Content uploaded by Michael Jungmeier
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael Jungmeier on Feb 22, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
The relocation of the village of Arkwasiye in the Simien Mountain National Park in Ethio-
pia: an intervention towards sustainable development?
Tiru Berihun Tessema, Michael Jungmeier & Michael Huber
Keywords: National Park, World Heritage, Ethiopia, relocation, protected area management, development co-operation, UNESCO
Profile
Protected Area
Simien Mountain National Park
Mountain range
Simien Mountains
Country
Ethiopia
Abstract
The study analyses the effects of the relocation of the village Arkwasiye in the Simien
Mountains National Park, a most spectacular landscape in the northern highlands of
Ethiopia. The relocation was deemed necessary as just one component in a bundle
of measures proposed by the UNESCO World Heritage Commission. In 2007 some
165 households were relocated voluntarily to the new village of Kayit. The socio-eco-
nomic effects of the relocation were evaluated by carrying out on-site interviews with
the residents. The results indicate that the relocated villagers are satisfied with the
new infrastructures and social services. However, relocation has also brought certain
disadvantages with far-reaching consequences for the everyday life of the villagers,
and thus their livelihoods, as these have led to a considerable loss of earning oppor-
tunities and – against the aims of the relocation – to intensified grazing in the area.
The authors discuss these results in the light of a recent global discussion on relocation
for conservation purposes and come up with five recommendations. Close monitor-
ing of key parameters is seen as a minimum requirement for such an undertaking.
13
Research eco.mont - Volume 4, Number 2, December 2012
ISSN 2073-106X print version
ISSN 2073-1558 online version: http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/eco.mont
Introduction
If the management of protected areas is to be re-
garded as a continuous process of regional intervention, par-
ticipation and change management (Jungmeier et al. 2010),
the park authorities have to be permanently in charge
of initiating, promoting, communicating and fostering
processes designed to bring about the required chang-
es. Most activities focus on adapting land-use regimes
and resource policies in a park or its adjacent areas.
Other than diversied strategies and tools, the reset-
tlement of residents is a radical measure and there-
fore highly controversial. Global estimates range from
900 000 to 14.4 million persons that have become –
whether voluntarily or not – displaced for conserva-
tion purposes (Geisler 2003, cited in UNEP 2008).
The provocative and drastic description of conservation
refugees (Dowie 2009) has shocked conservationists all
around the world. Are conservationists sacricing hu-
man welfare and well-being for the sake of what can
be termed imperial conservation, as Dowie (2009) argues,
or can relocation – under particular circumstances and
assumptions – be a reasonable measure to improve
land uses and the livelihoods of people? Or is relo-
cation generally just another brick in the wall of the
dilemma between biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction
(Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau 2003)?
The case study of Arkwasiye (Ethiopia), as present-
ed in this paper, should be regarded as a small contri-
bution to a global discussion of inherent importance
(Cernea 2006, 2007; Coad et al. 2008; Lasgorceix &
Kothari 2009; Roe et al. 2003; Redford & Fearn 2007;
Schmidt-Soltau 2005; www.displacement.net).
Arkwasiye was a settlement of some 165 households
in the Simien Mountains National Park (SMNP, Ethio-
pia, see map: Figure 2), a most striking landscape with
outstanding biodiversity assets (Keiner 2001; Hurni &
Ludi 2000). After discussions and once compensation
schemes had been agreed, the inhabitants moved to
the newly built village of Kayit, some two kilometres
away as the crow ies. In the year 2000, a fact-nd-
ing mission led by national and international experts
had proposed a realignment of park boundaries and
the relocation of four villages (Gich, Islam Debir,
Adarmaz, Muchila) from within the SMNP (Debon-
net et al. 2006). A Joint WHC-IUCN reactive moni-
Figure 1 – Typical landscape of the northern Ethiopian highlands: the Simien Mountains.
© M. Jungmeier
14 Research
toring mission in 2006 (Debonnet et al. 2006) recom-
mended the Arkwasiye village should be relocated where it
would no longer block the critical wildlife corridor. As indi-
cated in Figure 2, the village was a problematic barrier
for the intended and most relevant expansion of the
park to the east. The report explicitly calls the village
of Arkwasiye illegal (p. 19) and considers that the mis-
sion team was also informed that a win-win solution had nally
been found for the problem of the Arkwasiye village (p. 11). In
2009, after the relocation had been completed, a joint
mission by UNESCO and IUCN recognized consider-
able progress … in restoring and enhancing the Outstanding
Universal Values (OUVs) for which the park was inscribed
in 1978 and in particular noted the relocation of Ark-
wasiye as a signicant achievement which creates opportuni-
ties for the wildlife whilst improving the livelihoods of those who
were relocated (UNESCO / IUCN 2009). The relocation
was executed by the local national park administra-
tion with nancial and technical support given by the
Austrian Development Agency (ADA). The institu-
tions involved seem to bear testimony to a cautious
and thoughtful process. However, the relocation was
to be evaluated some three years later in the context of
a master thesis at Klagenfurt University (Tiru 2011).
Research questions and methods
Given that relocation is a highly sensitive matter, the
authors do not intend to initiate an ethical or political
discussion. The focus of the case study is strictly on
the impacts of this relocation. The study focuses on
the following research questions:
- The economic dimension: is there any evidence to
show in what way relocation has had any effects on
the economic situation of the inhabitants and the
households of former Arkwasiye, now Kayit?
- The social dimension: how do the village residents
perceive and evaluate the changes in their personal,
i.e. individual everyday life and community life?
- The ecological dimension: does the relocation have
any effects on the ecological situation, the land uses
and the endangered wildlife?
Figure 2 – Map of the project area, E.C.O. 2012.
15
Tiru Berihun Tessema, Michael Jungmeier & Michael Huber
The ndings presented in this paper are based on
quantitative and qualitative interviews and workshops.
There were numerous face-to-face interviews with lo-
cal residents, representatives of the local communities,
the park management and regional as well as local ad-
ministrations (Tiru 2011).
Of 165 former Arkwasiye households, members of
64 households were interviewed, i.e. 39% of the total
number of households. A breakdown of the sample
of interviewees in terms of gender, age, household
size, education and years spent in Arkwasiye is pre-
sented in Figure 3. There was not a single refusal to
be interviewed and thus the response rate was 100%.
In addition to the interviews, materials and literature
were assessed and used for a plausibility check. Partic-
ular attention was given to feedback loops with those
responsible for the management of the park. To gain
an overview of the ecological situation after Arkwasi-
ye was relocated, the old location was visited, together
with different stakeholders and experts, to evaluate the
ecological dimension (Tiru 2011).
Finally, at this point, a semantic aspect must be
emphasized: A large number of words signify the physical
dispossession of peoples from their lands: displacement, dis-
location, eviction, exclusion and involuntary resettlement are
routinely used (Redford & Fearn 2007). We prefer the
term relocation because it is used in ofcial documents
(e.g. Debonnet at al. 2006; UNESCO / IUCN 2009)
and does not seem to have an ideological connotation.
Also the spelling of toponyms and species is in ac-
cordance with the two said documents.
Relocation – background and process
Simien Mountains National Park (SMNP) is a prom-
inent example of the Ethiopian national parks. Locat-
ed in the North Gondar Zone of the Amhara Region,
its territory covers the Simien Mountains and includes
Ras Dashen (4 430 m), the highest point in Ethio-
pia. The park was established in 1969 and, alongside
Awash NP in Oromia, it is one of only two gazetted
national parks in the country. USAID (2008) considers
that the conservation of Ethiopia’s biodiversity is an issue of
global importance … Threats to Ethiopia’s biodiversity, tropical
forests, and resource base can be broadly linked to the following
categories: limited governmental, institutional, and legal capac-
ity; population growth; land degradation; weak management
of protected areas. Conservation International includes
the Eastern Afromontane Biome, as represented by
SMNP, in the list of the most endangered terrestrial
ecoregions (Mittermaier et al. 2004). SMNP represents
the typical situation of the developing country where
a threat to … biodiversity is serious and urgent action in policy
and on the ground implementation is required (Institute of
Biodiversity Conservation 2009; see also ÖBF 2009).
Hurni & Ludi (2000) describe the SMNP as a rep-
resentative landscape of the northern Ethiopian high-
lands, characterized by topographic ruggedness with steep
escarpments – and with breath-taking beauty ... [it] has a rich
natural biodiversity with altitudinal successions of fauna and
ora and many endemic species of which the Walia ibex has
become a national symbol. In their comprehensive mono-
graph, Hurni & Ludi (2000) provide an overview of
SMNP and the development options of the region
and its villages. However, over the past few years, fur-
ther research has added to the picture of an area of
outstanding importance for biodiversity (e.g. Puff &
Nemomissa 2005).
On account of its Outstanding Universal Values,
the park was recognized as a World Heritage Site in
1978 by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. As
a late consequence of the civil war in the 1980s, which
had led to the destruction of the infrastructure of the
park, and thus, presumably, to a reduction in the num-
ber of Walia ibex, the site was included in 1996 in the
List of World Heritage Sites in danger. The authorities
responsible for the administration of the park were
required to reorganize the management, as well as
the park itself, to achieve the ofcial removal of the
park from the list of endangered sites. Debonnet et
al. (2006) remark that there are no accurate estimates on how
many people were included in the park at its creation in 1969.
However it is clear that substantially more than half of the
extent of the park was under human use at the time of inscrip-
tion. In 1979 … 7 villages were relocated from the northern
slopes of the escarpment. This forced resettlement resulted in
tensions between the local communities and the park manage-
ment authorities. However, the human impact on SMNP
remained high. Consequently, based on diverse initia-
tives, the boundaries of the park were to be re-aligned
to exclude villages and intensively used areas and to
integrate ecologically valuable areas. The village of
Arkwasiye happened to be located on a wildlife corri-
dor between the old part of the park and the extended
area of the Silki Yared and Kiddis Yared Mountains.
At that time, Arkwasiye village consisted of ap-
proximately 165 households. Originally, Arkwasiye
had been an open air market place at a strategically
important pass between the Meshaha and the Ansiya
valleys. Situated at the crossing of old trading routes
between Gonder, Mekelle, Axum and Lalibela, it was
a place where mainly the surpluses from subsistence
Figure 3 – Sample of interviewees (based on Tiru 2011).
16 Research
Economic effects
Originally, Arkwasiye had been a temporary market
place. With the economic opportunities this market
place offered, it had attracted more and more people
to settle permanently and thus the village grew. The
interviews indicate clearly that settling in Arkwasiye
went along with a change of jobs and income (Fig-
ure 4 and Figure 5). Most of the newcomers (65%)
had a farming background and developed new ways
of making a living. Their activities expanded from just
agriculture or livestock farming to various forms of
trading and so they had more than one source of in-
come (Figure 4). Arkwasiye, as desolate as it may have
seemed from its outward appearance, had obviously
become an economic promise of success to the sur-
rounding rural population in that region.
Even though it is only two kilometres away, the re-
location from Arkwasiye to Kayit seems to have con-
siderably affected the income opportunities of the vil-
lagers. Most strikingly, a return to farming has become
necessary to compensate for the loss of trade-related
incomes (Figure 4). The inhabitants have therefore no
other option but to return to their original activities.
The statement of a man in his forties illustrates the
changes caused by the relocation: “... at my original place,
my occupation was farming, after I settled at Arkwasiye, I was
engaged in farming and rural trading, but now ... I shifted to my
early work – farming.” (quotation by Tiru 2011; p. 43).
As a result of the shift in occupations, household
incomes seem to have decreased signicantly (Fig-
ure 5). The interviews demonstrate that the number
of households with very small incomes of not more
than 2500 birr per year (i.e. less than 150 USD) have
doubled, whereas the number of households with
relatively higher incomes have decreased. The average
incomes are even lower than what they had been be-
fore the villagers left their original homes to settle in
Arkwasiye. Although it may be argued that this nd-
ing is based only on interviews and may be biased by
external factors (e.g. ination) or intrinsic interests of
the interviewees, the results do indeed seem to be suf-
ciently plausible. However, not all experts involved
share this point of view (Moll 2012, oral comm.). It
cannot be disputed, however, that the sources of in-
come are minimal and clearly below the poverty line
as dened by the World Bank (Ravallion et al. 2009).
The social effects and living conditions
The cultural and social effects on the communities
as a result of relocation are a major concern (Dowie
2009). Cernea (2007) identies eight major risks re-
lated to resettlement, such as landlessness, jobless-
ness, homelessness, marginalization, food insecurity,
increased morbidity and mortality, loss of access to
common property and, last but not least, social disin-
tegration.
Figure 4 – Changing patterns of livelihood (based on interviews in 64 households;
Tiru 2011).
Figure 5 – Changes in household incomes (based on interviews in 64 households;
Tiru 2011).
production were bartered. A few traders sold house-
hold items, spices or clothes (Hurni & Ludi 2000). The
rst houses were built some 25 to 30 years ago during
the violent conicts in Northern Ethiopia. Owing to
the favourable location between three weredas (munici-
palities), the place had attracted more and more new
settlers from adjacent villages (Tiru 2011).
To prepare for the relocation of the inhabitants
from Arkwasiye to Kayit (the new place), the national
park management founded a committee in close col-
laboration with ADA (the Austrian development
agency) and village representatives. A plan of action
was prepared together with the residents and a com-
pensation scheme was negotiated and agreed upon.
The compensation became an incentive to facilitate
voluntary relocation. In 2007 the relocation process
took place. It was supervised by a technical committee
established by the local government. Arkwasiye was
dismantled (Tiru 2011).
17
Tiru Berihun Tessema, Michael Jungmeier & Michael Huber
Not one of these consequences can be identied in
the interviews. People still live in the same environ-
ment, at the same altitude and in the same cultural
and social context. The interviews give no indication
of any kind of relocation shock. Many respondents
(45%) even stated that the relationship with those who
are responsible for the management of the park has
developed positively, both through and since the relo-
cation process. Only 18% of the interviewees stated
that their atttutide towards the park was less positive
than it was before.
Arkwasiye did not have deep roots as it was a tem-
porary village, i.e. it had always been a settlement
with insufcient housing. Even the most basic infra-
structures and services were either lacking altogether
or were very poor. From this point of view, it is un-
derstandable that the perception of the interviewees
is clearly positive, as they state that the newly built
houses are of better quality, an elementary school and
a local health post have been established and a well to
supply water has been constructed and it functions.
Even though the standard is very basic, the respond-
ents repeatedly refer to the new elementary school,
providing basic education for some 70 children. All
of the respondents agree that the social services have
substantially improved in the new village, especially
with regard to the provision of water, education and
health services. To what extent these upgraded ser-
vices and infrastructures can contribute to a new level
of welfare and empowerment cannot be validated yet.
However, an increase in the population could be
an indication that this is not unlikely. The compara-
bly good provision of social services in Kayit has at-
tracted new settlers from the adjacent areas. Since it
became established, the population of Kayit has in-
creased notably by 55 families (260 persons). Even
those who had not owned a house in Arkwasiye also
received compensation, which enabled them to con-
struct a new house in Kayit. This is an additional fac-
tor that accounts for the increase in the number of
households. However, this does not fully explain the
increase in the number of inhabitants. There is some
evidence that the quality of the new health and educa-
tion services has somewhat declined with the arrival
of the newcomers because of the limited capacity of
the institutions.
The ecological effects
Since there is no systematic monitoring of the eco-
logical effects as yet, the ecologic evaluation can be
based only on the observations of Tiru (2011). He
states that the pressure on pasture land for grazing
has increased, not only in the surroundings of Kayit
but also in the surroundings of what was formerly
Arkwasiye. Taking into account the results of the eco-
nomic evaluation, these observations seem plausible.
The increase in grazing pressure clearly contradicts the
goals of the relocation (Debonnet et al. 2006). From
a more general perspective, the UNESCO & IUCN
(2010) emphasize the fact that grazing is still an out-
standing issue for the removal of the park from the list
of endangered World Heritage Sites. However, a nal
evaluation of ecological effects cannot yet be given.
