USDA-Forest Service Technical Assistance Trip

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

In Support to USAID-Ethiopia for Assistance in Rangeland
Management Support to the Pastoralist Livelihoods Initiative for
USAID-Ethiopia Office of Business Environment Agriculture & Trade

FINAL REPORT – April 2007

Mission Dates: March 16 – March 31, 2007

Afar cooperative members cleared out Prosopis juliflora around the indigenous Acacia.

Report Submitted by:

Hans C. Bastian
USDA Forest Service
Rangeland Management Specialist
4350 Cliffs Drive
Pocatello, Idaho 83204
(208) 236-7526
hbastian@fs.fed.us

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

II. BACKGROUND 4

III. SCOPE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 5

IV. ISSUES, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Issue 1. Invasive Species Management Strategy/Plan 5

Issue 2. Successes and Problems of Prosopis Control 6

Issue 3. Education at Community Levels 10

V. NEXT STEPS 10

ANNEX 1. Mission itinerary 11

ANNEX 2. Scope of Work 14

ANNEX 3. Afar Region Invasive Species Management Strategy 17

ANNEX 4. Afar Region Prosopis Management Plan Framework 25

ANNEX 5. EIAR Draft Proposal of Prosopis Prevention and

Management 29

ANNEX 6. Farm Africa -Prosopis Model 34

ANNEX 7. Farm Africa – Regulation of charcoal proposal 39

ANNEX 8. Acronyms 43

ANNEX 9. Personal Contact Information 43

2
 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objective of this mission was to review a draft invasive species management strategy
for the Afar Region and a draft framework for managing Prosopis document with the
Government of Ethiopia (GoE), the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR),
and other Pastoralist Livelihoods Initiative (PLI) partners. The week before this mission
departed the EIAR had developed a draft management plan which appeared to have
incorporated the work from the previous invasive mission. Upon meeting with EIAR, it
was revealed that they had received the draft USFS strategy and Prosopis plan and
assessed it in the “Development of Guideline for prevention and management of Prosopis
juliflora in Afar region” which was devised with the input of Tufts University and other
PLI partners. EIAR suggested that the USFS invasive species support would include
researching other Prosopis management techniques, invasive species information sharing,
and consider restoration and rehabilitation methods.

This assignment was to start an education process to organize Zones 3 & 5 of the Afar
Region to hold the line on the spread of Prosopis into areas currently not infested.
Management of the existing Prosopis infestation can be done with mechanical and
cultural means. Upon meeting with Afar regional officials and community members, it
was well determined that education on the management of Prosopis has been successful
with different NGOs and local community cooperatives. There have been many projects
converting monocultures of Prosopis-invaded land into forage/cropland, and clearing
areas to create exclosures for the rehabilitation of native plant species. The communities
were well informed on Prosopis control methods.

An objective that emerged as a priority during this mission was the collection of
information on the successes of the Prosopis control process, and the problems people
face in these efforts. One example is that charcoal production is in high demand;
charcoal can be made from Prosopis. As a pilot project in four areas, charcoal production
of Prosopis became so successful that many people began producing charcoal to the
extent that native Acacia also began to be cleared for this production. As a result, the
government banned the manufacturing of charcoal and the need of regulation and
enforcement arose. These are issues that the government and PLI partners are addressing
at this time.

During this mission contacts were made with various research institutions, NGOs, and
Ethiopian government officials. The Oromia region has been addressing invasive species
concerns and is planning and implementing projects. The Gewane Agricultural College
is starting to instruct students on invasive species management principals. Recurring
messages which were heard include:

1. There needs to be a beneficial product from Prosopis.

2. If some success is shown in combating invasives, people will work hard to further
effective control methods.
3. There have been studies and talk about invasive species control techniques, but
the implementation is still lacking.

3
 4. Consult and use the local experts that live in the areas of concern.
5. Demonstrate practical control methods.

II. BACKGROUND

USAID-Ethiopia is implementing a two year activity entitled Pastoralist Livelihoods

Initiative (PLI) in response to the increasing food insecurity and population vulnerability
that have been witnessed in the pastoralist areas of Ethiopia since the late 1990’s. This
initiative is focused on mitigating the effects of disasters and improving livelihoods of
pastoralists in three regions in Ethiopia. This program is being funded through specific
“Famine Relief” funds that are administered by USAID-Ethiopia, with a targeted focus
on the livestock sector. The PLI program is being implemented in collaboration with the
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and through multiple NGO consortiums
led by CARE, IRC, SC-US, Mercy Corps, ACDI-VOCA, and Tufts University.

In October of 2005, the US Forest Service sent a three-person team to Ethiopia in order to
both provide technical assistance and expertise in the areas of rangeland and livestock
management, and develop recommendations associated with value-added contributions to
the PLI in the area of rangeland management. During this initial mission USFS initiated
discussions with USAID, PLI, NGOs, Tufts University and the relevant national and
regional Ethiopian Government Officials to determine how USFS can best support the
PLI through training and best management practices that can be replicated across the
country, as well as the institutionalization of these reforms through new policy,
regulations and training. This mission led to the identification of program areas that could
benefit from technical support from the USFS, including:

• Support to policy harmonization for rangeland management issues (i.e. livestock control);
• Providing training in basic rangeland ecology and restoration, and drought management
• Raising awareness and developing a methodology for landscape scale range use planning;
• Design of prescriptions and training curriculum in the use of prescribed fire for rangeland
restoration;
• Sharing knowledge and research regarding the three Ethiopian priority invasive species
(Prosopis juliflora, Parthenium, and water hyacinth)

In August/September 2006, a USFS invasive species mission followed up on the invasive

species portion of the USFS PLI activities.

Forage for domestic livestock is an integral part of the economy in Ethiopia’s rangelands.
Drought, increases in human population and the resultant increase in domestic livestock
numbers have put great pressure on rangelands. In most areas rangeland vegetation is
stressed and in declining ecological condition. These are perfect conditions for
undesirable invasive plant species to get started and proliferate. Add to this the increase
in global trade and improved transportation systems and you have the ideal vector for
introducing and spreading invasive species (plants as well as other taxa).

4
Managing invasive species by attacking infestations haphazardly can be effective locally
but totally ineffective on the larger landscape scale (winning the battle but losing the
war). Developing a broad scale strategy for focusing limited resources and coordinating
efforts within and between groups working in various areas has proven time and again to
be a successful approach to managing/containing/eradicating invasive species.
Information exchange and technology transfer dealing with the ever evolving life history,
detection methods, treatment methods, and the myriad of other factors involved in
dealing with invasive species is also critical to making the most headway with limited
resources.

This invasive species mission focused on reviewing the draft Afar Region invasive
species management strategy and a draft framework for managing Prosopis in Zones 3
and 5 of the Afar Region (which resulted from the previous USFS IP Invasives Mission)
with GoE, EIAR, and other pertinent PLI partners. Another priority of this mission was
to start an education/communication process while collecting information on the
successes and problems with Prosopis control methods.

III. SCOPE OF THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

This USFS invasive species mission objective was two fold.

1. As part of the first invasive mission a draft invasive species management strategy for
the Afar Region (see Annex 3) and a draft framework for managing Prosopis in Zones 3
and 5 of the Afar Region were developed (see Annex 4). This mission reviewed these
draft documents with EIAR, GoE, and PLI partners.

2. Management of the existing Prosopis infestation can be done with mechanical and
cultural means, with fire, with herbicides and with biological control agents. Fire,
herbicides and biological control agents would have required a level of preplanning and
government approvals that precluded their actual use during this mission. They were
discussed and included into the final management plan as appropriate, and future
missions will utilize these methods as appropriate. Mechanical and cultural methods, on
the other hand, can easily be implemented immediately. This mission started an
education process to organize Zones 3 & 5 of the Afar Region to hold the line on the
spread of Prosopis into areas currently not infested. The Forest Service invasive species
expert on this mission worked with NGOs to teach effective practices to communities
which help avoid the spread of Prosopis, as well as techniques for mechanically treating
the spread of young plants on the front of the Prosopis invasion. These practices now
need to be spread to other communities in the two zones so that an organized effort can
emerge all along the spreading fronts of the Prosopis infestation.

IV. ISSUES, FINDINGS, & RECOMMENDATIONS

Issue #1: Invasive Species Management Strategy and Prosopis Management Plans

5
Findings: In the meeting with Rezene Fessehaie from EIAR, it was revealed that EIAR is
the focal point for coordinating invasive species management and have regional projects
occurring. There is an organized effort at the national level primarily through EIAR to
collaborate with Tufts University and PLI partners to develop an invasive species
strategy. EIAR has drafted guidelines for prevention and management of Prosopis, which
is found in Annex 5. During the field visits, the USFS team was informed that Farm-
Africa has also developed a draft model for Prosopis control. This information was
presented to EIAR for the continuation of the informational exchange (see Annex 6).
The efforts in Ethiopia to deal with current and future invasive species issues were
observed to be productive and proactive. EIAR is interested in USFS assistance in
continuing to develop contacts with people in the US with expertise in dealing with
invasive species. Of particular interest to EIAR is Prosopis juliflora.

