Ethiopia National Biodiversity Threat Assessment

i
Dr. Mekbeb Tesema,
Addisu Asefa
and Yila Delelegn
February 2022
Addis Ababa
NATIONAL
BIODIVERSITY
THREAT
ASSESSMENT:
RANKING
MAJOR THREATS
IMPACTING
ETHIOPIA’S
BIODIVERSITY

ii
Contents
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................................i
Abbreviations and Acronyms........................................................................................................................ ii
Executive Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................................1
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................5
1.1 Background .........................................................................................................................................5
1.2 BIODEV2030: Supporting Ethiopia Vision 2030 ..................................................................................6
1.3 Purpose of The Assessment in Ethiopia..............................................................................................7
2. Methodology.............................................................................................................................................7
2.1. Conceptual Framework and Definitions ............................................................................................7
2.2. Data Collection and Analyses...........................................................................................................10
2.2.1. Biodiversity Status & Trends.....................................................................................................10
2.2.2. Biodiversity Threat Assessment – National Level.....................................................................12
3. Ethiopia’s Biodiversity Status and Trends...............................................................................................21
3.1. Scope of The Assessment.................................................................................................................21
3.2. Biodiversity Status and Trends – Ecosystem Approach...................................................................23
3.2.1. Realms, Ecoregions and Ecosystem Functional Groups............................................................23
3.2.2. Sub-global Ecosystem Types in Ethiopia...................................................................................25
3.3. Biodiversity Status & Trends - Species Approach: Flora and Fauna ................................................45
3.3.1. Mammals ..................................................................................................................................46
3.3.2. Birds ..........................................................................................................................................51
3.3.3. Reptiles......................................................................................................................................57
3.3.4. Amphibians ...............................................................................................................................58
3.3.5. Fish............................................................................................................................................63
3.3.6. Plants.........................................................................................................................................64
3.4. Areas of Conservation Importance ..................................................................................................66
3.4.1 Key Biodiversity Areas................................................................................................................66
3.4.2 Protected Areas .........................................................................................................................68

iii
3.4.3. Protected Area Efficiency..........................................................................................................70
4. Biodiversity Threat Assessment..............................................................................................................72
4.1. National Level Assessment – Literature Review..............................................................................72
4.1.1. Main Threats to Terrestrial Natural Ecosystems and Species...................................................73
4.1.2. Main Threats to Freshwater Ecosystems and Species..............................................................78
4.2 National Level Assessment - STAR Metric Scores.............................................................................81
4.3. National Level Assessment – Expert-based Threat Assessment......................................................87
4.3.1 National Expert-based Threat Assessment: Overall ..................................................................87
4.3.2 National Expert-based Threat Assessment: Focusing on Cultivation, Grazing and Logging......94
4.4. National Level Assessment – Non-Expert-based Threat perception ...............................................97
5. Discussion..............................................................................................................................................101
5.1 Representativity of STAR Scores and Overall Findings of the Assessment.....................................101
5.2 Major threat 1: Livestock Farming & Ranching...............................................................................104
5.3 Major threat 2: Annual & Perennial Non-Timber Crops.................................................................105
5.4 Major threat 3: Housing & Urban Areas .........................................................................................107
5.5 Major threat 4: Logging & Wood Harvesting..................................................................................108
5.6 Study Limitations ............................................................................................................................108
5.7 Knowledge Gaps..............................................................................................................................109
6. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................110
7. Recommendations................................................................................................................................116
8. References ............................................................................................................................................121
9. Appendices............................................................................................................................................126

i
Acknowledgements
This work was tasked by the IUCN-ESRO as part of the implementation of the BIODEV2030
project intervention in Ethiopia. The methodology and the overall study approach were conducted
in agreement with the representatives of IUCN’s BIODEV2030 program. We would like to thank
the IUCN HQ and ESARO staff, in general, and Florence Curet for online briefing given on the
overall approaches of BIODEV2030 and on the concepts and methods of STAR metric analysis,
and for her comments on the second draft version of the report. All the experts and stakeholders
who took part in the assessment are duly acknowledged. We are also thankful to Mr Abdeta Robi,
BIODEV2030 – Ethiopia program coordinator, for facilitating and motivating experts and
stakeholders to take part in the threat assessment. Our thanks also go to Antonin Vergez for his
critically evaluating and providing high quality inputs throughout the write-up of the report.
Finally, we thank Drs. Gemedo Dale, Melesse Mariyo, Seyoum Leta, Tesfaye Awas, and Ato
Desta Bedaso for their detailed review and comments on the draft.

ii
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AZE Alliance for Zero Extinction
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CMP Conservation Measures Partnership
CR Critically Endangered
CRGE Climate Resilient Green Economy(Ethiopia’s national blue print for climate action)
DD Data Deficient
EBI Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute
EbTA Expert-based Threat Assessment
EN Endangered
EWCA Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
IBA Important Bird Areas
IBAT Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool
IBC Institute of Biodiversity Conservation
IPBES Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
KBA Key Biodiversity Area
LC Least Concern
NA Not Assessed
NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
NDP National Development Plan
NP National Park
NPFA National Priority Forest Area
NT Near Threatened
PA Protected Area
RLI Red List Index
RLTS Red List of Threatened Species
STAR Species Threat Abatement and Species Restoration
UNESCO UN Economic, Social, and Cultural Organization
WDPA World Database on Protected Areas

1
Executive Summary and Recommendations
INTRODUCTION: The BIODEV2030 project aims to accelerate the mainstreaming of
biodiversity into economic sectors which are key to biodiversity (BIO-) and development (-DEV),
to ‘bend the curve’ of biodiversity decline and promote more sustainable and resilient economies.
Ethiopia is among the 8 pilot countries where BIODEV2030 is implemented by the IUCN. This
two-year project shall create the conditions for a national dialogue involving stakeholders around
strategic economic sectors, relevant to the national economy and biodiversity. This dialogue will
aim to initiate and facilitate tangible voluntary national and sectorial commitments to reduce
pressures on biodiversity over the next decade. Such voluntary contributions will be a big step
towards building ambitious common goals to halt the decline of biodiversity by 2030 and restore
biodiversity by 2050. The objectives of this study were to assess the state of biodiversity in
Ethiopia, identify, classify and rank the threats to Ethiopia’s biodiversity from anthropogenic
activities, and identify economic sectors associated with the main threats to Ethiopia’s biodiversity
for engagement with the BIODEV2030 project in Ethiopia.
METHODOLOGY: Target biodiversity components (taxonomic groups) for the assessment of
status & trends and threats and approaches followed are presented on Table 1. First, an online
search was conducted for peer-reviewed literature, policy documents, IUCN Red List data, other
scientific data and sectorial reports relating to biodiversity and threatening processes in Ethiopia
(see section 2.2.2 for details). This information was used to assess biodiversity status & trends and
threats for the Target taxonomic groups and ecosystems. Then, we evaluated/reviewed the initially
proposed STAR analysis conducted by IUCN and revised/re-analysed it. Third, primary data on
biodiversity threats were collected using both Expert- and non-Expert-based Threat Assessment
Tools. Fourth, the severity of biodiversity threat categories identified through literature review,
STAR analysis and expert- and non-expert-based assessment were assessed. Finally, we used
results of the threat analysis to identify and recommend sectors contributing most to biodiversity
decline in Ethiopia, as well as at three selected sites, and that need urgent measures in terms of
abating threats (incompatible economic activities) and restoring of habitats. STAR analysis was
conducted for three taxonomic groups for which adequate data were available: amphibians, birds
and mammals.

2
RESULTS: We identified and described 17 ecosystems types, comprising of 14 terrestrial
ecosystem realm, 2 terrestrial-freshwater realm (i.e., Riparian and wetland ecosystem types), and
1 freshwater realm ecosystem (i.e., Aquatic ecosystem). The Red List Index (RLI) for Ethiopia for
three taxonomic groups (mammals, birds and amphibians) show a constant trend over time,
indicating that the overall extinction risk for species in Ethiopia is unchanged over the period of
the last 25 years (1995–2020). However, the RLI of species survival in Ethiopia is low (0.85)
which indicates that the status of biodiversity is degraded and should be enhanced. The number of
protected areas of Ethiopia has been increasing over time, from about 6% in 1970s to 12% in 2019
and 12.14% in 2022. However, available data do not allow to accurately assess the extent to which
these protected areas cover key biodiversity areas (KBAs), representative ecosystems and
conservation concern species.
Despite the increasing number in protected areas, many flora and fauna species are threatened and
experiencing severe population declines, while the status of several species has been remained
unknown. For example, Ethiopia has 314 mammal species, including 57 (18.5% of the total
mammal species) endemic species. Out of the 314 mammal species, populations of 74 (23.5%)
species are experiencing declining trend and 39 (12.4%) are currently globally threatened,
including 16 threatened and 4 near threatened endemic species. Similarly, about a quarter (214
species) of the total bird species occurring in Ethiopia are experiencing decreasing population trend
and 36 species are globally threatened. Of the 253 reptile species known from Ethiopia, 26 (10%)
are endemic to the country. Only five of the total species are known to be threatened, all of which
are endemic and experiencing population declines. Of the 78 amphibian species occurring in
Ethiopia, half (39) of the species are endemic and 18 of them are globally threatened.
The total STAR score for Ethiopia is 206,544. Habitat Restoration (STAR R) component of the
STAR metric represents 94% of the total score, which is, by far, higher than the country’s score
for Threat Abatement component (STAR T; 6%). This could indicate that restoration actions
should be prioritized in Ethiopia in order to reduce species extinction risk. However, those
surprising figures, very different from other countries’s profiles, are due to 6 species with a very
high STAR R score. We did a senstivity analysis and recalculated STAR scores (total, R and T)

3
for Ethiopia without the 6 species with STAR R scores higher than 3000, and found for Ethiopia
the following results, which are more common in terms of national STAR scores:
• STAR T score for Ethiopia = 71% of STAR (T+R) score Ethiopia (instead of 6%)
• STAR R score for Ethiopia = 29% of STAR (T+R) score Ethiopia (instead of 94%)
Threat abatement measures targeting critically endangered (CR) species are crucial because the
Threat Abatement STAR score (STAR-T) for critically endangered species is about four times
higher than the corresponding STAR-R score (2,740.7 vs 710.6). Furthermore, the threat
abatement scores of endemic species was 9893 which represents 84% of the country’s STAR-T
score. These results do not only illustrate that Ethiopia has a very high responsibility in preserving
its endemic biodiversity but also suggest that conservation action plans should include actions that
reduce drastically threats coming from activites causing pressures on all the critically endangered
species and on all the endemic species (regardless of their IUCN RL status), and restore habitats
as much as possible (starting where it will maximise STAR score). Comparison of results of
STAR-T threat scores of each of the IUCN level 2 threat categories with threat impact ranking
expert-based and non-expert-based assessments showed qualitatively a high convergence
(consistence) in the threat rank order. In conclusion, the top four threats identified via the three
approaches (STAR, expert-based data and non-expert-based data) were Annual & perennial non-
timber crops, Livestock farming & ranching, and Small scale logging & wood harvesting.
Recommendations: The major economic sectors driving the threats are agriculture (subsectors
such as cereal crop, coffee and livestock), forestry, biomas energy and urban and housing. For the
purpose of the BIODEV2030 project, we recommend the following two broader key economic
sectors in Ethiopia: agriculture and Forestry. Overall, we recommend the following measures to
reduce the biodiversity threats in Ethiopia:
(1) Enhance KBAs’ conservation and species conservation by increasing protection via a better
coverage by protected areas, enhanced protected areas connectivity and sharing updated basic data
of PAs with relevant stakeholders to be used in decision making processes;
(2) KBA Avoidance by development projects and by livestock grazing;

