Management Challenges of Gambella National Park

Abstract

Gambella National Park has several management challenges that included previous settlement and current settlement and agricultural investment. The objectives of this study were to examine previous and current settlement and agricultural investment in the surrounding area of Gambella National Park. The method that was employed for this study was systematic sampling. ArcGIS version 10.5 was used for analyzing the data. Among seven Refugees camps, Pugnido 1 with a total population of 68,176 (17%) and Pugnido 2 with a population of 17,793 (14%) are close to Gambella National Park followed by Tirikedi 72,876 (18%). It also shows that some of the current resettlement or villages were wrong placed inside the Gambella National Park. Therefore, the current resettlement program becomes another challenge for management of Gambella National Park. The Karaturi, Rushi, and Saudi leased land are around vicinity and some part of Gambella National Park. Karaturi leased land includes 50,000 ha of land from the National Park. As a result of current agricultural investment, the previous National Park which was 5,06 km2 is now reduced to 4,575 km2. The institutional change indicated the serious turnover of staff at Gambella National Park.

1. Introduction

There are many views regarding the management of protected areas [1]. ReedNoss, one of the most powerful conservation biologists in North America, claims that though management of national parks is a system of control, environmental management is however necessary in many areas in order to preserve its biological diversity, particularly when the area is imposed by a variety of disturbance regimes. Rick Searle, a former park naturalist with Parks Canada, however, advocates any mixture of approaches that ensures the most restoration and maintenance of wildness is viable [2]. Alternatively, the management of national parks can also be viewed as being fundamentally the management of people, such as the introduction of visitor shares to manage the inflow of people [3].

National Parks and other protected areas are today’s main method in protecting and freeing areas from the pressures of development and as an attempt to safeguard its natural, cultural, or historic heritage. The problem of effective park management is becoming increasingly obvious due to external and internal burdens. Areas nearby national parks for instance are becoming ever more urbanized or exploited for industrial determinations. Internal pressures include the need for tourism to raise revenues and its following development requirements within the park boundary. These burdens combined make national park management a truthful challenge of today [4]. Struggles between people and Wildlife Conservation Authorities have increased around protected areas because of increasing human populations and their activities, such as settlements, agriculture, livestock husbandry, and other human activities. These conflicts include blockage of migratory and dispersal areas, loss of habitat for wildlife, raiding of crops, and attacks on livestock by wildlife. The other conflicts were the competition for resources such as watering points and grazing areas, illegal poaching, and disease transmission [5]. These activities are the challenges for management of National Parks.

Deforestation in and around protected areas is causing habitat loss and fragmentation which in turn impact the wild animals in many ways. Wild animals lose their habitat, sources of food, and spaces due to loss of biodiversity, land degradation, and encroachment [6]. Illegal hunting is a threat to wildlife conservation works in Africa and it is a common practice in Ethiopia. It can be fueled by various factors that can range from simple social prestige which is connected to bravery and manhood, to the need for wild animals’ meat for consumption, and commercial trading of valuable parts of the animals [7].

2. Problem statement

Gambella National Park is very rich in term of its biodiversity; however, the management of the National Park facing so many challenges, and therefore, its biodiversity is under serious threat to human intervention. The human interventions were resettlement programs during previous regime and settlement of South Sudanese refugees in the adjacent areas of Park. The current human interventions are the need for development such as agricultural investment, villagilization program, and current civil war in South Sudan and poaching. As result, the management of wildlife resources in the park becomes great challenge and therefore, those challenges need to be studied so as to suggest better solutions for better management of the park.

3. Objectives

3.1 General objective

The general objective of this study is to investigate the challenges facing the management of Gambella National Park.

3.2 Specific objectives

The specific objectives are:

To examine the previous settlement program in the adjacent areas of the park.

To identify current resettlements in the surrounding areas of the park.

To investigate the current agricultural investment in the surrounding area of the park.

4. Materials and methods

4.1 Description of study area

Gambella National Park is located in the central part, mainly in the lowland plain of the Gambella Regional State. According to EWCO [8], the park is situated within latitude of 8°N and longitude of 34°15′E. And it is between nine administrative woredas namely Jikawo, Lare, Wantawo, Akobo, Gambella, Itang, Gog, Abobo, and Jor. It was established in 1973 with redemarcated area covered of 4,575 km² (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Location of Gambella National Park within Gambella Regional State.

4.2 Method of data collection

4.2.1 Sampling design and data collection

There are eight investment board members of institutions in Gambella Regional State. This includes Investment Agency, Mine and Energy Agency, Bureau of Culture and Tourism, Bureau of Environment, Forest and Climate change, Gambella National Park office, Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Bureau of Trade and Industry, and Rural Road and Transport Agency. Accordingly, five experts from four institutions (Gambella National Park office, Investment Agency, Bureau Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and Bureau Agriculture and Natural Resources) were systematically selected for this study which makes up a total of 20 respondents from the region. Moreover, four representatives from selected woredas (Abobo, Itang special, and Wantaw) were also systematically selected, and 1 each from selected institutions (Agriculture and Natural Resources Offices, Administrative Offices, Culture and Tourism, and Rural Road Offices) which make up a total of 12 respondents. In Gambella National Park, five representatives from game rangers from three camps sites (Pokede, Corridor, and Mun) were systematically selected for this study which make up a total 15 of respondents. Therefore, there were total of 47 respondents. The field observation was also made in the main agricultural farms of target woreda adjacent to the national park.