Recommendation:
USFS has access to and can provide assistance on invasive species research, management
strategies, management successes and failures, and can interact with invasive species
experts to gather and exchange relevant information.

The Southwestern United States has many areas where Prosopis has invaded and
therefore the USFS has experience in dealing with management of this invasive species.
Currently, the USFS has an invasive species expert gathering information in New Mexico
and Arizona on chemical and biological control methods. University extension experts,
other government agencies, and the research arm of the Forest Service will continue
investigating the latest information on management or control of Prosopis. As new
management or control methods become practical or applicable to the Ethiopian
environment, they should be communicated to EIAR with potential for implementation.
Upon completion of the USFS Invasive Species Expert’s New Mexico / Arizona mission
report, this document will be circulated among PLI partners and should be shared with all
interested EIAR staff.

Issue 2: Successes and Problems of Prosopis Control Methods

Findings: Information was gathered from the field trip to the Afar Region with meetings
and discussions with the pastoralists and agro-pastoralists that are actively controlling
Prosopis.

a. Success: Mechanical Control

All of the PLI partners that were contacted on this mission are well aware of the
coppices produced from Prosopis when it is cut at or above the soil surface. Farm-
Africa has developed a Prosopis control model in which they are educating Afar
Region communities (Annex 6).

The cutting of Prosopis 10 cm below soil surface is a widespread practice among the
communities. In the Alaydege plains the cooperatives have been cutting the young
Prosopis and are clearing 10 hectare exclosure sites for the rehabilitation of the

6
indigenous grass species. They have been executing this practice for 6 years. The
entire community is responsible for taking part in the clearing and maintaining of
exclosures, which is enforced among the cooperatives.

Problem:
This practice requires strenuous labor; the response to the effectiveness is that it is not
keeping up with the spread of Prosopis. While this method does an effective job of
controlling a specific Prosopis sprout, the need to continue to search out sprouts and
maintain the exclosures is intense. Many of the pastoralists are transitory and so do
not stay in the same area to maintain a site long enough to ensure desired results.

b. Success: Charcoal production

This was started as four pilot projects in the Awash and Gewane areas. There is a
demand and a market for charcoal production. This diversified the agro-pastoralists’
income by their effort to convert a usable product from an invasive species. The
income received from this production supplements the cost incurred from clearing
Prosopis sites.

Problem:
The production of Prosopis charcoal has been banned because of the illegal removal
of the indigenous Acacia tree in the name of charcoal production. Since the ability to
make a profit has been so successful, charcoal production has increased in areas
where there is no Prosopis. There is a great need to set and enforce regulations
related to charcoal production. Farm-Africa has a drafted Prosopis regulation, which
is in the process of being sent to the regional government (see Annex 7).

c. Success: Reclaim land crops/forage

This has just been started recently and the benefits are still in the process of
evaluation. This method is beneficial since individuals or cooperatives have taken
ownership and maintenance in specific vicinities. NGOs have supplied equipment,
seed, and agricultural training. The production of crops would potentially allow the
cooperatives to become self-sustaining. The pasturelands that are cleared can be
reseeded with native species as collected by research institutes (ex. APARI). Sites
that were once a monoculture of Prosopis are now productive agriculture lands.

Problem:
NGOs have been the one to supplement the start of these projects. There is a high
cost of installation of these projects. The croplands are limited to areas of irrigation
ability. In the Gewane cooperative site it has taken 34 men and 10 women to clear 3
hectares in one month. It should be noted that charcoal production could supplement
the agriculture cost if it were legal to produce.

d. Success: Crush seed

Seed collection has been beneficial, and is used as a supplement for livestock. This
has also been a pilot project in four cooperative areas. Finding a beneficial use for
invasive plant species promotes a positive work environment.

7
 Problem:
The machine used for this purpose has had problems crushing the sticky seed pods.
After an hour, the equipment needs to be cleaned, and only 4-6 kg (the equivalent of
¼ of a sack) of seed have been crushed. The seed pods absorb moisture from the air
even after they have been dried for many days. The persons trained to run the
equipment are limited on the skills to repair breakdowns and perform needed
maintenance.

Market demand is limited for the crushed seed. The ability to have high volume
production is not practical at this point. Also, the complete beneficial nutrition value
and the ratio of supplement needed for each type of livestock is unclear.

e. Success: Adjust graze timing

This method is recognized as a tool and is well know throughout the communities
contacted during this mission. This method does not allow animals that have just
grazed in a Prosopis-invested area to go into uninfected sites.

Problem:
The numbers of livestock, the decrease of pasturelands due to invasive species,
pastureland converted in croplands, and human population encroachment onto
traditional grazing areas have limited the locations where livestock can feed. At
present, herds of livestock travel over 10 km in a day to new grazing areas; limiting
this is not an option, as pastoralists have no other means for feeding their livestock.
The number of wildlife (ex. warthog) is another vector for the spread of Prosopis
seeds. This will always be a factor for controlling the infestation perimeter.

f. Success: Biological control

There may be some biological control occurring on the road to Asayita. Over 100
hectares of dead and dieing Prosopis were observed at this site during the course of
this mission.

Problem:
This site needs more research and confirmation that biological control is the result of
the dead Prosopis. Before any new biological control can be implemented it needs to
be tested and approved by the proper environmental documentation.

g. Success: Herbicide
This practice was not observed on this mission. The USFS is currently investigating a
pellet form of herbicide. The pellet herbicide benefits would include a decrease in
equipment cost and less occurrence of chemical drift to desired plant species.

I did have a conversation with an extension agent who has heard of an experiment
putting petroleum products (ex. motor and transmission oil) on the cut stumps of
Prosopis. Whether this is a viable option or not, I do see it as a positive approach
where local people are trying to look for alternative control methods.

8
 Problem:
Before any new herbicide can be implemented, it needs to be tested and approved as
environmentally sound; this should be properly documented.

h. Success: Prescribed fire

Agro-pastoralists are burning the cut, dried and slash piled Prosopis because the
charcoal production ability is currently banned.

Problem:
The traditional landscape prescribe fire would be limited on effectiveness for this
plant species. When it has adequate water supply, Prosopis will stay green year
round. In dry conditions, it is the last plant to dry and go dormant. Also of note,
underneath the canopy of the dense Prosopis stands, there are no fine fuels to carry a
fire. After a burn the Prosopis coppicing ability will continue to invade the land.

i. Success: Building material

This suggestion was made in an attempt to try and use the abundant Prosopis for
beneficial uses.

Problem:
While it may presently be used at a local scale, a market needs to be developed in
order for this to be an effective approach to Prosopis control. With any new products,
equipment would need to be developed, as would regulation and enforcement issues
just as in the case of charcoal production.

Recommendations:
All of the control methods listed above have a beneficial application, and the combining
of multiple methods right now is proving to be most effective. Recommendations of
potential projects for the future includes:

1. Continue documenting the mechanical treatment and forage/crop reclaimed sites.

There has been a lot of diligent work to these ends, which should be carried on.
2. Contact NGOs on the potential for safety equipment and/or 1st aid training or
supplies. Numerous persons discussed the health hazards of handling the thorny
Prosopis vegetation. Supporting the health and safety of the persons who control
this invasive species would be showing support and recognition of diligent work.
3. Support a Prosopis vegetation mapping project. This will document the rate of
spread, or the decrease as a result of the various treatments, of Prosopis.
4. Support the regulation and enforcement of charcoal production. During the
course of this mission, it was observed that when local people take ownership in
the land, they protect the Acacia, and are aware that Prosopis treatment projects
are for the betterment of the land.
5. Find a more effective seed crushing machine or a more efficient drying method of
the sticky seed pods.

9
 6. Research the nutritional value of the crushed seed pods and the effects of
livestock consumption of seed pods.
7. Continue to investigate the possibility of biological control.
8. Continue to document the benefits of herbicide application and the practical use
of this method. Find which chemical would have minimal negative affects, what
is cost effective, and what could be implemented in a reasonable time frame.
9. Investigate what prescribe fire methods work on Prosopis juliflora. Discussions
indicate that three burns within fives years should produce positive results.
10. Continue to research beneficial uses for Prosopis.

Issue 3: Education at Community Levels

Findings: All of the PLI partners who were contacted on this mission are well aware of
the Prosopis control methods listed in this trip report. The meetings with Afar Region
officials in Semara and community members outside of Gewane and Awash had staff
from CARE, Farm-Africa, researchers from the Afar Pastoral & Agro-pastoral Research
Institute and the Ethiopia Institute of Agricultural Research, elders from communities,
cooperatives from the government and communities, and extension agents present. These
meetings were coordinated by USAID.

Recommendation:
USFS will communicate with various invasive species specialists in the US and continue
research, as well as continuing to assist and exchange information with USAID and the
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research. New information can be transferred to
communities by NGOs and extension agents, who are among communities on a regular
basis and are also in contact with USAID and EIAR by way of meetings and electronic
communications.