4
(3) Avoid the area of habitat (AOH) of threatened species and endemic species;
(4) Mainstream biodiversity conservation both inside protected areas and outside PAs (in
agricultural ecosystems) in all decision-making processes of economic actors in productive
sectors, by making them contribute to abating threats to biodiversity,
(5) Prioritize restoration actions for the six species with very high (>3000) STAR R scores. Then,
prioritize and target the restoration actions on the habitats of critically endangered species. The
very STAR R scores for 6 species (see Results section for list of these species) advocates for
establishing zoning, increasing the number of PAs and the superficie of areas under (strict)
protection. Such areas should i) either be avoided by economic and productive activities such as
agriculture and livestock, or ii) become areas where economic activities contribute to habitats
restoration and support biodiversity protection with environment-friendly practices;
(6) Threat abatement and restoration actions should focus on agriculture and livestock sectors; and
(7) Reduce the dependence on forest resources for fuelwood and construction, but make sure the
alternative do not contribute to an increase of greenhouse gas emissions (and exacerbate climate
crisis).

5
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The health of the ecosystems on which we depend and on which all other species depend is
degrading today at an unprecedented rate. This situation weakens livelihoods, food security, health
and quality of life worldwide, and poses economic and financial risks. This is particularly
significant for countries and people that are heavily dependent on natural resources and
biodiversity for subsistence needs.
The BIODEV2030 initiative aims to accelerate the mainstreaming of biodiversity into economic
sectors which are key to biodiversity (BIO-) and development (-DEV), to ‘bend the curve’ of
biodiversity decline and promote more sustainable and resilient economies. BIODEV2030
empowers 16 pilot countries with diverse ecological, economic, political and institutional contexts,
to catalyse voluntary national and sectorial commitments for biodiversity to reduce pressures on
biodiversity over the next decade. The project is funded by the French Development Agency
(AFD), coordinated by Expertise France, and implemented by International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF)-France in 8 countries each.
Ethiopia is among the 8 countries where BIODEV2030 is implemented by the IUCN. This two-
year project shall create the conditions for a national dialogue involving stakeholders around
strategic economic sectors, relevant to the national economy and biodiversity. This dialogue will
aim to initiate and facilitate tangible voluntary national and sectorial commitments to reduce
pressures on biodiversity over the next decade. Such voluntary contributions will be a big step
towards building ambitious common goals to halt the decline in biodiversity by 2030 and restore
biodiversity by 2050.
As the initial step to BIODEV2030 implementation in Ethiopia, IUCN recruited a consultancy
team composed of three experts to conduct Ethiopia’s biodiversity threat assessment at national
level. This report presents findings of the assessment of the Status and Trends of biodiversity of
Ethiopia, direct threats to biodiversity in the country and major economic sectors impacting
biodiversity.

6
1.2 BIODEV2030: Supporting Ethiopia Vision 2030
This assessment is consistent with and contributes to implementation of Ethiopia’s National
Development Plan (Ethiopia 2030), Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) Strategy, Revised
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2020 – 2025). Ethiopia’s long-term national
development is the “Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP), a 30-years (2010-2030) plan
launched in 2010. As set forth in the GTP, Ethiopia’s vision is “becoming a climate resilient
middle-income economy by 2025, with a zero net increase in carbon emissions by 2025.”
Achieving this vision requires increasing agricultural productivity, strengthening the industrial
base, and fostering export growth. Economically, it means growing fast enough to increase the
current gross domestic product (GDP), decreasing the share of GDP contributed by agriculture
from more than 40% to less than 30%, and migrating from farming and herding to jobs in the
services and industry sectors. As such, to ensure a green growth path and fosters development and
sustainability, Ethiopia has devised a strategy for Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE).
Launched in 2011 and fully integrated into the GTP, the CRGE strategy was mainly aimed to
address both climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives.
At present, the country has developed and launched in 2021 a 10-year (2021-2030) National
Development Plan (NDP), with a theme: “Ethiopia 2030: The Pathway to Prosperity”. The plan
stresses the importance of inclusive growth to alleviate poverty; reduce inequalities and promote
progress in gender equality and youth rights; the importance of promoting private sector
investment and trade; and the enhanced provision of social services and public goods to sustain
economic growth supported. This NDP is an outcome of a nation-wide consultation process with
a whole-of-society approach and is aligned with and outlines strategies to achieve Ethiopia’s global
commitments, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement
on climate change. The integrated nature of development and the need for multi-sectorial solutions
are recognised and addressed, and critical cross-cutting issues such as climate change, green
growth, the environment, gender and children equality, disability and governance are
mainstreamed in the plan.
Although a landlocked country, Ethiopia also operates as a vital regional hub for travellers and
commercial and humanitarian cargo. The country is home to the African Union Commission, the

7
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and several other regional and continental
partnership platforms. These attributes make Ethiopia a strong partner in global and regional
partnerships for both national development action and implementation of the SDGs. The present
assessment will contribute to the achievement of the country’s development vision, by identifying
key biodiversity threats and prioritizing economic sectors driving such threats in order to support
effective biodiversity protection and rehabilitation. Specifically, it contributes to the achievement
of a revised vision of Ethiopia’s NBSAP (2020), which is to conserve, restore and value
biodiversity and ecosystems of the country, maintaining rich biodiversity and ecosystems that
deliver essential benefits to all the people of Ethiopia.
1.3 Purpose of The Assessment in Ethiopia
The overall goal of this study is to provide a scientific overview and assessment of the threats to
biodiversity posed by different economic sectors in Ethiopia based on existing literature and
reports, scientific data and interviews with experts and key stakeholders. More specifically, the
consultancy task was aimed to:
1. Assess the state of biodiversity in Ethiopia,
2. Identify, classify and rank the threats to Ethiopia’s biodiversity from anthropogenic
activities, and
3. Identify economic sectors associated with the main threats to Ethiopia’s biodiversity for
engagement with the BIODEV2030 program in Ethiopia.
2. Methodology
2.1. Conceptual Framework and Definitions
2.1.1. Conceptual Framework
The project framework and associated methodologies, results and outputs used for the purpose of
this study are summarised in Figure 1 and Table 1. The simplified conceptual model (Figure 1) is
adapted from the DPSIR (Drivers, Pressures, State, Impact, and Response) model. This study
focuses specifically on the state of biodiversity and on the threats affecting this state. The threats
to biodiversity have natural (volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, etc.) and anthropogenic (human)

8
sources (Residential & Commercial Development, Agriculture & Aquaculture, Biological
Resource Use, etc.). For the purpose of this study, we are focusing only on human sources of
threats affecting biodiversity status.
Figure 1. BIODEV2030 simplified conceptual framework derived from DPSIR model.
Target biodiversity components (taxonomic groups) for the assessment of status & trends and
threats and approaches followed are presented on Table 1. First, an online search was conducted
for peer-reviewed literature, policy documents, IUCN Red List data, other scientific data and
sectorial reports relating to biodiversity and threatening processes in Ethiopia (see section 2.2.2
for details). This information was used to assess biodiversity status & trends and threats for the
Target taxonomic groups and ecosystems. Second, we evaluated/reviewed the initially proposed
STAR analysis conducted by IUCN and revised/reanalysed it. Third, we collected primary data on
biodiversity threats using both Expert- and non-expert-based Threat assessment Tools. Fourth, we
assessed consistency of severity of biodiversity threat categories identified through literature
review, STAR analysis and expert- and non-expert-based assessment. Finally, we used results of
the threat analysis to identify sectors contributing most to biodiversity decline in Ethiopia and that
need urgent measures in terms of threats abatement and habitats restoration actions.
Table 1. Summary of major approaches used for assessment of biodiversity status & trends and threats in Ethiopia and
respective targeted taxonomic groups and ecosystems.

9
Approach Purpose Target Taxon Group Target Ecosystem
Literature review
Biodiversity Status &
Trend
1. Mammals 1. Natural terrestrial
2. Birds 2. Agroecosystems
3. Reptiles 3. Freshwater
4. Amphibians
5. Freshwater fish
6. Plants
Threat Assessment All the above taxon group Natural ecosystems
STAR metric analysis Threat Assessment
1. Mammals
2. Birds
3. Amphibians
Expert-based threat
assessment
Threat Assessment All the above six taxon group
Non-expert-based threat
assessment
Threat Assessment All biodiversity components All ecosystems
2.1.2. Definitions of Key terms
Biodiversity: The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines ‘biological diversity’ as “the
variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and
other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes
diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems” (CBD, 1992).
Drivers: Drivers are external factors that affect nature, and, as a consequence, also affect the supply
of Nature Contributions to People (NCP). Drivers of change include indirect drivers (all
anthropogenic: here Drivers) and direct drivers (both natural and anthropogenic: here Pressures)
(IPBES, 2019).
Threats: Following Salafsky et al. (2008), threats were defined as “the proximate human activities
or processes that have caused, are causing, or may cause the destruction, and/or impairment of
biodiversity targets (e.g. unsustainable fishing or logging).” Direct threats are the proximate human
activities or processes that have impacted, are impacting, or may impact the status of a taxon.
Direct threats are synonymous with sources of stress and proximate pressures (IUCN RLTS – TCS;
Salafsky et al., 2008), for example unsustainable fishing or logging. Note that the IUCN Red List

10
also contains data on the stresses by which these threats impact species, such as via direct mortality
or ecosystem degradation.
Due to the way that The IUCN Red List is compiled (the threats listed by IUCN are those known
to impact the species or taxonomic groups at the global level) and managed, all threats listed in the
IUCN threat category may not impact species listed within a particular country (or some threats
may be absent in a particular country). More information about the nature of the impacts of threats
and the threat classification scheme can be found here1
.
To standardise the threat assessment, a universal language applicable lexicon, the IUCN–CMP
Classification of Direct Threats Version 3.2 (Salafsky et al., 2008), was adopted here (see also
Gudka, 2020). This ensured a consistency and comparability with the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2020 (IUCN, 2020), Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA), and BirdLife’s Important
Bird Areas (IBA), which all use the same classification system. The classification system is
hierarchical and structured with three different levels from coarse to fine scale. The first level lists
12 general threat categories (e.g., threat “2. Agriculture and Aquaculture”), subdivided into 45
second-level threat types (e.g., threat “2.1 Annual & Perennial Non-Timber Crops” & “2.2 Wood
& Pulp Plantations”). These are further subdivided into third-level threat types (e.g., "2.1.1
Shifting Agriculture"). The classifications are designed to be comprehensive, consistent, and
exclusive for the first and second levels. However, the third level is at a much finer scale containing
mainly illustrative examples rather than comprehensive listings of threats.
2.2. Data Collection and Analyses
2.2.1. Biodiversity Status & Trends
The documents and data used for the review component of the national biodiversity assessment
were collected through online searches of scientific databases, government agency websites, online
data repositories, NGO and regional organisation websites, and from local and internationally
based Ethiopian biodiversity experts. The documentary and data sources were loosely divided into
1
http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes/threats-classification-scheme

11
government documents/policies, peer-reviewed literature, reports, and scientific data held by
experts of the consultancy team and other experts.
We analyzed biodiversity status and trends in two approaches, ecosystem approach and species
approach. For the ecosystem approach of biodiversity assessment for Ethiopia, we followed the
standardized typological classification system of the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology v2,
recently developed recently by Keith et al. (2020). The IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology is a
hierarchical classification system that, in its upper levels (levels 1–3), defines ecosystems by their
convergent ecological functions and, in its lower levels (levels 4–6), distinguishes ecosystems with
contrasting assemblages of species engaged in those functions (Keith et al., 2020). The top level
of the Global Ecosystem Typology divides the biosphere into five global realms: i) terrestrial; ii)
subterranean; iii) freshwater (including saline water bodies on land); iv) marine; and v) the
atmosphere. The interfaces between these core realms are recognised as transitional realms,
accommodating ecosystems, such as mangroves and riverine, that depend on unique conditions
and fluxes between contrasting environments. At Level 2, the typology defines 25 biomes –
components of a core or transitional realm united by one or a few common major ecological drivers
that regulate major ecological functions. Level 3 of the typology includes 108 Ecosystem
Functional Groups that encompass related ecosystems within a biome that share common
ecological drivers and dependencies, and thus exhibit convergent biotic traits (for detail see Keith
et al., 2020). Level 4 defines biogeographic ecotype – which is an ecoregional expression of an
ecosystem functional group derived from the top-down by subdivision of Ecosystem Functional
Groups (Level 3). They are proxies for compositionally distinctive geographic variants that occupy
different areas within the distribution of a functional group. At level 5, the typology defines Global
ecosystem types – a complex of organisms and their associated physical environment within an
area occupied by an Ecosystem Functional Group. Global ecosystem types grouped into the same
Ecosystem Functional Group share similar ecological processes but exhibit substantial difference
in biotic composition. They are derived from the bottom-up, either directly from ground
observations or by aggregation of sub-global ecosystem types (Level 6). Finally, level 6 ecosystem
typology defines sub-global ecosystem types – a subunit or nested group of subunits within a
global ecosystem type, which therefore exhibit a greater degree of compositional homogeneity and
resemblance to one another than global ecosystem types (Level 5). These represent units of

12
established classifications, in some cases arranged in a sub-hierarchy of multiple levels, derived
directly from ground observations.
In the case of species approach, we compiled the total number of species, genera and families,
number of endemic species, number of globally threatened species, and population trends
(Decreasing, Increasing, Stable, and Unknown) for mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and
plants.
2.2.2. Biodiversity Threat Assessment – National Level
2.2.2.1. Literature Review
Literatures used for the review biodiversity threat assessment were collected through online
searches of scientific databases, government agency websites, online data repositories, NGO and
regional organisation websites, and scientific data held by experts of the consultancy team and
other experts.
2.2.2.2. STAR: the Species Threat Abatement and Restoration metric
The “Species Threat Abatement and Restoration” (STAR) metric evaluates and quantifies the
potential benefit for threatened species and nearly threatened species of actions to reduce threats
and restore habitat. Like the Red List Index, STAR is derived from existing data in the IUCN Red
List. As such, STAR contributes to explain which potential actions (threat reduction and/or habitat
restoration) could affect the Red List Index (see Mair et al. 2021 for more details on the general
STAR methods).
STAR is spatially explicit, enabling identification of threat abatement and habitat restoration
opportunities in particular places, which if implemented, could reduce species extinction risk.
STAR assumes that for the great majority of species complete alleviation of threats would reduce
extinction risk through halting decline and/or permitting sufficient recovery in population and
distribution, such that the species could be down listed to the IUCN Red List category of Least
Concern.

13
For each species, a global STAR threat-abatement (STAR-T) score is defined. To calculate the
STAR_T score, one uses weighting ratios, varying from zero for Least Concern species to 100 for
Near Threatened, 200 for Vulnerable, 300 for Endangered and 400 for Critically Endangered. The
sum of STAR-T values across all species represents the global threat-abatement effort needed for
all species to become Least Concern.
STAR-T scores can be disaggregated spatially, based on the area of habitat currently available for
each species in a particular location. This shows the potential contribution of conservation actions
in that location to reducing the extinction risk for all species globally. The local STAR-T score
can be further disaggregated by threat, based on the known contribution of each threat to the
species' risk of extinction. This quantifies how actions that abate a specific threat at a particular
location (or country) contribute to the global abatement of extinction risk for all species occurring
in that location. The formula to calculate the STAR score for threat t occurring at site i is the
following:
Where:
Ps,i is the current Area of Habitat (AOH) of each species (s) within location (i), expressed as a
percentage of the global species’ current AOH;
Ws is the IUCN Red List category weight of species s (NT= 100, VU = 200, EN = 300 and CR=
400);
Cs,t is the relative contribution of threat t to the extinction risk of species s calculated as the
percentage global population decline from that threat;
Ns is the total number of species at location (i).
The STAR metric also includes a habitat restoration component to reflect the potential benefits to
species of restoring lost habitat. The STAR restoration component is calculated for each species
and is based on the area of habitat (AOH) that has been lost and is potentially restorable. The
STAR restoration score (STAR-R) quantifies the potential contribution that habitat restoration
𝑇𝑡,𝑖 = ∑ 𝑃𝑠,𝑖𝑊
𝑠𝐶𝑠,𝑡
𝑁𝑠
𝑠

14
activities could make to reducing species’ extinction risk. For a particular species at a particular
location (or country), the STAR restoration (STAR-R) score reflects the proportion that restorable
habitats at the location represents of the global area of remaining habitat for that species.
Importantly, a multiplier is applied to STAR-R scores to reflect the slower and lower success rate
in delivering benefits to species from restored habitats compared with conserved existing habitats.
The STAR-R score for threat t occurring at a site t is calculated as follow:
𝑅𝑡,𝑖 = ∑ 𝐻𝑠,𝑖𝑊
𝑠𝐶𝑠,𝑡𝑀𝑠,𝑖
𝑁𝑠
𝑠
Where:
Hs,i is the extent of restorable AOH for species s at location i, expressed as a percentage of the
global species’ current AOH,
Mi is a multiplier appropriate to the habitat at location i to discount restoration scores. We use a
global multiplier of 0.29 based on the median rate of recovery from a global meta-analysis
assuming that restoration has been underway for ten years (the period of the post-2020 outcome
goals).
The extent of current and restorable Area of Habitat (AOH) for species was determined using 5
km resolution species’ AOH rasters. The European Space Agency “Climate Change Initiative”
(ESA CCI) land use and cover maps from 2015, with 300 x 300 m pixel size was used to calculate
species current AOH. The ESA CCI original 37 land cover classes were reclassified into ten major
classes (forests, wetlands, arid ecosystems, natural grasslands, shrublands, croplands, cultivated
grasslands, rock and ice, and urban areas), and then matched to the habitat classes from IUCN Red
List assessments. Species’ range maps were then overlaid with land cover and digital elevation
maps to map the area of habitat within each species’ range, constrained by the species’ elevation
range (from the IUCN Red List). Species’ range maps are coded for presence and origin; grid cells
where the species was recorded as Extinct were excluded from current AOH parts of species’
ranges, and only parts of each species’ range where the species was recorded as Native,
Reintroduced or Assisted Colonisation were included.

15
Original area of habitat represented the extent of original ecosystem types before human impact
(i.e. the land cover before conversion to croplands, pasturelands or urban areas). ESA CCI land
use and cover maps from 1992 were used to inform back-casting of the extent of original ecosystem
types. Species range maps were then overlaid with this back-cast land cover and with digital
elevation maps to map the original area of habitat within each species range. For the purposes of
this analysis, the extent of species original AOH was constrained to within individual species’
range maps according to the IUCN Red List; these range maps largely reflect current range limits
due to a lack of consistent information across all species on their historical, recently extirpated
range. As with current AOH, only parts of each species’ range where the species was recorded as
Native, Reintroduced or Assisted Colonisation were included in original AOH according to the
origin coding of the IUCN Red List assessments. However, for original AOH, parts of species’
ranges where the species was recorded as Extinct were additionally included, for all species for
which this information was available (Brooks et al., 2019). Species restorable AOH was then
calculated as the difference between original and current AOH (Mair et al., 2021). The STAR
scores have been calculated and mapped at global scale using species’ extinction risk categories
and threat classification data downloaded for amphibians, birds and mammals from the IUCN Red
List website on 16 September 2021. So far, a total of 5,364 species (2,054 amphibians, 1,962 birds
and 1,348 mammals) were included in the global analysis based on the availability of the necessary
data (IUCN, 2020).
In Ethiopia, a total of 113 species (12 amphibians, 51 birds and 50 mammals), including 31
endemic species, were included in the initial STAR analysis based on the availability of the
necessary data. However, the final analysis was made on 115 species, 33 (29%) of which were
endemics (Table 19; for detail on the species incuded see Appendix 1). We reviewed this initial
list of amphibian, bird and mammal species proposed by IUCN to be used in the STAR analysis.
We found that all the proposed species to be relevant but thought that two endemic mammal
species should be included. One of these species is the Amphibious Rat (Nilopegamys plumbeus)
which is currently listed as Critically Endangered in the IUCN Red List, but its distribution range
map is not available on the IUCN Red List (Peterhans & Lavrenchenko, 2008). The other species
is the Sheko Forest Brush-furred Rat (Lophuromys pseudosikapusi), a species known to occur only
in Sheko forest in the south-western Ethiopia, listed as Endangered in the IUCN Red List (Dano

16
et al., 2018). Based on literature review, experts’ opinion and our experiences on the suitable
habitat, distribution range and threats of each species, we calculated STAR scores for these species
(see BOXES 1 & 2 for details of how the STAR scores were computed for each of these species
and threats to them). Although adding these two species to the initially proposed STAR species
list did not change the overall results found from analysis of the initial list, we found it including
them in the analysis to be helpful for future site level STAR analysis, when deemed necessary.
BOX 1: Derivation of STAR scores for Nilopegamys plumbeus
The Amphibious Rat (N. plumbeus) is Ethiopia’s endemic rodent species currently listed as Critically
Endangered in the IUCN Red List. This semiaquatic-life species (inhabiting permanent, inland wetlands
/Rivers/ Streams) is known from a single specimen collected at a locality known as “Little Abbai River”
in the 1920s from highland, riparian habitat (Peterhans & Lavrenchenko, 2008). This confinement of the
entire known population of N. plumbeus to this site has triggered designation of the “Little Abbai River”
AZE site. This site has an area 904.7 km2
. Two recent attempts to recollect this species were ended up
without any success (Peterhans & Lavrenchenko, 2008), suggesting that it may now be extinct. The
habitat where the type locality specimen was collected is now already severely degraded and today is
pure pastureland (Peterhans & Lavrenchenko, 2008). Information both on its historical and current AOH
is unavailable for N. plumbeus. Based on this background knowledge, the STAR-T score for the species is
400.
To derive the STAR-R for the species, based on literature and experts’ opinion, we assumed that the area
(904.7 km2
) of the “Little Abbai River” AZE site represents historical AOH of the species and that about
75% (678.5 km2
) of this historical/ original AOH has been lost, showing that current available AOH is 226.2
km2
. The extent of restorable AOH for species, expressed as a percentage of the global species’ current
AOH, is 300. From this, the STAR-R score for the species is estimated as 348 (300*4*0.29].
For the species, The IUCN Red List records only one level 1 threat, 2. Agriculture & Aquaculture, 2.
Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming & ranching -> 2.3.2. Small-holder grazing, ranching
or farming, which is on-going with Low Impact (score = 3) (Peterhans and Lavrenchenko, 2008). Thus, for
both global and national levels, STAR-T score for this threat based on this species, both at global and
national levels (since it is an endemic species), is 400 (100*4*1).
The total STAR score for the species is therefore 748 (348+400).

17
BOX 2: Derivation of STAR components scores for Lophuromys pseudosikapusi
The Sheko Forest Brush-furred Rat (L. pseudosikapusi), another Ethiopian endemic only known to occur
only in Sheko forest of south-western Ethiopia, is listed as Endangered in the IUCN Red List (Dando et al.,
2018). Thus, its weighting ratio (in the STAR T and STAR R scores formula) is 300.
The species’ historical AOH is unknown, but its estimated current estimated area of occurrence (EOO) is
2,185 km2
. Here, assuming that the area of Sheka KBA (3,723.3 km2
; see Dando et al., 2018; IBTA, 2021)
represents the species’ historical AOH and the EOO as its current AOH, we estimated extent of lost
(potentially restorable) habitat of the species 1,538.3 km2
[((3723.3-2185)/2185))*100], which accounts
for about 70% of its current AOH. Based on this, the STAR-R score for the species is 61.25
(0.704*300*0.29).
For L. pseudosikapusi, two IUCN CMP level 3 threats are listed, one for 2. Agriculture & aquaculture ->
2.1. Annual & perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.2. Small-holder farming, and one for 5. Biological
resource use -> 5.3. Logging & wood harvesting -> 5.3.3. Unintentional effects: (subsistence/small scale)
[harvest]. These threats are on-going, but the Scope, Severity and Impact Score of both threats are
Unknown. Based on literature review (e.g., Dando et al., 2018) and experts consultations, for 2.
Agriculture & aquaculture threat, we assigned Scope to be Majority (threat affecting majority of the
population), Severity (Slow) and Impact Level (in terms of contribution to population declne) of Medium
(Score = 7). Similarly, for 5. Biological resource use, we assigned Impact Score of 5 (Low Impact),
following the guideline provided in “Threat Impact Scoring System (based on additive scores and defined
thresholds) Version 1.0 [revised version based on implementation in SIS]”. Based on this, the STAR-T
score for 2. Agriculture & aquaculture was estimated 175 (7/12*300) and for 5. Biological resource use
threat 125 (5/12*300).
The total STAR score is thus 186.25 (61.25+125).
2.2.2.3. Expert-based Threat Assessment
The STAR metric, although developed as a possible global science-based target for biodiversity,
is currently calculated only for 3 taxonomic groups (mammals, birds and amphibians) that have
been the best evaluated globally. In addition, the IUCN threat data may not be comprehensive
(some missing) or are irrelevant to the Ethiopian context. Thus, the IUCN threat list may not be
considered as exhaustive and STAR results should be corroborated or validated by the national
analysis of the most representative national taxonomic groups and ecosystems. Therefore, in
addition to the documentary analysis, we undertook interviews with biodiversity experts (referred

18
to as “Expert-based Threat Assessment) to assess the impact of direct human threats on biological
targets, following Gudka (2020).
As there are few experts specialized in specific taxonomic group or ecosystem type, we decided
to ask each expert to assess threat impacts on each of the target biological taxonomic groups. Prior
to conducting formal expert-based interview, we first sent, via email, the questionnaire to 40
experts, where the assessors were asked to assess the relevance of the 12 level 2 and level 3 IUCN
global threat (sub) categories to Ethiopian context and to rank the impacts of each threat to each
of six major ecosystem types (i.e., wetland, forest, woodlands, grasslands, savannah and
shrublands); and six taxonomic groups (plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish). In
the meantime, we shared the questionnaire to IUCN national and regional staffs and presented our
assessment methodology to Ethiopia BIODEV2030 project technical committee meeting held at
EFCC on 13 August 2021. Based on literature review and useful feedback obtained from these
consultations, we refined the questionnaire prepared for the expert-based threat assessment, as well
as for non-expert-based threat assessment (see section 2.2.2.4). First, experts found it difficult to
understand the boundary of level-three threat subcategories. Second, it is time consuming to assess
the impacts of all three-level threats of five ecosystem components and five taxonomic groups,
which was found to deter experts from assessing or affect reliability of their assessment data. Third,
preliminary analysis of literature review on biodiversity threats in Ethiopia, we found that
agricultural activities (cultivation and livestock grazing) and logging to be the most severe and
widespread threats (IBC, 2009; EBI, 2014a; Asefa et al., 2015). Accordingly, we revised and sent
to expert assessors two separate questionnaires. The first assessment questionnaire is the revised
version the initial questionnaire, which was prepared by reducing threat level from level-three to
level 2 (which is lower in number, coarser scale, less complicated, easier to understand compared
with level 3), and by omitting ecosystem level assessment, as we thought (and also suggested by
experts) that few experts are available to do so (see Appendix 2). The second questionnaire was
intended to obtain detailed information on the types of agricultural activities (cultivation and
livestock grazing) and logging impacting biodiversity in Ethiopia (Appendix 3).
Both the expert-based questionnaires were accompanied by guidance instructions and shared via
e-mail with 40 biodiversity expert assessors. In this assessment, for each target taxon, assessors

19
are asked to 1) assess the relevance of the 12 level 2 IUCN global threats to the local Ethiopian
context and to rank each threat to each biodiversity taxonomic groups, 2) record existing local
threats if missing from the IUCN global threat list, and 3) remove irrelevant global-level threats
by assigning a ‘not applicable to Ethiopia’ label. Relevant threats were ranked on a scale of Low,
Medium, High, and Very High, based on ‘contribution’ and ‘irreversibility’. Here ‘contribution’
is the contribution from a particular threat to population declines and/or habitat degradation of a
target taxon, while ‘irreversibility’ was the difficulty of reversing those declines or degradation.
National biodiversity experts considered for the interviews were those with good experiences in
practical biodiversity conservation and/or research from academic institutions (e.g., Addis Ababa
University and Wondo Genet College of Forestry & Natural Resources) and non-academic
organizations working in the biodiversity, agriculture, investment, fisheries sectors. List of experts
and non-experts participated in the questionnaires surveys and their institutional affiliations are
provided in Appendix 4.
2.2.2.4 Analysis of Expert-based Threat Assessment Data
Each assessor ranked each source of threat (level 2 IUCN threat categories) for each of the six
target taxonomic groups as Very High, High, Medium or Low, based on a combination of the
Contribution ranking for the threat and the Irreversibility ranking for the threat. Thus, we combined
and summarized expert-based data to assess the impact of each threat to each taxon group.
We followed a three-step procedure to combine the data and assess the severiety of impact of each
threat to each taxon group. Firast, we recoded each assessor’s rank score given for each threat to
each taxon by assigning numerical score values as: Low = 1, Medium = 2, High = 3, Very High =
4. Second, we calculated the weighted average impact rank score of each threat to each target taxon
(see Box 3 on how to calculate this). Finally, we recoded back the average values to ordinal values
as follow: 0–1.5 = Low; 1.6–2.5 = Medium; 2.6–3.5 = High; and >3.5 = Very High (see Box 3)
and these ordinal average rank scores assigned to each cell of taxon group by threat matrix
In addition, we also examined how closer (consistent) were the expert-based rank scores of each
threat (summed across the six taxa group) and the STAR T scores calculated for each threat.

20
Specifically, for each of the 25 level 2 threat categories used in the STAR analysis, we calculated
sums of rank scores (that obtained for each taxon in step 2 above) across the six taxonomic groups
(see Box 3). Then, we run a rank-based correlation analysis on the summed (across the six
taxonomic group) average rank score values of the expert-based data estimated for each threat and
the STAR T score values of each threat across the 3 STAR taxa. Similarly, we also computed the
analysis between STAR T and STAR R components to see whether the threats with high STAR T
are also characterized by having high or low STAR R scores.
BOX 3. An example of how to combine assessors’ data for a single threat to a single taxon
Average score for each threat to each taxon was calculated using weighted severity score algorithm. For
example, out of the total number of 14 assessors who perceived that Housing and Urban areas impacts
amphibians, 4 assessors ranked Low, 3 Medium, 5 High and 2 Very High. The weighted average score for
the impact of Housing and Urban areas impacts amphibians was then equals to 1.64
[(4*1+3*2+5*3+2*4)/14]. Assuming that average values falling between 1.5 and 2.5 to be medium, this
average rank score (= 1.64) suggests that the impact of Housing and Urban areas on amphibians to be
Medium.
2.2.2.5. Non-expert-based Threat Assessment
To complement the expert-based survey, we developed a Simplified Threat Assessment Tool
(STAT) for Non-expert-based Threat Assessment. This approach does not require in-depth
knowledge of taxonomic groups thus making it more accessible to non-expert stakeholders from
government, private sector, and NGO (Gudka, 2020). This enabled a more inclusive threat
assessment process allowing a wider range of stakeholders to be involved. The STAT was shared
by email with 20 assessors from key government, private sector, and NGO stakeholders (which
included some IUCN members), out of which nine completed the assessment (see Appendices 4
& 5 for detail on the assessors consulted and tool, respectively).
In the Simplified Threat Assessment Tool, assessors were requested to list out threats (each expert
thinking on her/his own, without supporting material) they perceived as having impacts on
biodiversity (species and ecosystems) in Ethiopia and to indicate their top three (of their selection
of threats). Data from assessment were summarized and presented in graphs based on the

21
percentage frequency of each level 2 threats. The frequency was calculated as the number of times
assessors cited a specific threat.
Finally, to further validate findings of the assessment a questionnaire, containing four key
questions, was administered to participants of the ‘Validation Workshop” held in Addis Ababa on
28 January 2022 (Appendix 6). Participants of the workshop, most of whom were also involved in
the previous data generation, were representatives of biodiversity experts and non-experts
(government officials, NGOs representatives and experts of other fields like agriculture, economic,
etc) (Appendix 7). This assessment was done following presentation of and discussion on the key
findings of the assessment, whereby responses of particpants were immediately summarized and
disclosed to the workshop participants (respondents), in light of their convergence with findings
of the assessment presented by the consultants. Particpants remarks made during the workshop are
compiled, and along with participants’ selection of key economic sub-sectors are presnetd in
Appendix 8.
Given the COVID-19 outbreak that hit Ethiopia during the study, we were unable to include other
stakeholders, especially local communities, during this process as these groups would require a
face-to-face approach to engagement and do not have access to online communication platforms
due to limited computing and internet capacity.
3. Ethiopia’s Biodiversity Status and Trends
3.1. Scope of The Assessment
Ethiopia is a landlocked country situated in the Eastern Africa, between the 3° N and 15° N
Latitude or 33° E and 48° E Longitude. The country is bordered to the north by Eritrea, to the east
by Djibouti and Somalia, to the south by Kenya and to the west by South Sudan and Sudan.
Ethiopia occupies a total area of about 1,127,127 km2
, of which 1,119,683 and 7,444 km2
are dry
land and water body areas, respectively (EBI, 2014a). Following the adoption of the currently in
use constitution in 1993, the country follows a federalism governance system, with 11
administrative regional states and 2 city administrations delineated across the country (Figure 2).
Ethiopia has the second-largest human population in sub-Saharan Africa after Nigeria (EBI,

22
2014a), where more than 85% of the total estimated population of 120 million people lives in rural
areas and depends on natural resources for their livelihoods, economic development, and food
security (EBI, 2014a, b).
The geography of Ethiopia consists of high plateaus with the central mountain range divided by
Great Rift Valley. Ethiopia's landscape includes a large highland area of mountains and dissected
plateaus, divided by the Rift Valley, which runs northeast to southwest and is surrounded by
lowlands, steppes, or semi-desert. This large diversity of terrain has led to wide variations in
climate, soils and natural vegetation and thus to unique biodiversity and high endemism. The main
rainy season is from June to September and a smaller rainy season between February and April.
The global biodiversity significance of Ethiopia has been recognized through Conservation
International’s Biodiversity Hotspots. The country spans two Hotspots: the Horn of Africa and
the Ethiopian Highlands (which is included in the Eastern Afromontane Hotspot). The areas
included in the Hotspots covers the majority of the country, including the entire eastern area of
Ethiopia below 1,100m above sea level (asl) and all highland areas above 1,100m asl (Williams et
al., 2004).
The highlands of Ethiopia are the source of major perennial rivers. Ethiopia has several large lakes
such as Lake Tana – the source of the Blue Nile. There are hardly any perennial surface water
flows in areas below 1,500 m. Groundwater provides more than 90% of the water used for domestic
and industrial supply in Ethiopia, but a very small proportion of groundwater is used for irrigation.
Surface water resources supply most of the country’s electricity through hydropower. However,
the country has also suffered recurring devastating droughts. Forests play vital roles in ensuring
food security and sustainable livelihoods for millions of households throughout Ethiopia. Forest
biodiversity provides ecosystem services estimated at 4% to the GDP through the production of
honey, forest coffee, natural gums and timber. Forests also contribute to the economy even if it is
with non-marketed products for example through i) soil erosion control which reinforces water
infiltration in soils (that is crucial to reload groundwater reservoirs), ii) wood (energy) for
households iii) mitigating climate change through C sequestration, iv) recreational (cultural)
services for the people, etc.

23
Figure 2. Regional States of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (Source: EBI, 2014a).
3.2. Biodiversity Status and Trends – Ecosystem Approach
3.2.1. Realms, Ecoregions and Ecosystem Functional Groups
According to the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology v2 of Keith et al. (2020), the following
ecosystem types can be distinguished in Ethiopia in the three upper level ecosystem typologies: (i)
all realms, except marine realm, (i) four of the five Ecosystem Realms (Terrestrial, Subterranean,
Freshwater and atmosphere realms) – and three Transitional Realms (Terrestrial-Subterranean,
Terrestrial-Freshwater, and Subterranean-Freshwater Realms) –; (ii) 13 of the 25 biomes; and (iii)
49 of 108 EFGs (Table 2; see also Keith et al., 2020).

24
Table 2. Types of upper three IUCN Global ecosystem typologies (realms, biomes and Ecosystem Functional Groups
(EFGs)) identified in Ethiopia, following Keith et al. (2020).
REALM Biome EFGs
TERRESTRIAL
T1. Tropical-subtropical
forests
T1.1 Tropical-subtropical lowland rainforests
T1.2. Tropical-subtropical dry forests and thickets
T1.3. Tropical-subtropical montane rainforests
T1.4. Tropical heath forests
T3. Shrublands & shrubby
woodlands T3.4 Rocky pavements, screes and lava flows
T4. Savannas and grasslands
T4.1 Trophic savannas
T4.2 Pyric tussock savannas
T4.3 Hummock savannas
T5. Deserts and semi-deserts
T5.1 Semi-desert steppes
T5.2 Thorny deserts and semi-deserts
T5.3 Sclerophyll hot deserts and semi-deserts
T5.4 Cool deserts and semi-deserts
T5.5 Hyper-arid deserts
T6. Polar-alpine T6.5 Tropical alpine grasslands and shrublands
T7. Intensive land-use
systems
T7.1 Annual croplands
T7.3 Plantations
T7.4 Urban and industrial ecosystems
T7.5 Derived semi-natural pastures and oldfields
SUBTERRANEAN
S1 Subterranean lithic
systems
S1.1 Aerobic caves
S1.2 Endolithic systems
S2.1 Anthropogenic subterranean voids
SUBTERRANEAN-
FRESHWATER
SF1 Subterranean
freshwaters
SF1.1 Underground streams and pools
SF1.2 Groundwater ecosystems
SF2 Anthropogenic
subterranean freshwaters
SF2.1 Water pipes and subterranean canals
SF2.2 Flooded mines and other voids
TERRESTRIAL-
FRESHWATER-
TF1 Palustrine wetlands
TF1.1 Tropical flooded forests and peat forests
TF1.3 Permanent marshes
TF1.4 Seasonal floodplain marshes
TF1.5 Episodic arid floodplains
TF1.6 Boreal, temperate and montane peat bogs
FRESHWATER
F1 Rivers and streams
F1.1 Permanent upland streams
F1.2 Permanent lowland rivers
F1.4 Seasonal upland streams
F1.5 Seasonal lowland rivers
F1.6 Episodic arid rivers
F2 Lakes
F2.1 Large permanent freshwater lakes
F2.2 Small permanent freshwater lakes
F2.3 Seasonal freshwater lakes
F2.4 Freeze-thaw freshwater lakes
F2.5 Ephemeral freshwater lakes
F2.6 Permanent salt and soda lakes
F2.7 Ephemeral salt lakes
F2.8 Artesian springs and oases

25
F2.9 Geothermal pools and wetlands
F2.10 Subglacial lakes
F3 Artificial fresh waters
F3.1 Large reservoirs
F3.2 Constructed lacustrine wetlands
F3.3 Rice paddies
F3.5 Canals, ditches and drains
TOTAL 13 49
3.2.2. Sub-global Ecosystem Types in Ethiopia
Ethiopia spans two of the 34 global Hotspot biodiversity areas (i.e., high biodiversity and high
biodiversity threat levels): the Horn of Africa and the Ethiopian Highlands (part of the Eastern
Afromontane Hotspot) (Williams et al., 2004; Figure 3).
Figure 3. Eastern Afromontane (Ethiopian highlands) (left) and Horn of Africa (right) hotspot biodiversity areas
(Source: Williams et al., 2004).
Delineations and descriptions of ecosystem types in Ethiopia have been inconsistent; different
ecosystem organizational levels being used either interchangeably or mixed, two or more
ecosystem types are lumped or certain ecosystem types often missing (IBC, 2009, 2014). However,
vegetation types have been considered as ecosystem types in the country (see Figure 4),
corresponding to the lowest level (i.e., level 6) of the IUCN Global ecosystem typologies defined
by Keith et al., 2020). This ecosystem classification approach, which is based on resemblances in

26
biodiversity composition (e.g., plant species) and underlying environmental conditions and
ecological processes that shaped the ecosystem (vegetation) types (Friis and Demissiew, 2001;
IBC, 2009; Friis et al., 2010), has been adopted both in the National Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan (IBC, 2005; EBI, 2014a) and the Fifth National Biodiversity Report (EBI, 2014b).
In this section, with a slight modification of this nationally adopted ecosystem type classification
system, we describe 17 major ecosystem types present in Ethiopia: 14 terrestrial, 2 Terrestrial-
Freshwater and 1 Freshwater ecosystem types. Modifications to the traditional ecosystem
typologies in this report include splitting the “Afroalpine and Subalpine ecosystems” into
“Afroalpine belt” and “Ericaceous Forest” ecosystem types, following Friis et al. (2010). Our
justification for this is that these ecosystem types clearly support dissimilar fauna and flora
assemblages, and recent ecological studies of global and regional alpine ecosystem (e.g., Junior &
Clark, 2019) have treated “Alpine ecosystem” as only areas above the ericaceous belt. Further,
despite the ever-increasing trend of land use changes to agricultural lands and urbanization and
their impacts on biodiversity, there is growing evidence of the importance of biodiversity
conservation of these ecosystems globally (see Asefa et al., 2017a). Thus, we also introduce
human-modified ecosystems, “Agricultural ecosystems” and “Urban ecosystems”; both have been
missing from ecosystem descriptions in Ethiopia until very recently where they are covered in the
revised NBSAP 2015–2025 (see EBI, 2014b). Ethiopia’s long agrarian history has caused
alterations of natural habitats into human-dominated ecosystems, but also made the country
recognised as a centre of agro-biodiversity, designated as one of eight Vavilov Centres around the
world (IBC, 2009).