Discussion
Any kind of relocation in the context of conser-
vation has come under critical debate. Schmidt-Soltau
(2005) claims that it has become a common [sic] phenom-
enon, that people are sacriced for the sake of biodiversity
and wildlife. Summing up decades of experiences with the popu-
lation displacement approach, Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau
(2003) argue that this strategy has exhausted its potential and
its credibility. In Ethiopia relocation is a practice used
repeatedly to serve different purposes, one of which
is conservation (Biressu 2009; Dowie 2009). In a criti-
cal reection of his investigation on resettlements for
improving agricultural practices in Ethiopia, Walle et
al. (2011) conclude by uttering a warning, To this end,
when resettlement is an unavoidable means of securing food self-
sufciency, it should be minimized by investigation of all viable
project options.
In comparison with the drastic statements and ex-
amples of evictions for conservation purposes, as
presented by diverse authors (Cernea 2006; Cernea
& Schmidt-Soltau 2003; Dowie 2009; Lasgorceix &
Kothari 2009; Redford & Fearn 2007; Schmidt-Soltau
2005), the process in SMNP was obviously profession-
ally prepared and implemented in a considerate and
tactful way. The fundamental right to be able to de-
cide voluntarily to relocate was respected and this was
conrmed by the villagers in the interviews as well as
by the international institutions (e.g. Debonnet et al.
2006; UNESCO / IUCN 2009). The improvement of
services and infrastructures, in addition to the com-
pensation offered, made the idea to relocate attractive
for the former residents of Arkwasiye. The increased
appreciation shown to those who manage the park in-
Figure 6 – A new village for some 165 families: Kayit. © M. Jungmeier
18 Research
dicates that the process was performed and perceived
in a positive way.
From a professional and technical point of view, the
reasons for the relocation were understandable and
made sense. Not only was the relocation an interna-
tional prerequisite to securing the desired status of
World Heritage Site, but the unplanned and uncon-
trolled sprawl of the settlement would have required
some kind of intervention anyway. The removal of a
considerable barrier in an important ecological corri-
dor seems to be more than plausible (see Figure 2).
Thus the intervention in the form of relocation was,
nonetheless, a move towards a planned and well-regu-
lated form of development for the future.
However, even well planned and implemented re-
locations may have some unexpected side-effects af-
fecting local livelihoods (Dhakal 2006; McLean 1999).
In the case of Arkwasiye, the relocation resulted in
increasing grazing pressure, which had not been fore-
seen. The two main reasons for this unexpected out-
come were the necessity of the local residents to re-
turn to farming and livestock breeding, and the fact
that additional settlers were attracted to Kayit because
of the new and improved infrastructure and services.
This situation could have become clear in an ex-ante
evaluation and been avoided by taking appropriate
measures before the people were relocated.
The same applies with regard to the obvious loss
of income. As they are no longer close to the most
important eco-touristic infrastructure, the hiking trail
to Ras Dashen and the traditional market place, it is –
and will be – more difcult for the villagers to develop
complementary and alternative sources of earning in
addition to their agricultural incomes. None of the
interviews pointed to any future perspectives. These
results suggest that a post-relocation development
initiative is essential. Dhakal (2006) describes mecha-
nisms and results of such an initiative by referring to
Chitwan National Park (Nepal) as an example and he
points out how important the role of the NGOs is in
such a process. To nd a solution to the issue of live-
stock-farming, it must be treated in a broader context
(Hurni & Ludi 2000; Grünenfelder 2005).
Hence, a nal appraisal of the relocation of Ark-
wasiye village cannot be given yet. Since the relocation
of Arkwasiye is meant to be a prototype for one or
two further relocations from the park, for instance the
village of Gich, the authors make the following sug-
gestions for similar operations:
- Basically, relocations are always problematic for the
social, economic and ecological systems.
- The fundamental right to be free to make volun-
tary decisions and to participate are indispensable
prerequisites.
- Ex-ante and ex-post evaluations with all stakehold-
ers are required.
- The post-relocation measures need to be carefully
prepared and nancially secured.
- A systematic monitoring of key parameters must
document the process for at least 20 years.