V. NEXT STEPS

USFS will take on an assistance position to EIAR while continuing research and
communicate with various invasive species specialists in the US. This will be done
through USAID Ethiopia. EIAR has taken on the task of collaborating with the various
PLI partners to draft the “Development of Guideline for prevention and management of
Prosopis juliflora in Afar region” (see Annex 5). This guideline deals with policies,
plans, laws and regulations, reviews communication strategies, examines conflicts of
interests, develops education programs, and covers additional topics which are outlined in
23 bullet points in the document. Most of these issues are beyond the scope of USFS
assistance; USFS will take on the technology and management feedback function.

A draft Afar Region Invasive Species Management Strategy and a draft Afar Region
Prosopis Management Plan Framework have been developed and attached to this report.
These documents may be used as supplements or attachments to the draft Development
of Guideline for prevention and management of Prosopis juliflora in Afar region as
EIAR sees appropriate.

10
ANNEX 1

MISSION ITINERARY FOR USFS TEAM: March 16 – March 31, 2007

March 16-17:
• Departed Pocatello, ID-Salt Lake City, UT- Chicago, IL- London, England-
Alexandria, Egypt.

March 18:
• Arrived in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Started trip report outline and contacted
Yacob Wondimkun of USAID. He will make contact tomorrow at 0745 to
arrange transportation and discuss itinerary.

March 19:
• Met with USAID Ethiopian Mission Director, Acting Department Chief, Dr.
Belay Demissie and Program Officer, Joseph Hirsch.
• Met with Oromia Agricultural Research Institute Director General, Aliyyii
Huseen and Deputy Director General for Research, Dr. Asefa Taa Woyessa.

March 20:
• Met with OPADC Commissioner Habtamu Tekka and he addressed the work and
new emphasis on Pastoralists in the Oromia region.
• Met with USAID John Stamm to brief on mission objectives.
• Met with Save the Children Adrian Cullis and Soloman Wakgari.
• Met with CARE Dr. Abay Bekle and Elias Abdosh.

March 21:
• Left Addis Ababa and traveled to Awash and met Mandefro Gltsadik of CARE.
Traveled to Logia and Met Director of APDA Ismael Ali Gardo. Met Kedar
Mohammed the PLI Project Director of the Afar Region who will assist CARE in
meetings and coordinating efforts.

March 22:
• Traveled to Semara. The President of the Afar Region was unavailable. Met with
the Head of Bureau of Agriculture Ato Awol Arba including three other
Directors, and Director General of APARI Ahmed Seid Ali.
• Traveled to Gerjele on the road to Asayita to visit a site where Prosopis has died
over several hectares.
• Traveled to Gewane.

March 23:
• Met with Farm Africa personnel Solomon Zewdu and 11 members of the
cooperatives that have converted Prosopis infestations into irrigated farm ground.
This was a previous site for Prosopis charcoal production, which has since been
banned due to the desired Acacia tree also being removed in charcoal production.

11
 • Visited the Gewane Agriculture College. Nancy Prall gained support and did a
presentation about the Range school that will occur in May 2007.
• Traveled to Awash.

March 24:
• Traveled to Alaydege Plain and met with 15 persons from CARE staff, elders of
the community, extension agent, PLI cooperatives, and cooperative from the
government. This is an area where the locals have been coordinating with NGOs.
All who live within the community is responsible to help clear Prosopis plots.
• Traveled to Bedulale and met with PLI cooperatives and observed the Prosopis
seed crushing project. The community has cleared 30 hectares of Prosopis in
preparation for irrigated crops and forage. There is also charcoal from Prosopis
being produced small scale.
• Traveled to Awash National Park. Enjoyed the waterfalls and the local wildlife.
• Traveled to Nazareth.

March 25:
• Traveled to Addis Ababa.
• Downloaded and filed trip digital photographs.

March 26:
• Transferred Farm-Africa Prosopis management and regulations proposal from
hard copy to have electronic copy.
• Compiled notes, photos, and worked on trip report.

March 27:
• Meeting with GIS land use project was postponed.
• Met with Tufts University. Nancy Prall was gaining support and coordinating
with the University’s education structure.
• Traveled to the U.S. Embassy to see a doctor for Nancy Prall.
• Worked on trip report.

March 28:
• Met with Rezene Fessehaie of EIAR to discuss invasive strategy and Prosopis
plan. There was Mulugeta Demiss and Mesert Negasn at the meeting who are
pilot site coordinators at Amibara and Welechite.
• Met with Dr. Girma Amente project manager of a GIS land use project of the
Oromia Waterworks Design and Supervision Enterprise on GIS projects occurring
in Ethiopia.
• Met with Denis Gerard about Afar Regional history, invasive species in Afar and
Oromia and local customs.

March 29:
• Worked on presentation for debriefing.
• Conducted a debriefing presentation and workshop with PLI partners, GoE

12
 officials and other interested parties.

March 30:
• Closed out with USAID
• Worked on trip report.
• Depart Addis Ababa-Khartoum, Sudan.

March 31:
• Traveled to Frankfurt, Germany-Chicago, IL- Salt Lake City, UT- and arrived in
Pocatello, ID.

13
ANNEX 2

USDA Forest Service

Office of International Programs
Scope of Work

Develop tools and provide training to limit or contain the spread of

invasive species on rangelands
Invasive Mission 2

Background: Forage for domestic livestock is an integral part of the economy in

Ethiopia’s rangelands. Drought, increases in human population and the resultant increase
in domestic livestock numbers have put great pressure on rangelands. In most areas
rangeland vegetation is stressed and in declining ecological condition. These are perfect
conditions for undesirable invasive plant species to get started and proliferate. Add to
this the increase in global trade and improved transportation systems and you have the
ideal vector for introducing and spreading invasive species (plants as well as other taxa).

Managing invasive species by attacking infestations haphazardly can be effective locally

but totally ineffective on the larger landscape scale (winning the battle but losing the
war). Developing a broad scale strategy for focusing limited resources and coordinating
efforts within and between groups working in various areas has proven time and again to
be a successful approach to managing/containing/eradicating invasive species.

Broad Objective of USFS Support to PLI, GOE on Invasive Species Management:

In collaboration with GoE and PLI actors, mobilize USFS technical assistance to prevent
new infestations of invasive plant species and contain and control existing invasive
species populations in collaboration with national, regional, and woreda-level
governments.

Specific Objective: The objectives of the second USFS invasive species mission is two
fold.

A. As an integral part of the first Invasive Species Mission, a draft invasive species
management strategy for the Afar Region and a draft framework for managing
Prosopis in Zones 3 and 5 of the Afar Region were developed. These were
included as part of the trip report for the first mission and were sent to USAID
and PLI partners. They are also included at the end of this SOW. This second
mission will focus first on reviewing those draft documents with Ethiopian

14
 Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), and the Government of Ethiopia
(GoE). With their approval, these documents will then be reviewed and finalized
with Afar Regional Government and Zone 3 and 5 representatives. Input into the
final product at this level is imperative for success as these are the people who
will be instrumental in implementing the strategy and the management plan.
Without their support and ownership it will not be properly implemented.

B. Management of the existing Prosopis infestation can be done with mechanical and
cultural means, with fire, with herbicides and with biological control agents. Fire,
herbicides and biological control agents will require a level of preplanning and
government approvals that will preclude their actual use during this mission.
They will be discussed and included into the final management plan as
appropriate and future missions will utilize these methods as appropriate.
However, mechanical and cultural methods could easily be implemented
immediately. This mission will start an education process to organize Zones 3 &
5 of the Afar Region to hold the line on the spread of Prosopis into areas currently
not infested. CARE and Mercy Corps were involved in the first invasive species
mission and it would seem they are best situated in the communities to organize
and educate the local populations on how to avoid the spread of Prosopis and how
to mechanically treat spreading young plants on the front of the Prosopis invasion.
The Forest Service invasive species expert on this mission will work with the
NGOs to teach these practices to a community. These practices will then need to
be spread to all other communities in the two zones so it becomes an organized
effort all along the spreading fronts of the Prosopis infestation.

Activities: These objectives will be realized via:

• Make a presentation to EIAR and key GoE officials on the draft Afar Region
Invasive Species Management Strategy and the Afar Region Prosopis
Management Plan with the intent of getting the go-ahead to work with the Afar
Region and Zone officials on taking these documents from draft to final.
• Travel to Afar Region to meet with Regional and Zone officials and any key
community members to finalize the strategy and the plan.
• Meet with community members (CARE and or Mercy Corps to pick a community
that operates on the edge of the Prosopis infestation) to discuss and demonstrate
some practices that can help stop the spread of Prosopis if implemented on the
whole invading front. Discuss with the NGOs, Regional and Zonal officials and
community members how to best spread the word and organize the communities
to develop a cohesive and unified effort to hold the line on the Prosopis invasion
using these mechanical and cultural methods until other methods such as
herbicides, fire and biological agents become available.
• The USFS PLI efforts include a planning module which is currently gathering
mapping information for Ethiopia and is developing a Geographic Information
System (GIS) which will be used for several of the ongoing efforts with the PLI.
Invasive species mapping will be part of that GIS effort. As time allows during
this invasive species mission, information on what is available with PLI partners

15
 and local communities on mapping of Prosopis infestations will be gathered for
transmittal to the team developing the GIS information.