27
Figure 4. A map showing the distribution/locations of vegetation types of Ethiopia (Source: Friis
et al., 2010, Figure 13).
3.2.2.1 Terrestrial Realm
A. Natural Ecosystems
1. Afroalpine Moorlands Ecosystem
This ecosystem is found on the north-western and south-eastern mountain ranges usually at
elevation >3,200m asl. The Ethiopian highlands support the greatest proportion of Afroalpine
habitat (4,585km2
; 64%) in the continent Africa (Yalden, 1983). While the greatest proportion of
Afroalpine belt in Ethiopia is found in the Bale Mountain ranges (in the south-eastern highlands),
considerable areas are also found in the Simien mountains (north-western highlands) and Arsi
(south-eastern highlands) (Williams et al., 2004). This ecosystem is characterized by vegetation
with five distinctive lifeforms (Friis et al., 2010): giant rosette plants, tussock grasses (and sedges),
acquiescent rosette plants, cushion plants, and sclerophyllous shrubs (and dwarf-shrubs). As such,
vegetation of the Afroalpine belt is best described by a combination of the endemic Giant Lobelia
(Lobelia rhynchopetalum), cushion-forming species of Helichrysum spp. (e.g., Helichrysum
splendidum, H. cymosum, H. gofense, etc), herbaceous species of Alchemilla (Alchemilla

28
abyssinican, A. haumanni, A. fisherii, etc), and grass families of Poaeae, including the endemic
species of genera Festuca and Agrostis (IBC, 2009; Figure 5). According to Friis et al. (2010), 22
species of woody species have been recorded to occur in Afroalpine belt.
Afroalpine ecosystems in Ethiopia represent unique ecological islands and are important habitats
for several unique, endemic and/or threatened vertebrate species. For example, largest or entire
populations of many of the Ethiopian endemic wild mammals are found in this ecosystem, such as
Walia Ibex, Mountain Nyala, Starck’s Hare, Ethiopian Wolf, Gelada Baboon, and the Giant Mole
Rat and several rodent species (see section 3.3 for detail on the importance of Afroalpine
ecosystem for vertebrate conservation in Ethiopia). Similarly, 58 bird species are known to breed
in the Afroalpine ecosystem, including six Afroalpine specialist and 15 of the total 17 endemic
species, such as the Ankober serin (Crithagra ankoberensis) which occurs only in the northern
ranges of Ethiopia, Spot-breasted Lapwing, Blue-winged Goose and Black-headed Siskin (A.
Asefa, unpubl. data). Other important birds include Red-billed Chough, Wattled Crane, Bearded
Vulture and Golden Eagle. Ethiopia’s Afroalpine regions are also critical stopover and foraging
habitats for a significant proportion of sub-Saharan migrants from Eurasia, adding to their cross-
continental importance to global avifauna (Clouet et al., 2000; IBC, 2005; BMNP, 2017).
This ecosystem, along with the adjacent ericaceous belt, is the most critically important ecosystem
for millions of Ethiopians; it is the source of major rivers of Ethiopia on which people depend for
domestic use (drinking, cocking, and sanitation), irrigation and hydropower. In addition, many of
Ethiopia’s endemic and threatened fauna and flora species are restricted to this ecosystem (SMNP-
GMP, 2008; EBI, 2014a; BMNP-GMP, 2017). Consequently, this ecosystem is relatively well-
represented in the Ethiopian protected area system, including, among others, the Simien, Bale and
Arsi Mountains National Parks, and Guassa and Abune Yosef community conservation areas (EBI,
2014a). However, this ecosystem is found under increasing pressure arising from human
settlement and subsequent expansion of crop cultivation and livestock grazing (EBI, 2020; Table
3).

29
2. Ericaceous Belt Ecosystem
This ecosystem is found below the alpine belt on the north-western and south-eastern mountain
ranges between 3,000 and 3,200m asl. The characteristic woody species are Erica arboria and E.
trimera (Friis et al., 2010). They share most of the faunal species occurring in the Afroalpine
ecosystem, including the endemic Walia Ibex, Mountain Nyala, Starck’s Hare, Ethiopian Wolf
and Gelada Baboon, and birds such as the Black-headed Siskin and Ankober Serin. Similar to the
Afroalpine ecosystem, this ecosystem has been threatened from settlement, expansion of crop
cultivation, livestock grazing and fire burning (EBI, 2020; Table 3).
3. Montane Grassland Ecosystem
This ecosystem occurs in the areas where human activity has been largest and most intense for
several thousand years, at altitudes between 1,500 and 3,200m asl. Characteristic species of the
montane grassland ecosystems include species, including endemics, of the grasses Pennisetum,
Hyparrhenia, Cynodon, Eragrostis, Panicum, Cymbopogon, Chloris and Andropogon. Legumes
species, particularly Trifolium, sedges and rushes are also abundant plants in this ecosystem (IBC,
2009). Ground orchids make up an important component of the montane grassland biodiversity:
10 of the 45 species of Habenaria are endemic. Where soil conditions allow, woodland with an
open single-layered canopy or with isolated trees also occur in this ecosystem. Such woody plants
include Acacia abyssinica, Juniperus procera, Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata, Celtis africana
and Maesa lanceolata (IBC, 2005).
These ecosystems are those used for the traditional mixed farming of Ethiopia and are densely
inhabited by people. They are, therefore, highly disturbed. As a result, the mammalian wildlife
resource is extremely poor across most areas; but, at some areas it serves as a critical habitat for a
number of conservation significant species. For example, the montane grasslands (Gaysay Valley)
in the northern section of the Bale Mountains National Park supports over half of the entire global
population of the endangered endemic Mountain Nyala (BMNP-GMP, 2017). The ecosystem hosts
high diversity of grassland specialist bird species, including half of the 18 endemic species and 56
Afrotropical Highlands Biome species (IBC, 2005; Asefa et al., 2016). Despite its immense
biodiversity importance, this ecosystem has been experiencing considerable habitat degradation

30
and alterations due to agricultural expansion, overgrazing and over harvesting of selected species
(EBI, 2020).
Figure 5. Typical Afromalpine and ericaceous ecosystems ecosystems in Ethiopia.
4. Dry Evergreen Montane Forest and Evergreen Scrub Ecosystems
Dry evergreen montane forest ecosystem in Ethiopia is found throughout highlands and mountains
occurring at altitudinal ranges of 1,500 to 3,200m asl. This vegetation is characterized by Olea
europea subsp. cuspidata, Juniperus procera, Prunus africana, Celtis kraussiana, Euphorbia
ampliphylla, Dracaena spp. Carissa edulis, Euclea divinorum, Rosa abyssinca, Mimusops
kummel, Ekebergia capensis, etc. In moister areas, this vegetation type includes Podocarpus
falcatus and is associated with stands of highland Bamboo (Arundinaria alpina). The patches of
grassland are rich in species including many legumes. The most important grass genera are
Hyparrhenia, Eragrostis, Panicum, Sporobolus and Pennisetum while the most important
herbaceous legumes are species of Trifolium, Eriosema, Indigofera, Tephrosia and Crotalaria.
Climbers include Smilax aspera, Rubia cordifolia, Urera hypselodendron, Embelia schimperi,
Jasminum abyssinicum, various species in the Cucurbitaceae and other families that often are
associated with this element of the vegetation (EBI, 2009; Friis et al., 2010; EBI, 2014a,b).
Overall, a total of 460 woody plant species have been recorded from vegetation type, with 128
(27.8%) species not shared with other vegetation types, 102 (22.2%) shared with Riverine Forest

31
ecosystem and 89 (19.4%) with the montane moist forest ecosystems (Friis et al., 2010). This
ecosystem is a key habitat for a number of wildlife species, such as Mountain Nayala, Menelik’s
Bushbuck and Leopard and endemic bird species, such as the Yellow-fronted Parrot, Prince
Ruspoli’s Turaco, Abyssinian Catbird, White-backed Black Tit and Abyssinian Woodpecker
(EWNHS, 2001).
The dry evergreen montane forests are under severe pressure and threat of destruction caused by
deforestation for wood products (especially fuel wood extraction), fire, encroaching agriculture
and overgrazing. In most areas, these threats have resulted to reduce coverage and being replaced
by bushland and scrub (IBC, 2005; Table 3).
5. Moist Montane Forest Ecosystems
The montane moist forest ecosystems comprise the highland forests of the country. They are found
on the south-western highlands – within an altitudinal range between 800 to 2,500m asl – and in
the south-eastern highlands, including the Harenna forest in the southern slope of the Bale
Mountains – within an altitudinal range of between 1,450 to 2,700m asl (Friis et al., 2010). This
ecosystem is richer in woody species diversity; about 160 and 200 vascular plant species have been
recorded from the south-western forests and the south-eastern plateau forests, respectively (Friis
et al., 2010). Characteristic tree species in the upper canopy at relatively lower elevations include
Pouteria adolfi-friedericii, Podocarpus falcatus (in the Bale Mountains), Olea capensis, Prunus
africana, Albizia schimperiana, Milletia ferruginea and Celtis africana, and at higher elevations
include Polyscias fulva, Schefflera volkensii, S. abyssinica, Allophyllus abyssinicus and Dombeya
torrida. Sub-canopy species include, among others, Croton macrostachyus, Cordia africana,
Dracena steudneri, Syzygium guineense subsp. afromontanum, Sapium ellipticum, Ilex
mitisRothmannia urcelliformis and the tree fern, Cyathea manniana. The shrub layer consists of
species such as Coffea arabica, Galiniera saxifraga, Teclea nobilis, Ocotea kenyensis, Clausena
anisata, Maesa lanceolata and Maytenus spp. Epiphytes include many species of orchids, the
endemic Scadoxus nutans, Peperomia spp., ferns and fern allies such as Lycopodium. The ground
vegetation is mainly made up of herbaceous plants including species of Acanthus, Justicia,
Impatiens and some grass and sedge species (IBC, 2005,, 2009).