On principle, a long-term view must be taken of
any intervention in the management of a national park
and needs to be questioned against the concepts of
pro-poor conservation (Roe et al. 2003). For the SMNP,
Hurni & Ludi (2000) envisage moderate modernization as
a suitable way to improve livelihoods, remove vulner-
ability, reduce degradation and preserve a globally im-
portant World Heritage Site.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to express their gratitude to Leon-
hard Moll, ADA (formerly in Addis Abbeba, now in
Palestine), to Ato Tessome Mulu (ADA’s SMNP Inte-
grated Development Project) and to Alexandros Ma-
karigakis, UNESCO Ofce Addis Abeba. The study
was made possible by an ADA / ÖAD scholarship and
the kind support of the Austrian National Commit-
tee for the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme
at the Austrian Academy of the Sciences. Our thanks
are also due to Peter Rupitisch for providing the pho-
tographs and to Elisabeth Kreimer for the graphics,
as well as to Günter Köck, Christina Pichler-Koban
and Elizabeth Eneld, all of whom contributed to the
critical revision of this paper.
References
Biresu, A.N. 2009. Resettlement and Local Livelihoods in
Nechsar National Park, Southern Ethiopia. Master Thesis
of Philosophy in Indigenous Studies. University of
Tromsø. Norway.
Cernea, M. 2006. Population Displacement inside
Protected Areas: a Redenition of Concepts in Con-
servation Policies. Policy Matters 14: 8–26.
Cernea, M. 2007. Impoverishment Risks, Risk Manage-
ment, and Reconstruction: A model for Population Displacement
and Resettlement. UN Symposium Beijiing. Oct. 2007.
Figure 7 – Important asset in the livelihood of the Simien Mountains: livestock grazing at
high altitudes. © M. Jungmeier
19
Tiru Berihun Tessema, Michael Jungmeier & Michael Huber
Cernea, M. & K. Schmidt-Soltau 2003. National
Parks and Poverty risks: Is population resettlement the solu-
tion? Available at: http://www.schmidt-soltau.de/eng-
lish/ (accessed 19/09/2012)
Coad, L., A. Campbell, L. Miles & K. Humphries
2008. The Costs and Benets of Protected Areas for Local
Livelihoods: a review of the current literature. Working Pa-
per. UNEP / WCMC. Cambridge.
Dhakal N.P, K.C. Nelson & S.L. Smith (eds.) 2006.
Assessment of Resident Wellbeing and Perceived Biodiversity
Impacts in the Padampur Resettlement, Royal Chitwan Na-
tional Park, Nepal. University of Minnesota.
Dowie, M. 2009. Conservation refugees. The Hundred-
year Conict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples.
Debonnet, G., Melamari, L. & B. Bomhard 2006.
Reactive Monitoring Mission to Simien Mountains National
Park. Ethiopia. 10 – 17 May 2006. IUCN. UNESCO.
Gebreyes, K.A. & M. Jungmeier 2010. Biosphere
Reserves in Ethiopia – Preliminary Study. Unpublished
report, commissioned by MAB – Committee of the
Austrian Academy of the Sciences.
Grünenfelder, J. 2005. Livestock in the Simien Moun-
tains, Ethiopia. Its role for the livelihoods and land use of local
smallholders. Master Thesis submitted to the Faculty of
Natural Sciences of the University of Berne.
Hurni, H. & E. Ludi 2000. Reconciling Conservation
with Sustainable Development. A Participatory Study Inside
and around the Simen Mountains National Park, Ethiopia.
Centre for Development and Environment (CDE).
University of Berne. Bern.
Institute of Biodiversity Conservation 2009. Conven-
tion on Biological Diversity (CBD) Ethiopia’s 4th Country Re-
port. Addis Ababa.
Jungmeier, M., I. Paul-Horn, D. Zollner, F. Bors-
dorf, S. Lange, B. Reutz-Hornsteiner, K. Grasenick, D.
Rossmann, R. Moser & C. Diry 2009. Part_b: Partizipa-
tionsprozesse in Biosphärenparks – Interventionstheorie, Strat-
egieanalyse und Prozessethik am Beispiel vom Biosphärenpark
Wienerwald, Großes Walsertal und Nationalpark Nockberge
– Band I: Zentrale Ergebnisse. Österreichisches MAB-
Nationalkomitee. Österreichische Akademie der Wis-
senschaften. Vienna.