Team: The team will consist of one USFS Rangeland Vegetation Specialist (Hans
Bastian, hbastian@fs.fed.us) who has experience in the development and implementation
of invasive species strategies at broad scales.

Timing: Arrive Ethiopia on March 17, 2007 and depart March 31, 2007.

Deliverables: A) Final Afar Region Invasive Species Management Strategy and Afar
Region Prosopis Management Plan with an emphasis on Zones 3 and 5.
B) Start of an organized effort in zones 3 and 5 of Afar Region to contain the spread of
Prosopis.

Location: Addis Ababa and Afar region

Partners: PLI: CARE-Awash, Mercy Corps, SOS Sahel, Farm Africa

GoE: MoARD, EIAR, interested regional and zonal governments

Logistical Support to USFS: CARE will develop a mission itinerary, arrange and
facilitate meetings and workshops, provide any necessary translation, provide
transportation outside of Addis Ababa, and arrange for hotel accommodations outside of
Addis Ababa.
USAID-Ethiopia will be responsible for arranging transportation within Addis Ababa,
and for arranging lodging for the team within Addis Ababa.

N.B. Nancy Prall and Hans Bastian will travel as a team to Ethiopia from March 17,
2007 – March 31, 2007. Nancy’s primary area of focus will be preparation for the Range
School to teach Ethiopia-specific rangeland ecology and management principles in May
2007. Hans’ primary area of focus will be carrying forward the invasive species work to
limit their spread on rangelands, specifically in the Afar Region.

16
ANNEX 3

THE AFAR REGION OF ETHIOPIA

AND
INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT

A STRATEGIC APPROACH
SEPTEMBER , 2006

INVASIVE SPECIES IN AFAR

A Status Summary and Strategic Plan Proposal

17
Introduction
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia with Ministries, Research Institutions,
Universities, the Afar Regional government, and numerous NGO’s, Forums, Initiatives
and partners recognize the immediate and future ecosystem and economic threat from
invasive species. There are currently four distinct levels of awareness and activities
which are:

1. Federal Government (Ministries of Natural Resources and Economic

Development and Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research)

2. NGO’s, Initiatives and Forums (PLI, USAID, Farm-Africa, etc.)

3. Afar Regional Government (President, Vice-president, Council)

4. Woredas and Pastoralists Communities, etc.

Seven major invasive species have been identified as concerns across seven Ethiopia
regions in a national project entitled “Removing Barriers to Invasive Plants Management
in Ethiopia”. The immediate focus is on research, strategic planning and project
development for targeted species of honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora), water hyacinth
(Eichhomia crassipes), and parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterohorus).

Numerous Initiatives and Forums are prepared to invest resources on mesquite

management and economic development in Afar. Rangeland dependent communities and
land use conflicts are compounding an ever expanding population of mesquite resulting
in rapidly diminished rangeland capacities. It is critically important to stop the spread of
this invasive species and at the same time build rangeland capacity and economic
diversity through improved management and alternative economic opportunities. These
integrated issues are tightly woven throughout the fabric of Afar communities.

Regionally, initial invasive species control and prescribed fire projects are being
coordinated with Woredas and pastoralists. Regional, Woreda and pastoralist leaders are
anxious to initiate a more aggressive management program.

In consideration of a developing national strategy, active research, available short-term

funding, the need for long-term funding proposals based on demonstrated success, and
keen local interest it is proposed that an Afar Region Invasive Species Strategy be
developed and implemented with a Prosopis Management Plan to help initiate projects in
Afar Zones 3 and 5.

Short-term project output expectations are as follows:

1. Complete an Afar Region invasive species strategy proposal

2. Complete an Afar Region Prosopis juliflora management framework proposal

18
 3. Provide research, management, successes & failures information

4. Provide examples of prevention, education, and Coordinated Weed

Management Areas (CWMA’s)

5. Network pertinent invasive species contacts and experts

Short term projects need to be completed with appropriate status or final reports
submitted to USAID for dissemination to the Afar Region government, PLI, Research,
and Ministries of Economic Development and Natural Resources by 31, July, 2007. It is
anticipated that a Prosopis juliflora Management Plan will also provide information
leading to economic opportunities which diversify and support Afar economies.

Background

A 1970’s introduction of a non-indigenous woody species, honey mesquite (Prosopis

juliflora), was reportedly made to provide soil stabilization or shade in local
communities. Over the last thirty years mesquite has dramatically invaded important
rangelands of the Afar Region. Livestock forage is diminishing and the Afar people and
their livestock movements are restricted and painful. These factors have made it apparent
that invasive species management is an important consideration for the productive and
economic future in Afar.

Although invasive species are undesirable, in some cases they may have positive
economic values. For example, the Afar people also utilize an invasive species
(mesquite) for fuel, building materials, and more importantly a significant source of
marketable charcoal. Although mesquite is nationally and regionally recognized as an
undesirable invasive species, local Afar people and NGO’s may prefer a continuous
supply. It will be important to develop management plans recognizing conflicting issues.

The Ethiopia national management plan defines invasive species: A species, which
invades a new area causing negative impacts on biodiversity agriculture, human
development, and human health.

Vectors for introduction of invasive species into Afar include but are not limited to:
1. Import of goods, supplies and services
2. Daily movements of people, vehicles and equipment
3. Livestock grazing, trailing, etc.
4. Wildlife activities, migration, etc.
5. Prevailing winds and storm events
6. Movement of water through watersheds
Action
It is recognized that effective invasive species management includes the following
important components:

19
 1. Education and awareness
2. Prevention
3. Early detection and rapid response (EDRR) to new populations
4. Inventory of invasive species populations
5. Apply effective and coordinated integrated pest management (IPM)
6. Monitor existing populations to evaluate management effectiveness
7. Develop long-term management options
8. Restoration of invaded sites or areas where applicable

This regional strategy encompasses four major program elements which address the
components:
1. Prevention
2. Early Detection and rapid response
3. Control and management
4. Rehabilitation and restoration

Element 1: Prevention
The most effective strategy against invasive species is to prevent them from being
introduced and established. Preventive measures typically offer the most cost-effective
means to minimize environmental and economic impacts. Prevention relies on an array
of tools and methods, including education.

• Conduct risk assessments at multiple levels for various invasive species taxa,
ecosystems vulnerable to invasion, and pathways facilitating introductions.
• Use these assessments to identify priority pathways of introduction and work with
government officials, Woreda leaders, NGO’s, etc. to minimize or close these
pathways for priority species.
• Based on risk assessment information, develop and implement Best Management
Practices (BMP’s) for resource management across landscapes within various
administrative units.
• Conduct surveys, inventories, and monitoring and risk analysis at various spatial
scales for priority species and areas.
• Expand use of preventative measures as applicable

20
Element 2: Early Detection and Rapid Response
Sometimes considered the “second line of defense” after prevention, early detection and
rapid response (EDRR) is a critical component of any effective invasive species
management program. When new invasive species infestations are detected, a prompt
and coordinated containment and eradication response can reduce environmental and
economic impacts. This action results in lower cost and less resource damage than
implementing a long-term control program after the species is established. Early
detection of new infestations requires vigilance and regular monitoring of the managed
area and surrounding ecosystem.

• Conduct annual surveys or inspections of major introduction vectors

• Respond to national threats from outbreaks of invasive species by developing risk
hazard maps for national monitoring efforts and by helping to guide detection,
control, and eradication efforts.
• With partners, disseminate materials designed to educate the public on
identification, proper handling, notification, avoidance procedures, and
eradication of invasive species.
• Establish partnerships with volunteers and others to conduct surveys and
eradication programs for new infestations.

Element 3: Control and Management

When invasive species become established as free-living populations in an ecosystem, a
strategic approach for control is required to minimize their effects or limit their spread.
Effective control relies on a clear understanding of the target species, including its
biology, the ecosystem it has infested, associated introduction pathways, and effective
control tools. It also relies on persistent follow-through with monitoring of control
efficacy.

The key is to establish a perimeter around existing infestations to contain the spread,
eradicate outliers, and gradually eliminate the infestation working from the perimeter
towards the center. In some cases, it will be advisable to work from the headwaters of a
watershed, downstream towards the main infestation, to interrupt a constant supply of
new downstream seedlings.
• Working with international partners to develop management programs
• Collaborating with international, national and local partners to control invasive
species that threaten terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems

Element 4: Rehabilitation and Restoration

Because each invasion characteristic is unique, specific restoration and rehabilitation
programs need to be designed at the appropriate level.

In addition, rehabilitation and restoration needs should be evaluated against desirable and
productive aspects of the invasive species in question as it may provide an important

21
alternative source of resources important to local communities. In this scenario, although
a species is technically invasive, after evaluation it may be considered an important non-
indigenous species which could maintain or strengthen local economies if contained and
managed appropriately.

• Consider application of native materials as a priority where feasible

• Consider favorable characteristics on non-native materials as a cautioned priority
• Coordinate at the national, regional, and Woreda levels to address the need for
restoration and applicability of native verses non-native restoration species.

