maze National Park       Warden                  0468840411

15    James Young           Born Free Foundation     Project Director        0913 119054

16    A.N Roussos           Eth Rift Valley Safari   General Manager         0911 200704

17   Mesfin Anbesse     Senkelle Swayne's       Warden                 0911 397067
                        Hartebeest Sanctuary

18   Berhanu Gebre      Amhara Parks and        General Manager        0918 340139
                        Protection Authority

19   Asmare Goshu       Alatish National Park   Warden                 0918 731460

20   Maru Brudier       Simien Mountain NP      Warder                 0918 731742

21   Kassa Abuhay       Blue Nile Safari        Manager                0911 418317

22   Degu Tadie         Wildcode                Manager                0911 157583

23   Fiona Flintan      SC-US                                          0911 202716

24   Rowan Mactagart    ESTA                                           0912 600409

25   Shimelis Fedadu    EPA                     Head, Planning         0911 644523

26   Aynalem Meshesha   MOFED                   Expert                 0911 214956

27   Ayele Kebede       FfE                     Program Manager        0911 013886

28   Wondwosen Sisay    EWCA                    Warden                 0911 024569

29   Cheire Enawgaw     EWCA                    Expert                 0911 673737

30   Janny Poley        RNE-HOA                 First Secretary Emb.   011 3711100   jc.poley@minbuza.hl

31   Omot Agw Okwoy     Gambella National       Warden                 0911 478984

32   Alan Rodgers       GTZ-IS                  Facilitator                

33   Hailemariam        Tigrai BoARD            Team Leader            0914 706768

34   Dr. Graham Hemson   EWCP                    Coordinator               0911 864628

35   Almaz Beyero        TPHA                    Head                      0911 823695

36   Alemayehu Matewos   Mago National Park      Warden                    0916 856427

37   Baffa Balcha        Nech Sar National       Warden                    046 8840409

38   Genet Garedew       EWCA                    Department Head           011 5154844

39   Hailu Ayarra        ASLNP                   Warden                    0911 865753

40   Woubishet Zenebe    ONP                     Acting Warden

41   Dr. Ludwig Siege    SDPASE                  Chief Technical Advisor   0913073700

42   Ato Esayas Abebe    GTZ-IS                  Deputy Director           0116622260

43   Zina Benjelloun     GTZ-IS                  Head of Strategy and PR   0116622260

44   Dr. Leonhard Moll   Austrian Dev. Au        Head Coordinator          011 1533835

45   Getachew Tilahun    Libah Safari            Manager                   011 5509364

46   Ahmed Ali           Livestock, Crop &       Team Leader               0911 013886
                         Natural Resource Dev.

47   Fetene Hailu        EWCA                    Coordinator               0911 930974

48   Sisay Shewamene     Shield & Spear          General Manager           0911209105
                         International Safari



       The Workshop team distributed a simple one page “Workshop Evaluation Form”, and 32
       participants returned completed forms. The form asked for a three part rating (Satisfactory, Partial
       Satisfactory, Non-satisfactory) on two issues:

                Did the Workshop raise awareness and understanding of the SDPASE Project?

                Did the Workshop allow stakeholders to participate and comment on SDPASE objectives
                and outcomes, and so suggest changes in the Project Documentation?

       The Evaluation Form asked participants on good and bad things about Workshop Process, Content
       and Organisation, and to suggest what organisers could do to improve workshops in the future.

       Respondents were divided into Four Categories: those from EWCA, those from Regional Wildlife
       Agencies / Parks, those from Civil Society, Academia and Donors, and Hunters.


     Category               Awareness Question                       Participation Question
                   Satis     Part Sat Non-Sat Total         Satis      Part Sat Non-Sat Total
EWCA Staff             6        1        0      7               5          1         1       7
Regional Staff         8        4        0      11              8          4         0      12
Civil Society          8        1        0      9               4          5         0       9
Hunters                4        0        0      4               3          1         0       4
Totals                26        6        0      32             20          11        1      32
       %              78       22        0     100             65          34        3      100

       Specifics: 1) What Could be Improved for Future Workshops?

No                            Issue                         Hunter    Civil Soc   Region     EWCA       Total
1      More time needed for discussion                      1         7           5         2          15
2      Better, clearer materials to be given out            1         4           5         4          14
3      More and complete set of stakeholders                          4           1         2          7
4      Allow participants to choose groups                            2                                2
5      Broaden process to allow more presentations          1         1                                2
6      Repeat process in regions (and in PAs)                         3           4         2          9
7      Include more training                                                      2                    2
8      Include Amharic translator (as English not good)               1                                1
9      More leadership from EWCA                                      1                     1          2
10     Do it at weekends                                                          1                    1
       This mirrored comments on poor aspects: NOT enough time, people needed more/ better materials, and
       some stakeholders were missing (eg EWNHS, Community leaders, Academia).

       2) What was good about the workshop?

No                                              Issue                                                Number
1      Opportunity for networking                                                                  12
2      Ability to learn about the Project and Wildlife Conservation in Ethiopia                    12
3      Opportunity to suggest how to update document                                               11
4      Information Sharing                                                                         9
5      Time available to discuss important issues                                                  8
6      Broad range of stakeholders, especially regions                                             8
7      Opportunities to integrate different conservation activities / perspectives                 5
8      Good Facilities (apart from Parking!)                                                       4
9      The bringing in of Park Staff                                                               4
10     Good Facilitation / Moderation *                                                            11
(*The moderator thanks them all, especially the person who said “the Moderator was nice and good-looking”, but
notes the lady did not leave her telephone number).

Some Quotes

    Good to have so many stakeholders and actors in nature conservation and tourism development
     brought together (a donor)

    It is always good to network, and good for us in civil society projects to be involved in such conservation
     project process; let us have more of it, and ask us fir assistance if you need it; let us see how to
     integrate more (Civil Society).

    It was a good mix of stakeholders, especially bringing in the Park Wardens (CS).

    It was good to bring together so many stakeholders, to know their views and needs (EWCA)

    Some of the stakeholders were irrelevant to the Workshop. (EWCA)

    The workshop allowed participation from many actors (EWCA)

    It was good to share experiences from so many stakeholders (EWCA)

    I got a lot of information about other PAs in Ethiopia, which I did not know about (Region)

    The Discussion Groups allowed greater understanding of issues (Region).

    It was good to have a group focus on capacity building (Region)

    This allowed free and open discussion, especially for Park Wardens (Region)

    Meeting all the stakeholders in conservation, including donors, was useful (Region).


For a first workshop this was a GOOD result. YES, the organisers are aware of time issues;, and the need for
better materials. There is an obvious need for more meeting, participation and interaction in general. There
is an obvious need for opportunity to debate specific interest topics, giving informed materials and time for
presentations from different stakeholders. SDPASE has resources to provide such input, which is a key part
of capacity building.

SDPASE Addis Ababa, 16.2.09

Shared By: