Human Wildlife Conflict along the Transboundary Migration of White-Eared Kob in and around Gambella and Boma National Parks

Ethan Johnson & Jeff Vaz

To download a pdf of this chapter (975 KB), please click here

Research Highlights
Executive Summary
Introduction
Background
Methods
Results
Discussion and Conclusions
Recommendations
References
Appendices

Research Highlights

The white-eared kob take part in one of the largest mammal migrations in the world.
The majority of this migration takes place in recently independent South Sudan.
The Gambella and Boma Regions are ecologically diverse landscapes that possess natural resources vital to local wildlife.
Gambella, Boma, and Bandingilo National Parks were established to protect the landscape and wildlife, but the lack of necessary resources has made it difficult to enforce park boundaries and regulations.
This study used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to examine natural and anthropogenic factors influencing the migration of the white-eared kob.
The white-eared kob prefers areas of high vegetation and abundant resources.
The emergence of human settlements and refugee camps appears to have constrained the migration route of the white-eared kob.
The white-eared kob appears to be unaffected by maize, cereal, pulse, and roots production.
Findings suggest a need to continue efforts on data collection for land cover, population growth, and agricultural production.
Conserving habitat along the kob migration route will require creative solutions, including empowering local communities, promoting ecotourism, and in the long-term possibly establishing a peace park between the Gambella and Boma Regions.

Executive Summary

The iconic antelope of East Africa, the white-eared kob (Kobus kob leucotis), seasonally migrates from Ethiopia to South Sudan in the second largest migration in Africa. Gambella National Park, located in western Ethiopa, lies at one extreme of this migration, with Boma and Bandingilo National Parks providing refuge for the antelope in South Sudan. Human-wildlife conflict is an increasing risk along the migration route as humans and the white-eared kob compete for scarce resources in the region.

A long history of political volatility in western Ethiopia coupled with the Sudanese Civil War over the past two decades has led to difficulties in managing the national parks that provide refuge to the white-eared kob. Established in 1973, Gambella National Park remains in many respects a “paper park” with unclear and weakly enforced boundaries. Though a growing presence of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) has begun to support some ecotourism development in the region, the management of Gambella National Park is difficult due to a lack of resources. Moreover, the promotion of regional and national policies catalyzing economic growth through large-scale agricultural investment often comes at the expense of the once-protected national parkland.

The national parks in South Sudan face similar challenges as there are even fewer resources for parks management with few or no NGOs aiding in conservation and management of the natural landscape. The Sudanese Civil War also led to the displacement of thousands of Sudanese who relocate almost exclusively to the Sudanese boundary or cross into the Gambella Region of Ethiopia. As a result, refugee camps with tens of thousands of South Sudanese are now situated near, and often within, the migration route of the white-eared kob.

This study utilizes white-eared kob collar data to conduct a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of natural and anthropogenic factors influencing the transboundary migration of the white-eared kob in Ethiopia and South Sudan. The study begins with a review of existing policies governing national parks and wildlife in the two countries, including a literature review providing insights into the current policy status quo and identifying theorized drivers of human-wildlife conflict. ArcMap 13.0 is then used to overlay kob migration data from 2014 with vegetation data (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, or NDVI), population data (2014 AfriPop data) and crop production data (2005 HarvestChoice cropping data for cereals, pulses, and other crops) to explore possible sources of human-wildlife conflict.

Findings suggest anthropogenic factors such as large towns, existing settlements in the Gambella Region, and rapidly growing refugee camps around Gambella National Park likely have an impact on the migration of the white-eared kob. The white-eared kob and its migration seem to be relatively resilient to subsistence agricultural production, including the cultivation of maize, cereals, pulses, and roots and tubers.

Given these results, this study recommends short term actions such as the designation of conservation areas near the migration route, empowerment of local communities to manage wildlife, and the promotion of ecotourism. Long term recommendations include the establishment of a peace park, which would draw in the support of NGOs and international actors. These actors, in collaboration with governments and local communities, could work to increase the capacity of stakeholders governing the migration areas. This increased capacity may empower governing stakeholders in Ethiopia and South Sudan to successfully manage one of the last truly remote areas on Earth, and introduce this idyllic species and region to the international economy through the development of a sustainable ecotourism sector.