4.2.2 Sources of data

The data collections for this study were collected from both secondary and primary sources. The secondary sources were mainly from unpublished and published sources. The unpublished sources included annual reports of selected Institutions. Literature review of other documents related to the challenges of Park management of biodiversity from different Libraries and Internets were also made to complement and refine the information that has been collected.

The primary sources were collected from the current agricultural investment and resettlements in the region and areas adjacent to National Park. These were collected from the experts working in the government institutions and field observations.

4.3 Data analysis

The collected data were summarized and analyzed by using ArcGIS 10.5 software taking each settlement and commercial agriculture as unit of analysis. Descriptive statistics such as mean, percentages, figures, tables, and standard error were calculated to present the results.

5. Results and discussion

5.1 Challenges facing management of biodiversity of the park

5.1.1 Impact of south sudanese refugees and SPLA on biodiversity of the park

There was increasing deforestation in the areas around all refugee camps where the refugees cleared the woodland for house construction and firewood. Hunting and poaching for food also decreased wild animals. According to the elderly informants some species of fish disappeared from fishing lakes and ponds such as Lake Tata and “Duma” or ‘Kongdokuach’ swamp because of increasing fishing by refugees. Because of the long duration of conflict in Southern Sudan, a large number of refugees had a profound impact on the local wildlife. After the arrival of the SPLA soldiers in the region in 1983 in general and their headquarter known as Bilpam in the Park in particular, they hunted wild animals such as buffalo, elephants, giraffe, white-eared kob, and Nile lechwe with automatic weapons for their own food. The traditional method of hunting by local community changed to hunting with automatic weapons they purchased from the SPLA soldiers. The local population had got army ammunition from the SPLA and therefore, both the local communities of Gambella and SPLA soldiers were heavily engaged in poaching.

According to current official information obtained from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Gambella sub-office, there are seven camps in four woredas of the region. The three camps (Kule 54,547 (14%), Tirikedi 72,876 (18%), and Nguyiel 74,095 (18%)) are located at Itang special woreda. The two camps (Pugnido 1 68,176 (17%) and Pugnido 2 17,793 (14%)) are located at Gog woreda, whereas Jawie 62,641 (16%) and Okugo 13,016 (3%) are located at Gambella Zuria and Dimma woreda, respectively; Figure 2. Among Refugee’s Camps, Pugnido 1 and 2 are close to Gambella National Park followed by Tirikedi. Therefore, the impacts on wildlife habitats such as cutting down of trees for firewood, house construction, and poaching were more observed at vicinity of those camps (Pugnido 1&2 and Tirkedi). Hence, care and maintenance need to be carryout by Gambella National Park Office, Administration Returnees Affair (ARRA), and UNHCR.

Figure 2.

Location of Refugee camps and their population within Gambella Regional State.

5.1.2 Impact of resettlement program on Wildlife resources in the park

Key informants stated that the 1984–1985 severe drought and famine in the northern part of the Ethiopia became a pretext for the Derg regime to carry out forced resettlement villages which were set up at Abobo, Gog, and Gambella woreda in adjacent part of Gambella National Park. About 60,000 highlanders were settled in the region. This brought adverse impact on vegetation and wild animals in the Gambella National Park because some of the resettled villages were placed inside the National park.

They also said that the current resettlement program of the region had also negative impacts on wildlife resources of the park. According to the information obtained from Bureau of Agriculture of Gambella regional state, about 45,000 households were relocated from their original villages to cluster village. Some villages were not properly planned and wrongly placed inside the National Park, for instance, the villages named Ongoke at Jor woreda, Gire at Makuey woreda, and Kankan at Akobo woreda are placed inside the National Park. However, the Shentaw of Jor woreda is placed at adjacent area of the Park (Figure 3). Hence, the communities of these villages used to clear grasses and the trees for construction of their houses. Moreover, they use to hunt animal like buffalo and white-eared kob. Therefore, the current resettlement program becomes another challenge for management of the park.

Figure 3.

Impact of settlement at Gambella National Park. Source: Gatluak’s own data 2019.