Common Themes
The Afar Region’s ability to implement the four program elements identified for the
regional strategy in a proactive, holistic, collaborative, and adaptive manner is dependent
on the Afar Council and its partners having the capability and sufficient knowledge for
invasive species management. Several keys to enhancing this capability can be grouped
into four categories: (1) partnerships and collaboration, (2) scientific basis, (3)
communication and education, and (4) organizing for success.

Partnerships and Collaboration

Collaboration is an important overarching need in all the regional strategy elements. Afar
Regional government invasive species management activities need to be coordinated at
all levels of the organization and across all programs. Collaboration also extends outside
the Afar Regional leadership to include Woreda leaders, tribal interests, nongovernmental
organizations and others in the private sector, including international stakeholders.
Collaboration also implies cooperating across ownerships, administrative units, Regional
boundaries, and political jurisdictions. Examples of some opportunities include
coordination with PLI, USAID, CARE, universities, university extension, etc. The
Regional government and NGO’s will expand partnership development with
nontraditional organizations and increase Regional cooperation and coordination. The
Regional government and NGO’s will also facilitate the establishment of cooperative
invasive species management areas, participate in research activities, and design land use
and management programs that do not increase the threats and impacts of invasive
species.

Scientific Basis
Based on research and used in conjunction with other socioeconomic considerations,
scientific information is the basis not only for determining actions appropriate to
achieving the desired result but for prioritizing those actions as well.

Incorporate Scientific Information

• Conduct appropriate research and development activities
• Collaborate with universities, Regions, Woredas, etc.

22
Assess and Monitor for Success
• Develop and/or improve invasive species monitoring and inventory systems
• Improved systems support prioritization of actions, species, methods, etc.
• Monitoring for prevention and early detection of invasive species in Woredas is
one of the first lines of defense in protecting natural resources and economies
• Build or improve networking capacity with external partners and international
data sources, partners and stakeholders

Prioritize
• Prioritization of programmatic and species-specific activities is critical to an
effective management program.
• Prioritization must be a dynamic and flexible process that enables decisions to be
made by using the best scientific information.
• Risk assessments will be used to set priorities.
• Priority setting will occur at different hierarchical levels as appropriate.
• Priorities should be set at the lowest level practical to ensure that the appropriate
result is achieved on the ground.
• Generally, the Afar Council, with assistance from NGO’s, will prioritize activities
by focusing on highly productive and efficient elements first, such as prevention
or EDRR; for example, treating “outliers” may be a productive strategy.
• When setting priorities species characteristics, infestation consequences, and the
availability, feasibility, and likelihood of success of treatment versus non-
treatment must all be considered.
• Developing comprehensive but simplistic risk assessment models can help
achieve consistency in prioritization among landowners and managers.

Communication and Education

An important factor that spans all elements is the need to clearly communicate
information and ensure that it is understood. We need communication for the public to
gain understanding and acceptance of the magnitude and urgency of the invasive species
problem. Education, communication, and interpretation programs can convey how the
public can help prevent, identify, detect, and control invasive species and gather public
input into program plans and promote partnerships in their implementation.

Internal communication will raise awareness among Afar and Woreda leaders,
pastoralists, and communities and help them incorporate practices sensitive to invasive
species control into their day-to-day activities. Communication with other branches or
levels of government will foster productive relationships and partnerships.

Organizing for Success

Building or Improving Capacity

• Build a program using existing models of success

23
 • Increase capability by working with partners
• Make invasive species management a part of the day-to-day activities
• Develop policy, guidelines, and communication networks to facilitate consistent
and effective management

Procedural Streamlining and Improvement

• Regional and Woreda leaders should respond quickly to prevent new invasive
species populations from becoming established or to capitalize on opportunities to
be more effective
• Rapid response needs to occur without violating legal mandates or public trust
• Identify opportunities in advance and develop guidance and policy to improve
effectiveness and reduce the time required for adequate planning and project
analysis and implementation

Funding Flexibility and Long-Term Commitment

• Determine a funding or compensation strategy associated with strategic
approaches and activities
• Long-term funding support requires a commitment to the program internally and
externally and may also require accommodations that foster dependable and
repeatable funding
• Marketable invasive species products (charcoal) may help fund invasive species
management practices

Short-Term Actions to Implement an Invasive Species Program

• Identify authoritative government and partner infrastructure
• Coordinate with national strategy (EIAR) and federal oversight administrators
• Establish Regional multidisciplinary invasive species management coordination
teams
• Develop invasive species specialists network
• Maintain an Invasive Species Management Strategy for Afar
• Complete appropriate species specific management plans
• Develop a network of CWMA’s or equivalent cooperative task oriented groups
• Others…………………….

Conclusion

This Afar Region strategy and the proposed actions described in this document will guide
Regional Council, Woreda, and NGO programs in prioritized zones or on prioritized
invasive species to employ an effective, integrated, comprehensive, and science-based
approach for addressing the invasive species problem. This document focuses on
developing priority operational activities supported by scientific research to achieve
results on the ground against the invasive species threat. By effectively executing this
strategy, we can fulfill our commitment to protect the Afar Regions diverse ecosystems.
In the process of fully executing this strategy, we must monitor our progress and make
the appropriate corrections on our course to the future.

24
ANNEX 4

Ethiopia Invasive Species Strategies/Plans

This summary identifies key points identified during meetings and field visits
between USFS, USAID, PLI and GoE partners, Federal, Afar Region and Woreda
government officials, and community partners.

Federal Level
• Ethiopia federal government is currently developing a national invasive species
strategy in concert with neighboring countries with common issues
• Seven major invasive species identified with three targeted federal priorities
• Targeted species are Prosopis juliflora, Eichhomia crassipes, Parthenium
hysterophorus
• Afar Region is currently considered an “emerging” region by the federal
government with high development priorities
• EARI is leading the effort in biological control research and national strategy
development

The USFS, through USAID, can provide federal level assistance as follows:
1. research information
2. management strategies
3. management successes and failures
4. examples of prevention, education and invasive plant cooperatives
5. network pertinent invasive species related experts

Afar Region Level

• Afar Regional government is intensely engaged in Prosopis juliflora issues
• Approximately 1.8 million pastoral dependent Afar people require healthy
productive rangelands
• Prosopis juliflora probably infests 700,000+ hectares in Afar (need an inventory)
• Densities vary from dense monocultures to scattered pioneer plants
• Rapid spread is evidenced by significant young Prosopis plants on outlying areas
• Two highly productive and healthy grassland plains require protective strategies
• One newly invaded plain requires immediate EDRR and a management strategy
focusing on restoration
• Former grassland plains near Gewane can be converted from Prosopis
monocultures to irrigatable farmland per demonstration plots by local cooperative
• Afar people also depend on Prosopis charcoal as a valuable source of income
• Prosopis also provides fuel, protection, livestock containment, soil stabilization,
shade, and building materials
• NGO’s have a significant supportive role in project design and implementation

25
USFS can provide assistance as follows:
1. Develop an Afar Region invasive species strategy proposal
2. Develop a Prosopis juliflora management framework for Zones 3 and 5

AFAR REGION PROSOPIS MANAGEMENT PLAN FRAMEWORK

(Zones 3 and 5 are initial priorities)

1. Prevention
a. Identify best management practices
b. Continue Prosopis seed crushing for dry season forage where practical
c. Adjust livestock grazing practices to avoid seed dispersal to non-infested
areas
d. Develop a risk analysis
e. Research alternative effective land management options

2. Education
a. Prosopis life history, seed dissemination, and survival
b. Existing biological control activities
c. Role of livestock grazing and ecosystem health in invasive species
susceptibility
d. Integrated Prosopis control methods
e. Healthy rangeland restoration options and productivity expectations
f. Introduce Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) models

3. Management
a. Inventory and map existing Prosopis infestations
b. Contain the perimeter of existing infestations with mechanical and
herbicide tools
i. Cut small seedlings 10 cm below soil surface; no herbicides
ii. Cut remaining stumps above ground and immediately brush/wipe
cut with herbicides
c. Contain the perimeter of existing infestations through controlled grazing
practices to avoid seed dispersal
d. Eradicate Prosopis pioneer plants from uninfested areas with special
emphasis on high priority areas such as:
i. Alaydege Plain
ii. Two separate Gewane plains
iii. Awash River near Asayta
iv. Awash National Park
v. Others?
e. Mechanical

26
 i. Convert Prosopis dominated sites to irrigated farm or pasture land
where soil, water, and human resources are suitable
f. Herbicide
i. Apply herbicides to stump cuts within two minutes of cutting
ii. May consider aerial application of herbicides where large blocks of
Prosopis monocultures are present and mechanical restoration is
not practical
g. Utilize biological control tools where eradication and/or restoration is not
feasible
i. Research Afar insect activity
ii. Research new bio-control options with CABI and others
iii. Establish approved bio-control agents near perimeter of existing
infestations
h. May consider leaving areas of Prosopis adjacent to towns and major
highway for Afar people use where continued dependence is a priority
i. Must ensure eradication of new seedlings where the untreated
areas adjoin Prosopis free management zones
ii. Consider harvesting seed pods as marketable livestock feed
iii. Ensure unprocessed seed pods are removed and left at harvest sites

4. Restoration
a. Restore historical grassland plains to minimize invasive species risk,
promote healthy ecosystem components, and support sustainable pastoral
activities
i. Collect desirable native seeds from local healthy ecosystems
ii. Remove all Prosopis from project area
• Mechanical
• Prescribed fire
iii. Drill desirable native seeds
iv. Initiate carefully managed pastoral activities three years after
desired species emerge
v. Eradicate new Prosopis seedlings with mechanical or spot
herbicide application
vi. Long-term management should consider rest-rotation or deferred
grazing in conjunction with prescription fire practices

Prosopis threatens the continued existence of pastoral dependent societies in Afar. It has
also demonstrated the ability to dramatically convert healthy ecosystems to
monocultures, likely affecting a wide array of dependent plant and animal species
throughout the food chain cycle. Although Prosopis has been revered as a soil
stabilization tool it likely has and/or will dramatically affect the hydrological cycle which
is a critical resource in much of the arid Afar region.

