Ecology and Development Series No. 10, 2003 - ZEF
Ecology and Development Series No. 10, 2003 - ZEF Ecology and Development Series No. 10, 2003 - ZEF
Conservation of the wild Coffea arabica populations in situmore flexible and can be adjusted to fit the interests of the decision-maker. This flexibilityis made possible through the order weights (Table 6.4). The resulting different degrees ofsuitability allow further classification of the suitable areas into zones depending on theirlevel of suitability.The fact that only smaller parts (ca. 28%; Table 6.5) of the landscape representundisturbed forest in Yayu, coupled with the threat to similar forests at national level due todeforestation (Reusing 1998) shows the urgent need for conservation (Tewolde 1990;Tadesse et al. 2002). Hence, the core zone and buffer zone-I should be mainly managed forthe conservation of the wild coffee population and other plant species diversity, with somerestricted extractive use of non-timber forest products in the buffer zone-I.In situ conservation of biodiversity, especially of genetic resources, deals not onlywith populations in undisturbed natural ecosystems, but also with populations in themanaged systems, farmlands and homegardens where the species is grown (Brush 2000).Defining the managed forest areas currently used by the local people as a socio-buffer(buffer zone-II) is assumed to be the appropriate approach to conserve as well assustainably use the coffee population in the managed ecosystem. Involving the people inthe area can contribute to the sustainable use and conservation of wild coffee and othernatural resources in these zones, and also for better protection of the core and buffer zone-I.6.4.3 Implications for conservationThe area identified as the core zone is not completely surrounded by buffer zones; in someparts, there is no buffer zone between the core and the transition zones, and the core ishighly encroached by the farmlands. As can be seen in the final map (Figure 6.6), thesouthern part of the forest area is highly encroached and the buffer zones are mostly verynarrow. This is mainly because the topography of the landscape is easily accessible forfarming, and the area is close to Yayu town and other major settlement areas. However, fora better protection of the wild coffee populations and other plant species in the core zone, itis important to have this zone surrounded by a buffer zone. The success of conservationwithin the core zone also depends on how well the buffer zone is managed (Given 1993;Maxted et al. 1997). Hence, it is a necessity to restore some of the cultivated areas and123
Conservation of the wild Coffea arabica populations in siturangelands bordering the core zones. Restoration through natural succession is a possiblereality as supported by results of this study in chapter 5 on the convergence of thecomposition, species diversity and vegetation structure of NATFOR and SECFOR. If thefarm or rangelands bordering the core zone are restored and managed as a buffer zone(socio-buffer), conflicts with owners may probably happen. However, success is also likelysince the people will still be able to make a living from coffee production by using thetraditional management practices.A small section of the core zone is separated from the larger core zone by thebuffer zone (Figure 6.6). Theoretically, there can be one or more core zones within abiosphere reserve. However, in this case, the isolated core zone is small and might becomegradually degraded and converted into managed forest (buffer zone) or farmland. Hence,the possibility of joining these two zones by classifying the buffer zone in between as acore zone should be discussed with the local people. From the biological and suitabilitypoint of view, the buffer zone between the core zones appears to be suitable as a core zone(Figure 6.5, OWA2). It also represents the riverine vegetation, which has potentially highspecies diversity, and is important from the catchment and stream bank conservation aspect.124
- Page 80 and 81: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 82 and 83: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 84 and 85: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 86 and 87: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 88 and 89: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 90 and 91: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 92 and 93: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 94 and 95: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 96 and 97: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 98 and 99: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 100 and 101: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 102 and 103: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 104 and 105: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 106 and 107: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 108 and 109: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 110 and 111: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 112 and 113: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 114 and 115: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 116 and 117: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 118 and 119: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 120 and 121: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 122 and 123: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 124 and 125: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 126 and 127: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 128 and 129: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 132 and 133: Conclusions and recommendations7 CO
- Page 134 and 135: Conclusions and recommendations3. R
- Page 136 and 137: ReferencesBatisse M. 1986 Developin
- Page 138 and 139: ReferencesDavis A.P. and Rokotonaso
- Page 140 and 141: ReferencesESRI. 1996. ArcView GIS:
- Page 142 and 143: ReferencesIUCN 1992. Protected Area
- Page 144 and 145: ReferencesMesfin Ameha and Bayetta
- Page 146 and 147: ReferencesSmith R.F. 1985. A histor
- Page 148 and 149: ReferencesVan Jaarsveld A.S., Freit
- Page 150 and 151: Appendices9 APPENDICESAppendix 1 Li
- Page 152 and 153: AppendicesD. repandum (Vahl) DC, [H
- Page 154 and 155: AppendicesSapotaceaeAningeria altis
- Page 156 and 157: AppendicesAppendix 3 Families of va
- Page 158 and 159: AppendicesAppendix 5. ANOVA tables:
- Page 160 and 161: AppendicesAppendix 7 Height class d
- Page 162 and 163: AppendicesGFUNDFOR OLSFOR SF-NEW SF
- Page 164 and 165: AppendicesAppendix 10. List of loca
- Page 166 and 167: AppendicesNumber Family name Scient
- Page 168 and 169: AppendicesNumber Family name Scient
- Page 170 and 171: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI am very grateful
Conservation of the wild Coffea arabica populations in situmore flexible <strong>and</strong> can be adjusted to fit the interests of the decision-maker. This flexibilityis made possible through the order weights (Table 6.4). The resulting different degrees ofsuitability allow further classification of the suitable areas into zones depending on theirlevel of suitability.The fact that only smaller parts (ca. 28%; Table 6.5) of the l<strong>and</strong>scape representundisturbed forest in Yayu, coupled with the threat to similar forests at national level due todeforestation (Reusing 1998) shows the urgent need for conservation (Tewolde 1990;Tadesse et al. 2002). Hence, the core zone <strong>and</strong> buffer zone-I should be mainly managed forthe conservation of the wild coffee population <strong>and</strong> other plant species diversity, with somerestricted extractive use of non-timber forest products in the buffer zone-I.In situ conservation of biodiversity, especially of genetic resources, deals not onlywith populations in undisturbed natural ecosystems, but also with populations in themanaged systems, farml<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> homegardens where the species is grown (Brush 2000).Defining the managed forest areas currently used by the local people as a socio-buffer(buffer zone-II) is assumed to be the appropriate approach to conserve as well assustainably use the coffee population in the managed ecosystem. Involving the people inthe area can contribute to the sustainable use <strong>and</strong> conservation of wild coffee <strong>and</strong> othernatural resources in these zones, <strong>and</strong> also for better protection of the core <strong>and</strong> buffer zone-I.6.4.3 Implications for conservationThe area identified as the core zone is not completely surrounded by buffer zones; in someparts, there is no buffer zone between the core <strong>and</strong> the transition zones, <strong>and</strong> the core ishighly encroached by the farml<strong>and</strong>s. As can be seen in the final map (Figure 6.6), thesouthern part of the forest area is highly encroached <strong>and</strong> the buffer zones are mostly verynarrow. This is mainly because the topography of the l<strong>and</strong>scape is easily accessible forfarming, <strong>and</strong> the area is close to Yayu town <strong>and</strong> other major settlement areas. However, fora better protection of the wild coffee populations <strong>and</strong> other plant species in the core zone, itis important to have this zone surrounded by a buffer zone. The success of conservationwithin the core zone also depends on how well the buffer zone is managed (Given 1993;Maxted et al. 1997). Hence, it is a necessity to restore some of the cultivated areas <strong>and</strong>123