SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROTECTED AREA SYSTEM OF
A UNDP-GEF Government of Ethiopia Project – Implemented by GTZ-IS
Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority
REPORT OF THE INCEPTION WORKSHOP
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
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
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.
THE INCEPTION WORKSHOP PROGRAMME, SDPASE
Alan Rodgers & Lakew Berhanu, Moderators / Facilitators
1) What is an INCEPTION WORKSHOP?
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.
THERE ARE FOUR PARTS TO THE WORKSHOP PROGRAMME:
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.
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
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.
1. WHY IS BIODIVERSITY IMPORTANT?
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
2. WHY IS BIODIVERSITY IN TROUBLE?
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
3. GEF’S GOAL IN BIODIVERSITY
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
Access and Benefit Sharing
4. UNDP’S BIODIVERSITY PROGRAMME
…….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
5. PROTECTED AREAS
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.
Accessing, Combining and Sequencing Funds
Focus on Barrier Removal
In 70 Countries
6. MAINTAINING RELEVANCE TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
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
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
7. MAINTAINING THE RELEVANCE OF PAS IN A WORLD FOCUSED ON CLIMATE CHANGE
- Nature Based Adaptation (safeguarding natural capital to reduce vulnerability)
- Reducing losses of Carbon Reservoirs in Forests and Wetlands
a. Mitigation: to avoid the unmanageable
b. Adaptation: to manage the unavoidable
8. ROLE OF PROTECTED AREAS IN CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
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.
9. ROLE OF PROTECTED AREAS IN CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
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
10. SHOWING RESULTS IN ETHIOPIA:
• 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
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
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,
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
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.
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.
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.
„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 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
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
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
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.
RESULTS FROM THE WORKING GROUPS:
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.
1. THE REVISED PROJECT OUTCOMES
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)
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
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
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.
2. THE NEW PROJECT PLANNING MATRIX:
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
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
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
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)
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)
3. THE RESULTS FROM THE REGIONS
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-
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.
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
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.
4. A NEW AND UPDATED MAP OF THE PROTECTED AREAS OF ETHIOPIA
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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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.
CONCLUSIONS: WHAT WERE THE REACTIONS FROM THE PARTICIPANTS?
A) IN GENERAL
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
All groups said that there was a need for updating content of project documentation
B) The PROJECT DOCUMENT
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.
C) PATTERNS OF CHANGE (General)
• 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
D) PATTERNS OF CHANGE (Specific)
• 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.
E) The FIVE OUTCOMES
• 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!)
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.
Annex 1: DETAILS OF ASSESSMENTS, POSITION / POLICY PAPERS, STUDIES AND REPORTS
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
No.1 MAINSTREAMING INTO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES
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 ECONOMIC ANALYSES AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT, BUSINESS PLANNING
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. TRAINING, SKILL DEVELOPMENT
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. PROTECTED AREA SYSTEM PLANNING
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. SPECIFIC POSITION PAPERS
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 email@example.com
2 Dr. Yirmed Demeke Wild for Sustainable Coordinator 0911 643388 firstname.lastname@example.org
3 Didumo Adar CTPAC Communication Officer 0911 397714
4 Aklilu Kebede EWCA Expert 0911 050451
5 Kahsay G/Tensay EWCA Department Head 0911 742003 email@example.com
6 Dr. Zelealem Tefera FZS Representative 0911 406483 firstname.lastname@example.org
7 Dereje Dejene UNDP Team Leader 0911 374837 email@example.com
8 Abiyot Hailu Awash National Park Warden 0911 835780 firstname.lastname@example.org
9 Lakew Berhanu SDPASE NPC 0911644889 email@example.com
10 Fride G/Yesus EPAA Manager 0111 552140
11 Edward Dwumfour World Bank Env. specialist 0911 501199 firstname.lastname@example.org
12 Berhanu Jilcha Bale Mountain NP Warden 0911 957530 email@example.com
13 Adane Tsegaye Chebra Churchura Warden 0913 357056 firstname.lastname@example.org
14 Alehgne Taye Maze National Park Warden 0468840411 email@example.com
15 James Young Born Free Foundation Project Director 0913 119054 James@bornfree.org.uk
16 A.N Roussos Eth Rift Valley Safari General Manager 0911 200704 firstname.lastname@example.org
17 Mesfin Anbesse Senkelle Swayne's Warden 0911 397067
18 Berhanu Gebre Amhara Parks and General Manager 0918 340139 email@example.com
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
23 Fiona Flintan SC-US 0911 202716 email@example.com
24 Rowan Mactagart ESTA 0912 600409 firstname.lastname@example.org
25 Shimelis Fedadu EPA Head, Planning 0911 644523
26 Aynalem Meshesha MOFED Expert 0911 214956 email@example.com
27 Ayele Kebede FfE Program Manager 0911 013886 firstname.lastname@example.org
28 Wondwosen Sisay EWCA Warden 0911 024569
29 Cheire Enawgaw EWCA Expert 0911 673737 email@example.com
30 Janny Poley RNE-HOA First Secretary Emb. 011 3711100 firstname.lastname@example.org
31 Omot Agw Okwoy Gambella National Warden 0911 478984 email@example.com
32 Alan Rodgers GTZ-IS Facilitator firstname.lastname@example.org
33 Hailemariam Tigrai BoARD Team Leader 0914 706768 email@example.com
34 Dr. Graham Hemson EWCP Coordinator 0911 864628 firstname.lastname@example.org
35 Almaz Beyero TPHA Head 0911 823695 email@example.com
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
39 Hailu Ayarra ASLNP Warden 0911 865753
40 Woubishet Zenebe ONP Acting Warden
41 Dr. Ludwig Siege SDPASE Chief Technical Advisor 0913073700 email@example.com
42 Ato Esayas Abebe GTZ-IS Deputy Director 0116622260 firstname.lastname@example.org
43 Zina Benjelloun GTZ-IS Head of Strategy and PR 0116622260 email@example.com
44 Dr. Leonhard Moll Austrian Dev. Au Head Coordinator 011 1533835
45 Getachew Tilahun Libah Safari Manager 011 5509364 libah_safar.com.et
46 Ahmed Ali Livestock, Crop & Team Leader 0911 013886 firstname.lastname@example.org
Natural Resource Dev.
47 Fetene Hailu EWCA Coordinator 0911 930974 email@example.com
48 Sisay Shewamene Shield & Spear General Manager 0911209105 firstname.lastname@example.org
ANNEX THREE: THE EVALUATION OF THE WORKSHOP
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).
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