Conflicting interests and resource conditions require integration of a full array of

management goals, tools and practices. Management priorities should reflect Woreda
and local community values. Irrespective of management goals, controlling further

27
spread of Prosopis seed pods will be a critical component. Afar people activities
including grazing and harvesting of Prosopis must be adjusted accordingly.

Local Afar people participation in Prosopis management plan development is critical to

ensure effective plan support and implementation. In addition, NGO’s will play a critical
guidance and support role in implementation of a management plan.

28
ANNEX 5

Development of Guideline for prevention and

management of Prosopis juliflora in Afar region.

Background
As in many other countries in the tropics hundreds of alien species have entered to
Ethiopia, intentionally and unintentionally. The country has a long history of
introduction of alien species of plants and animals, especially those which were found to
be productive elsewhere and offered potential economic benefits to the country. On the
other side the importance of understanding the impact of IAS in Ethiopia has been
accepted recently. Several alien species are reported to be spreading at alarming rates,
threatening natural and agricultural ecosystems of the country.

Foremost among these is parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus), although major

problems are also being caused by water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), mesquites
(Prosopis juliflora), Lantana camara, and Acacia spp.

Although there is a wide range of exotic alien and indigenous invasive species in the
pastoralist areas of the country mainly in rangeland/grazing areas the focus of the
proposed guideline will be on preventing and management of Prosospis juliflora as this
species poses the greatest threats in the targeted study areas.

Species of the genus Prosopis are amongst the most common tree species to be found in
the dry tropics. They are native to arid and semi-arid zones of the Americas, Africa and
Asia, with several American species widely introduced throughout the world over the last
200 years. Prosopis can help to stop desertification in dry zones and is used for a number
of purposes such as charcoal, fodder and food. However it is now spreading and
eliminating other species from areas where it has established, and is threatening
ecosystems, livestock and livelihoods of thousands of people.

Prosopis juliflora was introduced to Ethiopia some 40 years ago as a forestry tree in the
Awash basin and is now threatening the protected areas of Awash National Park as well
as irrigated agricultural land. It is also aggressively invading pastoral areas of the Middle
and Upper Awash Valley the eastern part of Harerge and some localities of the Raya
Azebo plains of southern Tigrai. Invasions of Prosopis are also reported in the town of
Arba Minch and neighbouring localities in the Southern Region of the country. In spite of
some uses and benefits from some species in the genus, the species introduced to
Ethiopia is known for its numerous harmful effects on the livelihood of the local people.
In this regard, the benefits of Prosopis have been dramatically outweighed by the overall
loss of natural pasture, displacing of native trees, reduction in stocking rate, toxicity to
livestock, formation of impenetrable thickets and increased incidence of crop pests.

29
Like many invasives Prosopis was introduced without comprehensive and impact
assessment of its potential effects on the environment. The issue is creating high profile
debate with ways to minimize the negative impacts of the tree.
Due to the urgency and importance of the problem, there is a need for reconciliation of
these contradicting issues through both environmental as well as economically sound
strategic guideline.

The proposed Guideline to be prepared is intended to develop effective, comprehensive

and science based strategic directions for addressing the Prosopis problem in the
prioritized zones of the Afar Regions.

Terms of Reference (TOR) to Prepare Guideline on

Management of Prosopis juliflora in Afar Region
The guideline should begin with a short description of the magnitude of the problem and
characterizing the invasiveness of the target species.

The main objectives of the Guideline are: to direct Regional Council, Wereda and NGO
programmes in the selected pilot zones to employ an effective, integrated and
comprehensive and science based approach for addressing the target species problem.

The Guideline to be prepared should encompass four program components. a)

Prevention, b) Early detection and rapid response, c) Control and management d)
Rehabilitation and restoration.

Each program component should include a description success accountability measures, a

summary of the current program and a list of strategic priorities. These strategic priorities
need to be divided into short and long term actions each presented in four categories:
Policy issues, implementing information and technology development, and
communication and technology transfer.

Because of the variability of terrestrial ecosystems in the extent of invasion and impacts
brought up by the target species both the short-term and long-term actions should address
strategic options under three stratified scenarios :
a) Invasive of concern not (yet) present,
b) Invasive of concern established, and
c) Invasive of concern in high abundance.

The following Terms of Reference are for a Consultant/Task Team to undertake a short
terms consultancy to develop a ‘Guideline’ for prevention and management invasive
plants with special emphasis to Prosopis juliflora in the Afar Region.

30
• Review and analyze existing policies, plans, laws and regulations to identify
conflicts, gaps, and inconsistencies on the prevention and management of invasive
alien species (with emphasis to Prosopis juliflora). Based on the analyses suggest
policy and strategy amendments to be developed and which address the identified
problems

y Identify stakeholders in the management of Prosopis juliflora and evaluate the

current and potential roles of these stakeholders.

• Identify the perceived needs and constraints of the target groups. The needs
assessment to be undertaken should involve stakeholder workshops and group and
individual consultations. These assessments should address perceived needs and
constraints relating to Prosopis juliflora threat for each of the following three target
groups:

- Policy makers in the sectors affected or with responsibilities for the target invasive
species, including environment, agriculture, natural resource, livestock, health, trade
and transport.
- Private sector, including those whose economic activities are negatively impacted by
Prosopis, those who use Prospois and those who intentionally or unintentionally
spread Prosposis.
- Civil society, including NGOs and the general public, all of whom are impacted by
Prosopis and all of whom have a role to play in its management.

y Examine the possible conflicts of interest in the prevention and management of

Prosopis juliflora and suggest feasible solution to address the problems.

y Assess the options for the institutionalization of invasive plants management

approaches in the Afar Region for the purpose of monitoring and evaluating of
institutional responsibilities on target invasive species.

y Establish institutional framework and coordination mechanisms for prevention and

management of Prosopis juliflora on the prioritized zones of the Afar Region.

• Identify information gaps and develop new and improved control, management, and
monitoring technology - including biological controls for the priority target species
based on the latest research and adaptive management feed back and transfer these
technologies to users.

• Review and analyze existing and envisaged communication strategies for the
prevention and management of IAS with emphasis Prosopis juliflora.

31
• Propose different kind of communication strategies for different target groups in
view of suggesting the best alternative for adapting in the prevention and
management of Prosopis juliflora.

• Develop an 'early warning' system to enable all target groups to communicate and
learn about new infestation of invasive plant species.

• Indicate awareness creation mechanisms for resource managers and the public on the
importance of invasive species management and control and the effects of various
managements to users’ practices.

y Review the existing activities in prevention and management of Prosopis juliflora by

different stakeholders including (local communities, local authorities, the national
institutions, private sectors, NGOs and other donors) both in the prioritized zones of
the Afar Region and at national level and also examine the coordination mechanisms
among these stakeholders. Data to be collected should incline the following among
others: scope of activities, resource allocates and sources, beneficiaries, area
coverage and community participation.

• Assess initiatives on prevention and management of Prosopis juliflora at the selected

sites and national threat expected to occur during the next five years.

• Review and synthesize experiences and lessons learnt from successful practices at
national and international level reflecting applied control methods, strategies, policies
and institutional settings that can be used for the formulation of effective
management guidelines of the target invasive species.

• Design and indicate future research focuses on the prevention and management of
Prosopis juliflora.

• Review and synthesize available internal and external information on the use of
native and or more desirable nonnative species to restore Prosopis affected sites and
prevent the target invasive species re-establishment and or spread.

• Develop appropriate guidance that incorporates the best available science on using
native and nonnative species for restoration and rehabilitations of Prosopis affected
areas.

• Develop tools to prioritize target species or areas for eradication, control and
containment at national, regional and local level and expand invasive species
management.

• Develop technology transfer tools for invasive species control, management, and
monitoring, including protocols for inventory and post-treatment monitoring.

32
• Indicate for promoting partnerships to control or manage the target invasive species
across jurisdictional boundaries of regional states, weredas and kebeles.