Lasgorceix, A. & A. Kothari 2009. Displacements
and Relocations of Protected Areas: A Synthesis and
Analysis of Case Studies. Economic & Political Weekly
49: 37–47.
Keiner, M. 2001. Towards a New Management Plan for
the Simien Mountain National Park. Walia 21/2000: 14–
24. Addis Abeba.
McLean, J. 1999. Conservation and the Impact of
Relocation on the Tharus of Chitwan, Nepal. Himala-
yan Research Bulletin 19(2): 38–44.
Mittermeier, R.A., P.R. Gil, M. Hoffmann, J. Pilgrim,
T. Brooks, C.G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreux & G.A.B. da
Fonseca 2004. Hotspots revisited: Earth′s biologically richest
and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. Conservation Inter-
national. Chicago.
OeBF 2009. Assessment of the Value of the Protected
Area System of Ethiopia „Making the Economic Case“.
Study report in the frame of the SDPASE-Project of
the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority. 3 Vol-
umes. Vienna.
Puff, C. & S. Nemomissa 2005. Plants of the Simen.
A ora of the Simen Mountains and surroundings,
northern Ethiopia. Scripta Botanica Belgica 37.
Ravallion, M., C. Shaohua & S. Prem 2009. Dollar
a day. The World Bank Economic Review 23 (2): 163–184.
Redford, K.H. & E. Fearn (eds.) 2007. Protected
Areas and Human Displacement: a Conservation Per-
spective. WCS Working Paper 29.
Roe, D., J. Hutton, J. Elliott, M. Saruchera & K.
Chitepo 2003. In Pursuit of Pro-poor Conservation-
Changing Narratives… or More? Policy Matter 12:
87–91.
Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2003. Conservation Related Re-
settlement in Central Africa, Environment and Social
Risks. Development and Change 34 (3): 525–551.
Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2005. A roadmap to sustainabil-
ity: Learning from the mistakes of conservation- and devel-
opmentinduced involuntary displacements in Central Africa.
Available at: http://www.schmidt-soltau.de/english/
(accessed 20/09/12)
Tiru, B.T. 2011. Social, Economic and Ecological Effects
of Relocation Arkwassiye Village from Simien Mountain
National Park, Ethiopia. Master Thesis, University of
Klagenfurt.
UNESCO/IUCN 2009. Aide Memorie on the Joint
UNESCO/IUCN reactive monitoring mission to the Simien
Mountains National Park World Heritage Site, Ethiopia.
Unpublished protocol. Addis Abbeba.
USAID 2008. Ethiopia Biodiversity and Tropical Forests.
118/119 Assessment.
Walle, T., S. Rangsipaht & W. Chanprasert 2011.
Natural Resource Conservation Practices of Resettlers
in the New Resettlement Areas of Amhara Region,
Ethiopia. Kasetsart Journal Social Science 32: 297–307.
Acronyms and abbreviations
ADA: Austrian Development Agency
IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Na-
ture
UNESCO: United Nations Educational Scientic and
Cultural Organization
WHS: World Heritage Site
SMNP: Simien Mountains National Park
Authors
Tiru Berihun Tessema
Born in 1963, he has an education in business ad-
ministration and is a graduate of the MSc programme
Management of Protected Areas at Klagenfurt University.
He works for the Amhara Regional Government State,
North Gondar Zone, Gondar, Ethiopia;
email: beri-hun.tiru@yahoo.com
20 Research
Michael Jungmeier
Born in 1965, the biologist and human geographer
runs the MSc programme Management of Protected Areas
at the Institute of Economics, University of Klagen-
furt. He is C.E.O. of E.C.O., a consultancy specializ-
ing in protected areas, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria;
email: jungmeier@e-c-o.at. Corresponding author
Michael Huber
Born in 1983, the landscape planner is project man-
ager at E.C.O., Institute of Ecology, 9020 Klagenfurt,
Austria;
email: huber@e-c-o.at.