32
This ecosystem supports diverse and many endemic and/or threatened species of larger mammals
including, among others, unique forest populations of savannah species such as Lion and Wild
Dog (in the Bale Mountains), Bale Monkey, Leopard, Common Jackal, Bush Pig and Giant Forest
Hog (Williams et al., 2004; BMNP-GMP, 2017). Two regions encompassed within this ecosystem
(Bale Mountains and SW highland forests) are recognized as centres of diversity and endemism
and speciation of smaller mammals (rodents and shrews) (Lavrenchenko and Bekele, 2017;
Lavrenchenko et al., 2017) and amphibians (Largan & Spawls, 2011; Mengistu et al., 2011, 2013).
This ecosystem also supports most of forest-specialist and conservation concern (highland biome,
endemic, range-restricted, globally threatened) species of birds occurring in the country (EWNHS,
2001).
Although they are included under some types of protected area categories (Natural Forest Priority
Areas, Biosphere Reserve, National Parks, etc), such initiatives have been less effective in
protecting the ecosystem. Timber extraction, coffee and tea plantations, agricultural expansion,
human settlement and fire hazards are the most direct human activities threatening the forests (EBI,
2014; Table 3).
6. Transitional Rainforest
These forest ecosystems are known from the western escarpment of the Ethiopian highlands at
altitudes between 450 and 1500m, where the rainfall (between 2000 to 2700 mm per year) and
hence humidity from the rainbearing south-westerly winds is highest (Friis et al., 2010). The
transitional rain forests are most similar in physiognomy and composition to the Moist
Afromontane forests. A total of 101 species of woody plants have been recorded to occur in the
Transitional rain forest, of which 47 (47% of the total) only recorded from this vegetation type.
Characteristic species in the canopy layer includes Manilkara butugi, Aningeria altissima,
Pouteria alnifolia, Anthocleista schweinfurthii, Antiaristoxicaria, Ficusmucuso, F. exasperata,
Milicia excelsa, Morns mesozygia, Trilepisium madagascariense, Croton sylvaticus, Celtis toka,
C. zenkeri, C. gomphophylla, Diospyros abyssinica, Zanthoxylum leprieurii, Albizia schimperiana,
and A. grandibracteata. From the lower strata of small trees or large shrubs include Celtis
philippensis, Dracaena fragrans, Eugenia bukobensis, Metarungia pubinervia, and Rinorea friisii.

33
Liana such as Urera trinervis and Ventilago diffusa and drought-resistant epiphyte ferns, such as
Phymatosoruss colopendria, Microsorum punctatum and Platycerium elephantotis are also
characteristic of this forest type (see Friis et al., 2010).
The forests are highly threatened because of the high value of the timber from these tree species.
In addition, the areas covered by these forests are highly suitable for development as coffee- and
tea-plantations. Also, the increasing population of the area, resulting in more shifting cultivation
and burning of the big trees, presents major problems for the preservation of this vegetation type
in south-western Ethiopia (Table 3).
7. Acacia-Commiphora Woodland Ecosystem
This ecosystem occurs between 900 and 1,900m asl in the south-eastern dry lowland and in the
Rift Valley regions of the country. It is characterized by drought resistant tree and shrub species
with small leaves and which are usually deciduous. A total of 565 species have been recorded to
occur in this vegetation type (ecosystem), with over half of the total only been being recorded from
this vegetation type (Friis et al., 2010; EBI, 2014). This ecosystem is characterized by woody
species of Acacia senegal, A. seyal, A. tortilis, Balanites aegyptiaca, Commiphora africana, C.
boranensis, C. cilliata, C. monoica and C. serrulata. The ground layer is rich in Acalypha,
Barleria, Aerva, Aloe and grass species. The characteristic mammals include the critically
endangered African Wild Ass and the endangered Grevy’s Zebra (IUCN, 2020). Key bird species
inhabiting this ecosystem include White-tailed Swallow, Stresemann’s Bush Crow, Salvadori's
Seedeater and Yellow-throated Seedeater, all of which are globally threatened (EWNHS, 2001;
EBI, 2014a; IUCN, 2020; BirdLife International, 2021).
Most of the National parks of the country are found in this ecosystem. However, extraction of
firewood and charcoal, expansion of agriculture, wide spreading invasion of exotic species such
as Prosopis juliflora and bush encroachment of indigenous species and fire are the major threats
to these ecosystems.
8. Combretum-Terminalia Woodland Ecosystem

34
This ecosystem occurs between 500 and 1,900m asl along the western escarpment of the Ethiopian
highlands. It is characterized by small to moderate-sized tree species with broad leaves, often
deciduous, such as Boswellia papyrifera, Anogeissus leiocarpa, Stereospermum kunthianum and
species of Terminalia, Combretum and Lannea. There are extensive stands of the lowland bamboo,
Oxytenanthera abyssinica, in the valleys. The vegetation in this ecosystem has developed under
the influence of fire and many of the trees have thick corky bark while the herbs are generally
geophytes. The most notable endemic mammal found in the ecosystem is Swaynes’ Hartebeest.
The characteristic birds include Red-Red-billed Pytilia, Green-backed Eremomela, Bush Petronia
and Black-rumped Waxbill.
Overall, a total of 199 woody plant species are known from this ecosystem, of which 81 (40.7%
of the total) have only been recorded from this vegetation type (Friis et al., 2010). Indiscriminate
fire, settlement/resettlement of refugees and people from the highlands, overgrazing by domestic
livestock and inappropriate agricultural investment practices are the major threats to this
ecosystem.
9. Woodland of the Western Gambella region
The Wooded Grassland of the Western Gambella Region (WGG) has been defined by the Global
Lakes and Wetlands Database (GLWD) as “Freshwater Marsh and Floodplains”. This, a lowland
semi-evergreen forest ecosystem, is restricted to the lowlands of the eastern Gambella Region in
Abobo and Gog (Gok) districts. The area where the ecosystem occurs is characterized by well-
drained sandy soils with an altitudinal range of 450 to 800m asl. The area has a mean annual
temperature of 35 to 38°C and an annual rainfall range of 1,300 to 1,800 mm (Friis, 1992; Friis et
al., 2010). The characteristic species of this forest are Baphia abyssinica and Tapura fischeri (Friis,
1992). The common species in the upper canopy layer include Celtis gomphophylla, Celtis toka,
Lecaniodiscus fraxinifolius, Zanha golungensis, Trichilia prieureana, Alistonia boonei, Antiaris
toxicaria, Malacantha alnifolia, Zanthoxylum lepreurii, Diospyros abyssinica, Milicia excelsa,
Baphia abyssinica, Vepris dainellii and Celtis zenkeri. The middle canopy layer is dominated by
Acalyphla neptunica, Erythroxylum fischeri, Tapura fischeri, Ziziphus pubescens and Xylopia
parviflora (Friis, 1992). Species such as Whitfieldia elongata, Argomuellera macrophylla,

35
Alchornea laxiflora, Mimulopsis solmsii, Oncoba spinosa, Oxyanthus speciosus and Rinorea
ilicifolia are characteristics of the shrub layer (Friis, 1992; IBC, 2009; Friis et al., 2010).
Shifting cultivation through land clearing commonly performed through slash and burn has
contributed a lot to the depletion of this forest. Recent development has brought in dam and road
construction, various settlements and state farms along with extractions of fuel wood, all of which
have contributed a lot towards the shrinkage of this unique forest ecosystem (IBC, 2005, 2009;
EBI, 2014a, b).
10. Desert and Semi-desert Scrubland Ecosystems
This vegetation type occurs below 400m asl in the north-eastern (including the Danakil
depression), the Ogaden (south-eastern), around Lake Chew Bahir and the delta of the Omo river
in in the southern parts of Ethiopia. It is characterized by scarce plant cover and by the presence
of small trees, shrubs and herbs, which may be succulent, geophytic or annual. At least, 131 woody
species have been recorded from this ecosystem type, including 10 (7.6% of the total) species
unique to this vegetation type (Friis et al., 2010). The characteristic species of trees and shrubs
include Acacia ehrenbergiana, Boswellia ogadensis, Commiphora erosa, C. longipedicellata,
Gyrocarpus hababensis, Cadaba barbigera, C. divaricata, and Ziziphus hamur. Characteristic
succulents include Euphorbia doloensis (endemic), E. ogadenensis, E. quadrispina and Aloe
citrina. Drought-tolerant annual grass species of family Poaceae include Dactyloctenium
aegyptium, and perennials, such as Panicum turgidum (Friis et al., 2010). This ecosystem is a core
habitat for critically endangered Wild Ass in Ethiopia (IUCN, 2020).
Due to external influences, such as human and animal trampling around watering points, the land
can locally be completely devoid of vegetation and at times also the ground may naturally be bare,
because the species are annual or geophytic. The soils are often alluvial, associated with the basins
of rivers such as Awash and Wabi Shebele, but may also be derived from basaltic rocks, lava flows
and limestone slopes, for example in the north-eastern parts of the Afar region.

36
Table 3. A summary of threats to each natural ecosystem type.
Ecosystem type Major threats
Afroalpine Moorlands Ecosystem Grazing, settlement, agriculture
Ericaceous Belt Ecosystem Grazing, settlement, agriculture, fire
Montane Grassland Ecosystem Grazing, settlement, agriculture
Dry Evergreen Montane Forest and Evergreen
Scrub Ecosystems
Deforestation for wood products (especially fuel wood extraction), fire, encroaching agriculture and
overgrazing
Moist Montane Forest Ecosystems Timber extraction, coffee and tea plantations, agricultural expansion, human settlement and fire hazards
Transitional Rainforest Logging, coffee- and tea-plantations, shifting cultivation and burning of the big trees
Acacia-Commiphora Woodland Ecosystem
Extraction of firewood and charcoal, expansion of agriculture, wide spreading invasion of exotic species
such as Prosopis juliflora and bush encroachment of indigenous species and fire
Combretum-Terminalia Woodland Ecosystem
Fire, settlement/resettlement of refugees, overgrazing by domestic livestock and inappropriate
agricultural investment practices
Wooded Grassland of the Western Gambella
region
Shifting cultivation, dam and road construction, settlements and state farms, extractions of fuel wood
Desert and Semi-desert Scrubland Ecosystems Livestock grazing/browsing
Riparian Vegetation Ecosystem Cultivation, logging and livestock grazing/browsing
Wetland Ecosystem Cultivation, logging and livestock grazing/browsing, pollution, overharvesting resources
Aquatic Ecosystem
Cultivation, logging and livestock grazing/browsing, urbanization, overharvesting, invasive species,
pollution