1. Introduction

The World Parks Congress (2004) defines human-wildlife conflict as situations “when the needs and behavior of wildlife impact negatively on the goals of humans or when the goals of humans negatively impact the needs of wildlife” (p. 247). Human-wildlife conflict exists wherever humans and animals compete for limited resources (WWF, 2004). The scarcity of these resources can be due to a wide variety of social and economic factors; however, human population growth (World Bank, 2013; Suddath, 2011) and increasing demand for land (Woodroffe et al., 2005) are typically the main drivers. A growing population necessitates an increased demand for land for agriculture and livestock cultivation (FAO, 2002). This increased cultivation puts added pressures on natural ecosystems, which reduces ecosystem service flows and threatens local plant and animal biodiversity, but further improves rural communities (UNPEI, 2006). Additionally, climate change also limits resource availability, which further exacerbates human- wildlife conflict (Distefano, 2005).

Wildlife provides extensive benefits for humans, which range from basic nutritional value (Van Vliet et al., 2012) to economic gain from increasingly lucrative ecotourism sectors (AWF, 2015). There are also many other direct and indirect benefits from wildlife, such as scientific or medicinal value (Chardonnet et al., 2002) or the ecological roles a given species may play in a broader ecosystem (ESA, 2005). For many, the species’ existence in itself holds value—a fact which can greatly increase the overall conservation value of a given area to the extent that people far from the natural habitat of the species still value the animal’s presence (Conover, 2002).

But in many cases the immediate, tangible benefits of protecting wildlife do not exceed the costs incurred by rural communities who may lose valuable crops and livestock to wildlife predation, or who may lose important sources of food (i.e., bushmeat) when wildlife protection policies are instituted (Pearse, 2011; Ferraro, 2002). Local communities in developing countries often become frustrated when they perceive that wildlife’s needs come before their own, or when local institutions are unable to effectively manage human-wildlife conflict (WPC, 2004). Indeed, human-wildlife can become human-human conflict when institutions poorly manage natural resource allocation and either displace communities who no longer can survive off their land (Naughton-Treves et al., 2005) or lead communities to increase their efforts to hunt or poach the animals to protect and sustain their livelihoods (Dickman, 2010). When conflict heightens in this manner, species decline or even local species extinction can result, leading to overall biodiversity loss in the area and potentially damaging local ecosystems (Dunne et al., 2002).

Although the problem of human-wildlife conflict spans the entire world, it is most severe in developing countries of the tropics, a region that harbors the most biodiversity and where livelihoods often depend on land-intensive practices such as livestock husbandry and agriculture (Adenle et al., 2015). Sub-Saharan Africa is a tremendously vulnerable area that experiences increased human-wildlife conflict as a result of many global environmental issues including climate change. Desertification and water-insecurity from droughts have been substantial contributors to the heighted conflict in both Ethiopia and South Sudan (Gambari, 2011). With the livelihoods of farmers and cattle-grazers in Africa under threat, communities are likely to relocate and disperse in response to these issues. This would only intensify human-wildlife conflict in the region (Campbell, 2010). A further estimated 25% of Africa’s population faces threats from sea level rise (Juma, 2010). Ultimately, severe droughts, floods, and desertification issues in Africa are likely to increase the number of refugees and internally displaced peoples (IDPs), further contributing to overall conflict (Brock, 2012). The incidence of human-wildlife conflict has the highest magnitude in territories surrounding protected lands due to higher species population in these areas (West et al., 2006).

The complexity and scale of the problem has led to varying schools of thought surrounding how to best facilitate successful coexistence between humans and wildlife (Conover, 2002). One common view on wildlife conservation is the area-based approach, which aims to protect species by conserving the habitat that harbors the wildlife and by excluding anthropogenic uses (Brooks et al., 2006; Wunder, 2006). However, area-based conservation does not necessarily meet the conservation needs of many species. For example, countries in Central and South America applied the area-based conservation approach to the threatened jaguar species, but the lack of connectivity disallowed the jaguar to roam its naturally vast habitat. This strategy limited the predation of the jaguar and left it susceptible to poaching when attempting to cross from one protected area to the next, often through the fields of local cattle ranchers (Panthera, 2014). In addition, this strategy was found to further induce fragmentation and reduce the connectivity of the species’ habitats, which limits the ability for the wildlife to thrive (WWF, 2004). Another more progressive view on wildlife conservation calls for a species-based conservation effort centered on the needs of the species (van Jaarsveld et al., 1998). In practice, the focus on a single species (usually endangered) not only supports the target species but also leads to an umbrella effect where other species are protected (Roberge & Angelstam, 2004). A third and final set of approaches—multi-species conservation efforts—are comprehensive approaches that adapt to modern challenges of conservation (Langpap & Kerkvliet, 2012). In multi-species conservation, a strategy is devised to address the specific needs of two or more interrelated species (Lambeck, 1997). The strategy emphasizes connectivity among species to protect overall biodiversity in a region where area-based approaches may not be viable due to many pressing issues. Among these pressing issues, fragmentation, encroachment, and climate change are the most common reasons for the complexity of multi-species conservation (Epps et al., 2011).

Participation is a key factor in any successful set of strategies (Stem et al., 2003; Adams & Hulme, 2001), and common trends for unsuccessful strategies often include the policymaker’s failure to include the local community in the strategy (IUCN, 2008). It can be difficult for larger stakeholders to implement successful conservation strategies when local communities are excluded from the decision-making process. Local communities usually have a better understanding of the conservation issues of a particular area and can provide information on the historical use of the landscape (Altieri, 2004). Local communities are also more likely to support conservation initiatives when they are not excluded from the discussion (Goldman, 2003).

But while much progress has been made in the development of national wildlife conservation strategies that meet wildlife and local community needs, strategies governing transboundary conservation approaches are much less clear. Transboundary conservation adds several complicating factors to the already complex human-wildlife conflict challenge, and, resultantly, a consensus has not yet been reached on the most effective strategies in this scenario (IUCN, 2015).

The conservation of the white-eared kob (Kobus kob leucotis) is one of the most pressing transboundary wildlife conservation challenges in the world today. The white-eared kob is an endemic species to Ethiopia and South Sudan, and its presence is partially responsible for the establishment of Gambella National Park in Ethiopia and Boma National Park in South Sudan (Pearse, 2011; Rucker, 2011). Many iconic species such as the white-eared kob rely on the fragile landscape present in these two parks for seasonal migration. With over one million white-eared kob making the voyage from Ethiopia to South Sudan, this is one of the largest migrations in the world (Beyene Engawgaw, 2013). However, this massive migration is under threat due to conflict, population pressures, and lack of park boundary enforcement (CMS, 2012).

Drawing on a comprehensive review of current literature combined with original data analysis, this research addresses the following questions:

What natural and anthropogenic factors influence the migration routes and patterns of white-eared kob in and around Gambella and Boma National Parks?
What are the current and potential mitigation strategies for limiting human-wildlife conflict between subsistence farming settlements and migratory species in and around Gambella and Boma National Parks?

This study uses GIS analysis to map relationships between land cover, human settlements, agricultural systems, and the white-eared kob migration in order to understand how natural and anthropogenic factors influence the movements of the white-eared kob. Additionally, in order to understand current and potential mitigating factors of human-wildlife conflict in the area of interest it is necessary to analyze past and current policy mechanisms and case studies involving successful policy intervention. The ultimate goal of this research is to utilize this information to develop alternative or improved mitigation strategies that provide practical solutions to human-wildlife conflict in the area of interest.

2. Background

2.1 Historical Context

In the far southwestern corner of Ethiopia lies Gambella National Park, an area of considerable interest due to its history of abundant resources, fertile land, and vast biodiversity. The Gambella Region is an ecologically important area due to the presence of a wide array of natural resources and endangered species (HoA-REC&N, 2014; Gambella’s Hidden Treasures, 2012). However, Ethiopia has struggled to protect its national parks since the establishment of a conservation and protected area program in the mid-1960s (Jacobs & Schloeder, 2001). Gambella National Park was established in 1973 but the protection of the park has been weak: deforestation, farming, overgrazing, and hunting have posed consistent threats to the area over the last 25 years, and the land-use patterns have led to landscape changes that negatively impact a variety of species (Jacobs & Schloeder, 2001; Hillman, 1991). The recent emergence of profitable opportunities in the agricultural sector has put further pressure on the park’s boundaries (Dudley et al., 2011).