• Develop educational programmes to build capacity to deal with invasive alien species
for field staff, managers, specialists, policy and decision makers, including support
for community empowerment to deal with early detection and control of the target
invasive species.

• Develop mechanisms for establishing nation wide emergency fund and guidelines to
insure that funds are immediately available to respond to new introductions.

• Develop mechanisms for technical and financial assistance funding to Federal,

Regional and community partners for on-the-ground management and control
activities of the priority invasive species.

33
ANNEX 6
The FARM-Africa
“Prosopis model”

Major Problems addressed by model:

¾ Inaccessible roads to water points and grazing areas

¾ Suppressed natural vegetation and under growth
¾ Vulnerability of the house hold due to feed insecurity, low productivity
¾ Shelters of wild animals near satelaite camps
¾ Costly and laborious to clear prosopis thickets and to develop the areas with
irrigation schemes
¾ Low level income of the pastoralist current status
¾ Prosopis Seed dissemination through cattle dung

Situations suitable to apply the model:

¾ Good quality charcoal and high demand at central market
¾ Availability of prosopis trees
¾ Sufficient labour availability for charcoal production
¾ Nutritive value of the pod
Situations not suitable to apply the model:
¾ Pastoral culture to make charcoal
¾ Weak government administration
¾ Unable to get appropriate Prosopis pod crushing machine
¾ Inaccessible site for irrigation
¾ Communal land(lack of land use and tenure policy)
¾ Reaserch
¾ Policy and regulation on invasive alliance species
Where and When tasted:
¾ Gewane 2003/2004
¾ Amibera 2005/2006
Site selection were carried out by considering the severity and areas of extensively
invaded and cooperative members selection also focused on the vulnerable house
hold relatively found in the Pas.
Members who ingaged in the cooperatives were benefited from the charcoal
marketing and able to support their household expenses and it was create employment
opportunity for the local peoples and transportes. Cooperatives were also perform the
irrigation schemes from the money earned and on the cleared land easily.
In general coop was successful in control of prosopis and able to produce charcoal
and benefit their members & laborers. Some were able to accumulate retained
earnings and have built the capacity for diversification.
The land that is frees from prosopis has shown hope to reverse the situation and bring
back the species of grass, shrubs and trees used as livestock feed. According to
pastoralists it has been long since these species of plant diversity were seen in the area.

34
Key component of interventions

¾ Discussion forum and consultative meeting/work shop

¾ Severely invaded site selection
¾ Cooperative members selection and establishment to make legally registered at
regional coop bureau
¾ Seed money Agricultural inputs(hand tools and variety crop,vegetables and forage
seeds),improved metal kilns and pod crushing machine provided
¾ Market linkage activities undertaken and pas permit and other financial document
provided
¾ Trainings
¾ Irrigation development on the reclaimed land from prosopis.
Likely adopters of the model:
¾ Government(national and regional)
¾ Research institutions
¾ Local and international NGOs and pastoralist development partners
Requirements in order to adopt model:

¾ Applicable policy and regulations of Prosopis control and utilization strategies

¾ Accessible and potential land for irrigation, grazing and resident areas which is
invaded by prosopis
¾ Willingness and commitment of the Ngo’s, government and local community to
be involved in.
¾ Supply of hand tools for clearing and irrigation activities and crop and forage
seeds
¾ Supply of improved metal kilns and appropriate pod crushing machine
¾ Linage and organized market for prosopis charcoal and Pod flour
¾ Forester to train the community on Prosopis management through utilization in
different approaches
¾ Integrated approach towards prosopis management concerning research
institution,Ngo’s, Go’s and local communities based on other countries
experience.
Key component of the model
Although the country of the origin of the genus prosopis is not known exactly,
different authors stated that it is native to Peru, Chile and Argentina, since the primitive
inhabitants of those countries prepared several types of food from its pods-called
algarrobas (FAO,1990). Then it is distributed to different countries like Brazil, Mexico,
Central America, India, South Africa and Australia. Prosopis juliflora (Sw) DC belongs
to the family of Fabaceae and sub-family Mimosae. It is medium to tall evergreen (3 to
15m tall), some times shrubby (Muthana K.D., FAO, 1990).

Prosopis juliflora is a truly promising tree for the arid and semi arid lowlands. On
accounts of its multiple and potential and actual uses as well as of its remarkable
resistance to drought, heat and poor and rocky soils. Forty-four species of prosopis are

35
recognized (FAO, 1990). They are widely distributed in south, Central and North
America, Africa, and Asia. Among the prosopis recognized, Prosopis juliflora is
found to be one of the most aggressive tree weeds that cause great devastation to the
subtropical grasslands.

Prosopis juliflora was introduced to Africa first in (Senegal) from America in

1822,further it invade estern Africa and introduced in Ethiopia by Awash valley authority
about three decades ago, as soil conservation plant for arid and semi arid areas. Since
then it has spread initially by people to stabilize irrigation channels and as ornamental
and shade tree. Since then it has spread into different areas, more prominently in Afar
and Dire Dawa areas.

The characteristics that have lead to the proliferation of this menace include its long tap
root (up to 69m) in searching of the ground water that leads to coppicing if it is cut and
ever green species in the desert land, spines that mean it is difficult to pass through the
thickets, unpalatable leaves ensure that it is not grazed and the seed pods are attractive to
livestock so that they eat the pods and the tree germinates from undigested seeds in the
dung.
Prosopis is generally a controversial plant which need intensive management through
different utilization schemes accordingly some interventions were undertaken by the
project innovative initiation with other stakes.

Activities undertaken
¾ Pastoralists were mobilized in campaigns to cut prosopis trees and slush the
seedlings by providing hand tools. Although such methods reduced the
population, it could not control prosopis expansion. Prosopis trunk, when cut
above the ground, has the ability to coppice which increases its capacity of
covering additional area.
¾ Based on the action trial done by FARM, pastoralists were advised to cut
prosopis trunk 10-20cms below the ground in attempt to destroy the plant.
¾ Based on the lesson gained awareness was created at community level and
arranged discussion forum workshops at the regional level to organize targeted
communities in to cooperatives and utilize cut trunks to produce charcoal.
¾ Identify the most severely invade kebeles with wareda council
¾ Cooperatives establishment by selecting the poorest pastoralist members
¾ As a result four cooperatives were established in Gewane and Ambira woredas
where the invasion is serious.
¾ Cooperatives were provided with license and pass permits to legally sell
prosopis charcoal to central markets. They were also linked with merchants in
Addis and Nazareth for bulk sale.

¾ Cooperative members were trained on

• Improved charcoal making techniques (using metal kilns and kasavance)
to increase their efficiency. (with federal rural energy promotion office)
• Prosopis pod crushing machine (Selam vocational College)

36
 •Cooperative management, record keeping and business
management(wereda cooperative desk)
• Irrigation development and dry land agronomy(wereda pastoral office)
• Prosopis invasion control and management
¾ Irrigation development on the land reclaimed from prosopis and diversifies to
other business using an income from charcoal selling profit.
¾ Prosopis seed is not digestible in most animals’ digestive system. The seeds
germinate easily when dropped with excreta. Therefore to kill the seed, reduce
the invasion and improve feed quality pod crushing was tested using small
motorized hammer mills.
COST AND BENEFITS OF ADOPTION OF MODEL
Major costs
Resources Cooperatives Total
Sarcamo S. Hafage G. Dura Beida Value
(Birr)
Seed money 7500 7500 7500 15000(10000 37,500
to
reorganize
2nd round)
Fuel money 3000 3000 3000 3000 12,000
Sum 10,500 10,500 10,500 18,000 49,500
Equipment
Seed Cr 1 1 1 (10,000) 1 (10,000) 40,000
mach. (10,000) (10,000)
Metal Kilns 2 (9,300) 2 (9,300) 1 (4650) 1 (4650) 27,900
Farm -- -- Set(8000)&200Mango Set(4000) 28,000
tools Sedling(16,000) At project
& inputs store
Sum 19,300 19,300 38,650 18,650 95,900
Subtotal 29,800 29,800 49,150 36,650 145,400

Major benefit
1/Initial benefit
¾ The cooperatives had cleared more than 500 ha of land and more than 100 ha
of land reclaimed..
¾ Income generation: one of the cooperatives has reached up to 1,000,000 birr
capital and totally more than 190,000 sacks of charcoal produced sold at
central market
2/Later benefit
ƒ Recently pastoralists have seen plants which were lost some 20 years ago.
This includes acacia trees, important herbs that are useful as camel feed, and
different grass species.

37
 ƒ Crop yield improvement and access to cleared lad for irrigation crop and
forage development: Farm land once abandoned because of salinity and
declining yield when it becomes free from prosopis, increases yield.
ƒ Control illegal charcoal producers: Cooperatives have contributed towards
conserving the indigenous trees by exposing illegal charcoal producers who
indiscriminately cut trees since they don’t have long term commitment to use
cleared land for cultivation.