37
B. Human-shaped Ecosystems
Human-shaped ecosystems include agricultural and urban ecosystems. Agriculture (crop
cultivation and livestock husbandry) is the dominant land use type and the major economic activity
contributing to GDP of Ethiopia. In 2019, agricultural land in Ethiopia was estimated at 381,391
km2
(33.6% of land area of the country), which is a 10.8% increase from that in 2006 or an average
annual increase of over 0.8% (Table 4). In Ethiopia, agricultural lands comprise of croplands
(arable land – land under seasonal crops – and land under permanent crops), permanent meadows
and pasture lands and non-crop plantations (FAO, 2021; Table 4). These are briefly described as
follow.
11. Annual & Perennial Non-timber Crops
Crop cultivation is the dominant land use type and the major economic activity contributing to
GDP of Ethiopia. In 2019, agricultural land in Ethiopia was estimated at 381,391 km2
(33.6% of
land area of the country), which was a 10.8% increase from that in 2006 or an average annual
increase of over 0.8% (Table 4). These data also indicate that net forest change between the two
periods was a net reduction of 9,537.6 km2
, with natural forest showing a decline of 15,336.9 km2
(8.5%) and plantation forest almost doubled (an increase of 5,799.3 km2
) (Table 4). Assuming that
the major cause of reduction in the extent of natural forest were agricultural land and plantation,
then out of the 37,128.6 km2
increase in agricultural land between the two periods, 9.537.6 km2
was likely due to conversion of natural forest to crop land. The remaining 27,591 km2
agricultural
land might be conversion of other not arable lands (e.g., hilly slopes, wetlands, etc).
Table 4. Extent of areas (in km2
) of major agricultural related land use/cover in Ethiopia in year 2006 and 2019 and
change in extent of coverage between the two periods (calculated as: area in year 2019 - area in year 2006) and
percentage change [computed as: ((area in year 2019 – area in year 2006)/area in 2006)*100], divided by area in
2006). Total land area of Ethiopia 1,135,429 km2
. Values in bracket are percentages.
Land use/cover Year: 2006 Year: 2019 Extent of
Change
%
change
Forest area (% of land area) 182,009.3 (16.0) 172,471.7 (15.2) -9538 -5.2
Planted Forest (% forest land) 5,842.5 (3.2) 11,641.8 (6.4) 5799 99.3
Other naturally regenerated forest (% forest
land)
176,166.8 (96.8) 160,829.9 (93.3) -15337 -8.7
Agricultural land (% of land area) 344,262.1 (30.3) 381,390.7 (33.6) 37129 10.8

38
Cropland (% of Agricultural land) 143,064.1 (41.6) 180,079.1 (47.2) 37015 25.9
Arable land (% of cropland) 134,778.6 (94.2) 162,892 (90.5) 28113 20.9
Land under permanent crops (% of cropland) 8,296.7 (6.2) 17,277.0 (10.6) 8980 108.2
Land under permanent meadows and pastures
(% of Agricultural land)
201,198.1 (58.4) 201,198.1 (52.8) 0 0.0
Source: FAOSTAT. 2021. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/EL [accessed 27 august 2021].
The Ethiopian government’s plan to transform Ethiopia from an agriculture-based economy into a
manufacturing hub is assumed to hinge on greater agricultural-sector productivity and improved
transport and energy infrastructure2
. As such, the broad-based average annual growth economic
9.9% a year from 2007 to 2018 Ethiopia experienced has been largely driven by high levels (over
50%) of general government’s expenditure allocated and public and private-sector investment in
the agricultural sector such as coffee, oilseeds, pulses, fruits and vegetables, honey, cut flowers,
tea, spices, fruits, sugarcane and cotton production Boere et al., 2016; Zewdie et al., 2021).
The major field crops grown in Ethiopia are classified in four groups: cereals, pulses, oil seeds,
stimulant and industrial crops. The widely cultivated cereal species are teff (Eragrostis tef), barley
(Hordeum vulgare), Emmer and other wheat species (Triticum spp), sorghum (Sorghum biocolor),
finger millet (Eleusine coracana), maize (Zea mays), rice (Oryza sativa), oat (Avena sativa), and
pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum). Pulse species include Faba bean (Vicia faba), Field pea (Pisum
sativum), chickpea (Cicer arientinum), lentil (Lens culinaris), haricot bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)
and grasspea (Lathyrus sativus). The major oil seed species in terms of production are Brassica
spp., niger seed (Guizotia abyssinica), linseed (Linum ustitatissimum), sesame (Sesamum
indicum), safflower (Carthamus tinctorius), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), crambe (Crambe
abyssinica) and groundnut (Arachis hypogea)3
. Coffee, tea and khat are the major stimulant cash
crops both for domestic and international trades.
Coffee and oily seeds are the main export crops in Ethiopia. For example, in 2018, Ethiopia has
exported 836 Mt Coffee, making it the 11th largest exporter of Coffee in the world (USDA, 2020a).
In the same year, Ethiopia also exported 363Mt of other Oily Seeds, making it the 3rd largest
2
FAOSTAT. 2021. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/EL [accessed 27 august 2021].
3
FAOSTAT. 2021.

39
exporter of Other Oily Seeds in the world. The three major oilseed crops (sesame, soybean, and
Niger seed) together contribute to nearly 15% of Ethiopia’s total agricultural export earnings,
second only to coffee (USDA, 2020b).
12. Permanent Meadows and Pasture Lands
Permanent meadows and pasture lands are one of the two major types of agricultural land uses in
Ethiopia, representing over half (201,198 km2
) of the total area of land under agricultural uses
(FAO, 2021; Table 4). In Ethiopia, livestock grazing takes place virtually across all ecosystems,
but meadow and pasture lands provide permanent grazing areas for domestic animals. This
ecosystem is characterized by natural grasslands under permanent grazing by domestic animals
and/or used for harvesting the grass; arable land abandoned for more than 3 years, being in the
process of succession by herbaceous vegetation; drained wetlands/peatlands converted to pasture;
pastures with scattered trees and shrubs, with woody vegetation covering <30% of the ground.
Although the conservation values of this ecosystem is not fully understood in Ethiopia, some
studies show that meadows and pasturelands support many conservation dependent (globally
threatened and/or endemic), grassland-specialist bird species, such as the near threatened, endemic
Abyssinian Long-claw and Rouget’s Rail, and the critically endangered White-winged fluftail and
Liban Lark (EWNHS, 2001).
13. Plantation Forests
Plantation forestry practices in the county comprise of three major forms: industrial plantation
(19.6% of the total plantation forest area), peri-urban energy forestry (77.7%) and small-scale
plantations (2.7%) (Limenih and Kassa, 2011). Current estimated total area of plantation forests
in Ethiopia is about 11,642 km2
, representing about 5% of the total forest land of the country (FAO,
2021; Table 4). As shown on Table 4, area covered by plantation forests in Ethiopia has been
increasing at an average annual rate of 6% since 2006. A limited number of species from four
genera (Eucalyptus, Cuppressus, Pinus and Acacia) account for the majority of plantation forests
in Ethiopia. Eucalyptus, with E. globulus and E. camaldulensis being the most widespread species
of the genus, covers more than 90% of the total planted forest area in Ethiopia (Limenih and Kassa,
2011).

40
Plantation forests are dominant in four regional states of Ethiopia: Amhara, Southern Nations,
Nationalities and Peoples, Tigray and Oromia regions (Lemenih and Kassa, 2014). Plantation
forestry practices in the county comprise of three forms: industrial plantation (19.6% of the total
plantation forest area), peri-urban energy forestry (77.7%) and small-scale plantations (2.7%)
(Limenih and Kassa, 2011). The former two are mainly government-driven, while the third is
undertaken principally by farming households. In some cases, industrial plantations are established
on degraded forest lands bordering remnant natural forests such as Munessa Shashamane and
Belete Gera forests (Lemenih and Kassa, 2014). These plantations have dual objectives of
providing round industrial wood and reducing pressure on natural forests.
14. Urban Ecosystem
Urbanization is becoming the fastest growing rate of land use amongst many other land use types
in developing countries, like Ethiopia, due to high influx of rural communities to local towns and
cities coupled to industrialization and technology advancement (Woldesemayat and Genovese,
2021). Expansion of urban areas in Ethiopia often takes place in the expense of natural ecosystems
(Coppel and Wüstemann, 2017; Pramanik and Punia, 2019), but there are some government-led
initiatives (e.g., urban greenery projects, such as creation of public parks, home garden tree
planting and riverside development projects) that may serve to off-set potential impacts on
biodiversity of urban expansion. Here, we propose that urban environments to be considered as
one ecosystem type of human-shaped ecosystems and be treated in any relevant national and local
biodiversity conservation programmes.
Although our current knowledge and understanding about land use patterns and their values for
biodiversity conservation in urban environments of Ethiopia is limited, the major components of
urban ecosystems in Ethiopia that are relevant to biodiversity conservation are public parks,
riverside (semi)-natural vegetation, street side tree/shrub plantations, home gardens and office
gardens (e.g., embassies). For example, Urban Green Space in the city of Addis Ababa covers 97
km2
(19% of the total 520 km2
are of the city) (Woldesemayat and Genovese, 2021). These green
spaces include vegetation in the residence landscape structure, commercial landscape, municipal
services (e.g., abattoirs, fire and emergency services, green centres, cultural and civic centres,
centres, and festival sites and plaza functions), social services (e.g., built-up areas commonly used

41
for healthcare, stadiums, social care centres, district sports fields, research centres, education, and
civic services), transport areas (bus freight terminals, bus depots, surface parking, parking
buildings and linear features such as roads), and administration premises (federal institutions, city
institutions, sub-city and district administration, as well as international organizations such as
embassy compounds) (Woldesenber and Genovese, 2021). The conservation values of urban
ecosystems in Ethiopia should be studied and integrated in all urban development plans.
3.2.2.2 Terrestrial-Freshwater Realm
15. Riparian Vegetation Ecosystem
Riverine ecosystem has been defined as vegetation found along perennial and non-perennial rivers.
As such, they are neither terrestrial nor freshwater realms in the strict sense; rather represent an
interface between these realms. Width of areas along the rivers covered by Riparian Vegetation
varies considerably depending on topography and edaphic conditions, but typically is narrow
stripes of 20-50m wide (IBC, 2005; Friis et al., 2010). They occur across elevation ranges as a
matrix within other ecosystem types, wherever water is available, and the soil and other
environmental variables conditions allow their growth. However, the vegetation along rivers at
altitudes above 1800m is mostly similar to that of the forests of similar altitudes (Moist or Dry
Afromontane Forests). Thus, characteristic Riparian ecosystems are found below 1800m altitude,
especially conspicuous even at non-vegetated areas (Friis et al., 2010).
The fact that it occurs embedded within other ecosystem types mean that Riparian Vegetation
ecosystem is not only highly variable in vegetation structure, density and floristic composition, but
also contains high species diversity but low unique species (Friis et al., 2010). About 242 species
of woody plants are known to occur in this Riverine vegetation; of these only 64 (26.5% of the
total) have only been recorded from this vegetation type. This vegetation type consists of taller
tree forests and woodlands, with typical woody species including Diospyros mespiliformis,
Syzygium guineense, Tamarindus indica, Hyphaene thebaica and Phoenix reclinata (Friis et al.,
2010).

Ethiopia National Biodiversity Threat Assessment

Ethiopia National Biodiversity Threat Assessment

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Ethiopia National Biodiversity Threat Assessment

Similar to Ethiopia National Biodiversity Threat Assessment (20)

More from Abraham Lebeza

More from Abraham Lebeza (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ethiopia National Biodiversity Threat Assessment