The habitat degradation that has taken place in Gambella National Park is in part attributable to a tumultuous history of international and national interventions relating to land management in the Gambella Region. Over the last 25 years, the Ethiopian government has experienced several changes in power, with each leader proposing new land management plans to stimulate growth in the agricultural sector (Abbink, 2011; Devereux & Guenther, 2009; Devereux et al., 2005). However, these plans have often resulted in a loss in habitat that has negatively impacted wildlife, land conservation, and the livelihoods of indigenous communities. These negative impacts can largely be attributed to the government’s recent encouragement of large-scale commercial agriculture in an effort to combat food insecurity (Benjamin et al., 2013)1. Ultimately, this park is little more than a mark on a map that possesses unclear boundaries and lacks an effective management plan (Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority, 2013). Furthermore, the lack of resources in this area has made it difficult to develop effective management strategies and clear park boundaries, effectively making this a “paper park” (TFCI, 2010). A map with the locations of Gambella, Boma, and Bandingilo National Parks can be seen in Figure 1.

About twelve years after the establishment of Gambella National Park came the establishment of Boma National Park in South Sudan. Established in 1986, Boma National Park is a natural landscape consisting of over 9,000 miles of grasslands and wetlands. Throughout the years, Boma National Park has remained pristine, without roads or ranger outposts (National Parks Worldwide, 2015). This lack of anthropogenic influences or management strategies can be attributed to South Sudan’s historical state of conflict. The Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005) is a relatively recent political development that has played a major role in changing the landscape of ecologically important migratory routes (Pearse, 2011). Shortly after the First Sudanese Civil War ended in 1972, conflict arose once again after an abundant supply of oil was discovered throughout South Sudan. The North then attempted to redraw the boundaries of South Sudan in a manner that would transfer the newly found oil fields away from the south (BBC-News, 2015). This was seen as a violation of the Addis Ababa agreement that gave South Sudan autonomy after the First Civil War. Violence erupted as the north attempted to take South Sudan’s land by force, and twenty years of conflict ensued (Larsen, n.d.). In addition to the oil issue, other border disputes and cattle-raiding feuds led to the prolonged warfare (BBC-News, 2015). Some of the resulting violence took place in and around Boma National Park, one of the largest intact savannahs of East Africa (Hamlin, 2010). As this conflict developed, the pristine wilderness of Boma National Park eventually became home to rebel armies and refugees alongside an abundance of wildlife.

A peace deal in 2005 led to the conclusion of the Second Sudanese Civil War, which paved the way for South Sudan’s independence in 2011 (BBC-News, 2015). The state of the white-eared kob and several other migratory species that partake in the great migration was widely unknown during the twenty years of civil war. Many feared that the species involved in the greatest mammal migration in Africa would be nearly wiped out after years of violence and illegal hunting (Gambella’s Hidden Treasures, 2012). The migration of the white-eared kob had not been seen during any time of the civil war, as their migration route went directly through areas of deep conflict. However in 2007, aerial surveys began spotting white-eared kob. Eventually, contrary to popular belief, estimates of the white-eared kob reached hundreds of thousands, a miraculous feat considering the fact that some of the most valuable landscapes of this species had deteriorated after years of human settlement and conflict (Hamlin, 2010).

Figure 1. Locations of Gambella, Boma, and Bandingilo National Parks in Ethiopia and South Sudan.

The history of strife and settlement has had lasting effects that linger today both inside and outside of the park. The Sudanese conflict brought a constant flow of more than 250,000 refugees across the border from Sudan into Ethiopia (Browne, 2015). The massive influx of refugees and violence across Ethiopia’s border put great pressure on the migratory species that relied on the ecological connectivity between Gambella and Boma National Parks. Sudanese refugees illegally hunted white-eared kob in large quantities as a vital protein source during their time of desperation (Pearse, 2011). Thus, the past and present state of conflict— both in terms of war and the plight of refugees in escaping these dangers—has led to the decimation of wildlife along this ecological corridor (Francis, 2015; McCrummen, 2009).