SOME COMMON PROBLEMS AND HOW TO OVERCOM THEM

Problems
• All the cooperative members except Beida have not participated in actual charcoal
production.
• Lack of policy on prosopis control particularly for charcoal production from
invasive alliance species.
• Research focused on prosopis management not undertaken
• Lack of attention and commitment from government sectors towards controlling
illegal charcoal producers and in prosopis controlling activites
• No organized market promotion strategy.
• All the reclaimed land has not been in use because of inaccessible for irrigation
water canals and structures, clans owned lands
• Heterogeneous mixture (Afars and highlanders) of cooperative members unable to
work together harmoniously.
• Cooperative executive committee members lack experience in recording and
managing their finances.
• Low seed pod collection and machine underutilization because of machine
inefficiency and lack of commitment to collect pods:
• Low level of utilization of the metal kilns: The metal kilns were not used due to
their lower output as compared to earth kilns and the additional labour time
required for chopping the wood prior to burning.
Recommendation to overcome the problems
¾ Appropriate guide line and policy formulation for prosopis control and
management
¾ Further research in pod processing(appropriate machine) and animal feed,
gum production
¾ Strengthen marketing with new approaches: Some cooperatives are trained
to produce charcoal using kiln. This has attracted exporters to look into the
possibilities of exporting to other countries.
¾ Start crop/fodder production to prevent re-invasion:
¾ Pod collection campaign and crushing; this can help to protect dispersion
through piles of dung and livestock diseases related with feeding
uncrushed pods. Also it helps to utilize the high nutrient value of the pod.
¾ strengthen the control of illegal charcoal producers
¾ Create a market for quality charcoal for standard export ,embassy and big
hotels

38
ANNEX 7

Comments

I. Regulation on Prosopis control and management

• The regional taskforce, lead by the Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau
which had been working on the guideline, agreed first to produce regulation,
which will have legal power to better regulate community members or private
sector engaged in the control of Prosopis invasion. Thus, the thought guideline to
be produced by EARO will strengthen implementation of the regulation.

• The draft regulation waiting to be approved by the regional council had the
following major components

1. Highlight negative impacts of Prosopis invasion on peoples livelihoods

and biodiversity

2. Integrated control strategies

ƒ Mass uprooting of new emerging seedlings through community
participation from key resource areas
ƒ Cutting and using the tree before it sets pods
ƒ Pod collection and crushing, to use crushed pods for livestock feed
(both local use and income generation)
ƒ Cutting mature tree including the roots to control sprouting
ƒ Create critical awareness in the neighbouring communities which are
at risk for Prosopis invasion
ƒ Piloting biological control with sufficient planning and preparation, etc

3. Priority areas for control of Prosopis invasion and detailed

activities to be carried out for each areas (who is responsible for the
management of cleared lands, how it is carried out, etc)

ƒ Invaded communal pastures

ƒ Irrigable lands/croplands
ƒ Settlement areas and access roads

4. Legal requirements to be engaged in Prosopis products production and

marketing contributing for the control of invasion

ƒ Kebele level land use plan for invaded areas clearance and utilization
will be produced based on the potential of the land with technical
support from regional and woreda government staff

ƒ Kebele level committee which is lead by Kebele council, where clan

leaders, women representatives, religious leaders and development

39
 agents will be members will manage the implementation of the control
based on the plan

ƒ Organize community members or private investors will apply to the

Kebele committee to get permission to clear invaded areas based on
the prepared plan. Taking the support letter from the Kebele the will
apply for support letter from the woreda to get final approval from the
region.

ƒ To transport and sell the products of Prosopis the Kebele committee

will give support letter after checking requirements for the control of
the invasion were met. Taking the support letter from the Kebele
committee the woreda committee will issue the pass permit. The
woreda committee will also monitor and supervise community
cooperatives or other engaged in the activity regularly to verify reports
at field level.

ƒ Once the land is cleared from the invasion the community to use the
land for pasture will take follow up action or crop production as agreed
during the planning process.

5. Pass permits for transporting and selling Prosopis products

The region will prints and distributes the pass permits and it will be
handled by the woreda Prosopis control and management committee. The
committee will be lead by the Woreda council chairperson, where the
Agriculture Rural Development Office, Cooperative desk, woreda police
office, NGOs, etc will be members.

6. Market promotion for Prosopis products

ƒ Establishment of union of cooperatives
ƒ Production and distribution of environmentally friendly packaging
materials
ƒ Arrangements to sell products to end users to maximize benefit to the
producers
ƒ How to improve the quality of charcoal for external market

7. Illegal acts and fines (detail for each)

ƒ Failure to maintain the requirements set for the control of Prosopis

invasion
ƒ Cutting down useful indigenous trees
ƒ Engagement in charcoal production without permission from all
concerned (Community, Woreda and Region level)
ƒ Using illegal documents for transporting Prosopis products

40
 ƒ Failure to use the cleared land for agreed purpose according to the land
use plan
ƒ Failure to remove young seedlings and immature trees when cutting
down matured trees for charcoal or fuel wood production
ƒ Engagement of government staff in charcoal production and marketing
ƒ Buying Prosopis products from unknown or illegal sources

8. Controlling: role and responsibilities of concerned institutions at different

level
ƒ Region Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau
ƒ Woreda council
ƒ Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Office
ƒ Kebele council

9. Members of the task force producing the regulation were

ƒ ANRS Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau-
• Experts from Natural resources Development Department
• Expert from Cooperative Development and Promotion
Department
ƒ ANRS Bureau of Justice
ƒ Farm Africa

II. Literature review and information collected during my MSc research (on
Prosopis invasion, benefits, losses effectiveness of the control through
utilization, etc that will help the preparation of the guideline by EIAR)

Literature review
• Biology and ecology of Prosopis
• Benefits to people and ecology
• Losses from Prosopis
• Charcoal production and Prosopis
• Control of Prosopis
o Chemical Control
o Biological control
o Mechanical control

Information collected in Gewane and Amibara

• Benefits from Prosopis to communities

o Prosopis pod for livestock feed
o Fuel wood
o Livestock fencing
o Poles for house construction
o Charcoal

41
 o Comparison of Prosopis use in intervention and non-intervention areas
o Trends in Prosopis products utilization
o Product utilization and gender
o Products use and age group
• Benefits of Prosopis to the ecology

• Losses from Prosopis to local communities

o Mechanical injury
o Lack of access road
o Loss of indigenous trees
o Increased predator challenge
o Loss of pasture
o Health problems on animals feeding pods
o Increased cost of farmland management
o Increased malaria cases
o Effects on local people occupation

• Comparison of benefits and losses from Prosopis to different occupation

groups

• Prosopis control through charcoal production and marketing

o Policing and strategies
o Planning and implementation of control through utilization
o Cooperatives charcoal marketing and benefits
o Effectiveness of the intervention to control Prosopis invasion
o
• Limitations of promoting charcoal production and marketing
o Community level
o Government level

• Conclusion and recommendations

42
ANNEX 8

ACRONYMS
APARI-Afar Pastoral & Agro-pastoral Research Institute
APDA-Afar Pastoralists Development Association
CWMA-Cooperative Weed Management Area
EIAR-Ethiopia Institute of Agricultural Research (formerly EARO)
GoE-Government of Ethiopia
MoARD-Ministry of Agriculture Department
NGO-Non-government Organization
OARI- Oromia Agricultural Research Institute
OPADC-Oromia Pastoralist Area Development Commission
PLI-Pastoralist Livelihoods Initiative
USAID-United States Agency for International Development
USDA-United States Department of Agriculture
USFS-United States Forest Service

ANNEX 9

Person Contact Information

*Ahmed Seid Ali-Director General for Afar Pastoral& Agro-pastoral Research Institute
nldpafar@ethionet.et
Aliyyii Hussen-Director General for Oromia Agricultural Research Institute
asoba_a@yahoo.com
Asefa Taa Woyessa (PhD)-Deputy Director General for Research
asefataa@yahoo.com
Belay Demissie (PhD)-Senior Agricultural Advisor and Head, Rural Productivity
Division for USAID, bdemissie@usaid.gov
Berhanu Admassu Dr.-Senior Policy Advisor for Tufts University,
berhanu.admassu@fic-et.org
Dawit Abebe Dr.-Research and Policy Specialist for Tufts University,
dawit.abebe@fic-et.org
Girma Amente Dr.-Project Manager for Oromia Waterworks Design and Supervision
Enterprise, girma_an@yahoo.com
Joseph Hirsch, Program Director for USAID, jhirsch@usaid.com
*Kedar Mohammed-APDA, PLI Project Manager, afarpda@yahoo.com ,
(c) 251-091-180-7549
*Mandefro Gltsadik-CARE, mandegebre@yahoo.com, (c) 251-091-172-1731
Rezene Fessehaie-National Project Coordinator of Invasive Plant Management for
EIAR, rezenefessehaie@yahoo.co.uk, 251-11-645-4437
*Solomon Zewdu-Farm Africa (c) 251-091-182-8126
Yacob Wondimfun-Environmental & Natural Resource Specialist for USAID,
ywondimkun@usaid.gov (c) 251-091-140-1340

*Persons contacted while on field trip.

43