5.1.3 Impact of current agricultural investment on park management

Agricultural investment statistic obtained from regional investment agency has shown that the current agricultural investments had impacted and decreased the boundary of Gambella National Park. About 100,000 ha of land from Gambella National Park was leased to both local and foreign investors. Karaturi Global of India, Saudi Star Agriculture Development Private limited company of Saudi Arabia, and Rushi have leased 100,000, 11,000 ha, and 25,000 ha of land in Gambella region respectively (Figure 3). According to the land administration and land use Department of Bureau of Agriculture of Gambella region, over 700 domestic investors are also engaged in agricultural production in Gambella region. Both the Karaturi, Rushi, and Saudi leased land are around vicinity and some part of the park areas. Karaturi leased land had included 50,000 ha of land from Gambella National park while the other leased land included 50,000 ha which was seen outside the current National Park leased by remaining investors. As a result of current agricultural investment, the previous National Park which was 5061 km² is now reduced to 4,575 km². Moreover, information obtained from key informants, the wetland locally known as “Duma” in Anuak and “Kongdokuach” in Nuer is being irrigated in its upper course by Saudi Star Company and irrigated from its lower course by Karaturi Company. This has a large impact on wildlife resources for both large mammals, such as Buffalo, Nile lechwe, and rare bird species like a shoe-bill stork and other aquatic animals such as fish species (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Agricultural investment in adjacent to park within Gambella Regional State. Gatluak’s own data 2019.

5.1.4 The management challenges associated with Institutional changes and its culture

Since the time of its establishment up to the first half of 1996, the management of the park has been run by Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization (EWCO). During the decentralization policy of the government of Ethiopia, the responsibility of administering the park was handed over to the regional bureau of agriculture. In 2005/2006, the warden of Gambella National Park was transformed by regional government into as political post. Furthermore, during the regional structure in 2007, the park office has been combined with culture and tourism bureau. At the end of 2008, the park office was combined with bureau of agriculture of the region. In late 2009, the administration of the park has returned to Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority. The problems here associated with this institutional change were serious turnover in staff and lack of proper care for official documents. Other institutional problems mentioned by Gambella National Park experts were lack of transparency from both the Wildlife Conservation Authority and Gambella National Park, small amount of salary of staff as compared to Gambella Regional State staff salary, lack of motivation and so many positions without employees. For instance, Chief Warden, Procurement and Finance Officer, revenue expert and recorded and documentation expert are all carried out by acting experts (Table 1).

No	Post	No	Status	Salary (Birr)	Remark
1	Warden (Office Manager)	1	Not employed	7647	Leaved 2017
2	Secretary	1	Present at work	2,500
3	Wildlife Senior expert	1	Not employed	6992
4	Wildlife junior expert	1	Present at work	2,800
5	Wildlife Regulatory expert	1	Not employed	6992
6	Tourism beginner expert	1	Present at work	3526
7	Community Services expert	1	Present at work	4458
8	Animal health assistant	1	Not employed	3526
9	Head of Scouts	8	Present at work	4439
10	Scout	103	Only 36 are employed	2244
11	Supporting Staff services	15	Seven are present at work and eight are not employed	2,500–4,458
Total		134

Table 1.

Gambella National Park Staff Composition and indication of staff turnover based their income (Salary).

6. Conclusion and recommendation

6.1 Conclusion

It can be concluded that both the refugees and SPLA soldiers had profound negative impacts on wildlife resources in the park and the local method of hunting was changed to hunting with automatic weapon, they purchased from SPLA soldiers which become one of the key management challenges for the park and also seven South Sudanese Refugee’s Camps are located at three woredas of Gambella Regional State. The other management challenges for the park were previous and current resettlement programs that brought adverse impacts on vegetation and wild animal population. Some villages were wrongly planned and placed inside the National park. The government villgalization program has not been done in plan way that considered the presence of Gambella National Park from 5061 km² to 4,373 km². It can also be concluded that the institutional change result in serious turnover in staff and lack of proper care for the official documents.

6.2 Recommendation

• As there is increasing deforestation by refugees, restoration of ecology, and/or area closure should be done on surrounding areas of the camps.

• The UNHCR should give compensation in the form of funds for reforestation projects in the region in general and for the park in particular.

• As hunting and poaching are challenges for wildlife management of the park, disarmament should be done for refugees and local community by the government.

• As the resettlement program and agricultural investment are key management challenges for the park, integrating land use planning and consultation for the development program should be done in the region.

Acknowledgments

I would like to sincerely express my thanks and gratitude to Regional, Woreda key informants and field assistants. Without their information support, this research could not be very fruitful and thanks go to Gambella University for funding this research and institutions which are members of Gambella Regional State investment board for providing a relevant data for this study. I would also like to thank the UNHCR senior staff in particular Mr. Kwandwo Fempong for providing me data on Refugee population of Gambella Region. I would also like to thank experts of Gambella National Park for their assistant on the information regarding the management challenges of Gambella National Park. Last but not the least goes to Gambella National Park Scouts for their assistance during the data collection, in particular, Ato Ochan Both, Ato Ojulu Ogula Ato Mony Kong, Ato Yuoal Puoch, Ato Nyikew Obong, and Ato Top Gach for their tireless effort during the data collection. I would also like to thank individuals W/r Momina executive secretary of Research, Community Services, and industry linkages Vice President for her printing support throughout my study.