With the long periods of conflict coming to a close, the national government of South Sudan is now shifting its focus to economic growth. Much like Ethiopia, South Sudan is also looking for profitable opportunities in the agricultural sector. Most recently, The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in South Sudan launched the South Sudan Grain Council program in January of 2013 in order to rally farmers in the region and to promote heavy production and trade of grain (Sudan Tribune, 2013). South Sudan has the potential to become a major exporter of cereal (African Development Bank Group). Grain production may be South Sudan’s path to economic prosperity, but it is likely that this agricultural production will compete for land use with wildlife throughout South Sudan, potentially increasing the intensity of human-wildlife conflict in the region.

2.2 Current Institutional Context

Gambella and Boma National Parks are both governed by complex and changing institutions. National governments, NGOs, and local communities all interact in an attempt to preserve wildlife and natural resources without sacrificing the well-being of community residents. In Ethiopia, an overarching Constitution ensures that all Ethiopians have the right to a healthy, clean environment, and it is the legal duty of the government and citizens to protect this environment (Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 1995). South Sudan’s Transitional Constitution similarly addresses the government and citizens’ rights and obligations to respect and protect the environment, with additional regard to the promotion of rational economic and social development so as to safeguard biodiversity (Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011). These testimonies suggest that Ethiopia and South Sudan share similar fundamental motives regarding environmental conservation. However, the capacity for enforcing environmental governance rules in both countries is exceedingly weak due to Ethiopia and South Sudan lacking the necessary on-the-ground management resources (Gambella’s Hidden Treasures, 2012). This makes it tremendously difficult for the communities and government of both countries to fulfill the aforementioned Constitutional ideals.

Herein lies the current human-wildlife conflict challenge in the Gambella and Boma National Parks. As a result of persistent inability of national institutions to enforce park boundaries, local institutions and local and international NGOs have attempted to resolve pressing conservation issues in their national parks. Synergy among the different levels of institutions takes time, and South Sudan’s status as the youngest nation in the world poses a major challenge in effective natural resource management (Goss, 2015). A long history of conflict has further complicated the ability of institutions to come together and succeed. The influx of Sudanese refugees has been a challenge to the environmental governance of Gambella National Park, and the youth of institutions in South Sudan has meant the country lacks both the organizational capacity and the experience to successfully confront and overcome the complicated balance between social and conservation necessities (WCS, 2015). While Ethiopia and South Sudan may have slightly different formal and informal institutions, they do share similar motives regarding conservation and social development. A brief summary of these formal and informal institutions in Ethiopia and South Sudan are outlined in Table 1.

There is a strong presence of international institutions in Ethiopia and South Sudan that work to address environmental and economic concerns. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is a major institution that directly impacts the conservation status of the white-eared kob in Ethiopia and South Sudan. The IUCN is responsible for ensuring equitable and effective governance on issues pertaining to nature conservation. The IUCN also provides support for scientific research, manages field projects, and works to bring governments, NGOs, and private stakeholders together to create and implement environmental policy (IUCN, 2015). In 2008, the IUCN listed white-eared kob under the criteria of “Least Concern,” stating that the species is relatively numerous, but has experienced large population decreases and is highly vulnerable to poaching and habitat loss within its range (IUCN, 2008). Similarly, the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty on the sustainable utilization of wetlands, is another major international institution in this region that focuses on the conservation of wetlands of significant diversity and productivity (Ramsar, 2015). Sudd is a 30,000-km2 Ramsar site in South Sudan (Figure 2) that has an abundance of vital resources that many species of wildlife, including the white-eared kob, rely on (Kaushik, 2012).

Figure 2. National parks and Sudd Ramsar site locations in the area of interest.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations works in both Ethiopia and South Sudan to address food security and economic development in the agricultural sector (FAO, 2014). In Ethiopia, the FAO works with small-scale farmers to introduce alternative agricultural methods designed to improve security and reduce environmental impact (FAO, 2014). The FAO also works in South Sudan, but due to the recent conflict in the area the organization is more focused on humanitarian and food security issues. Approximately 95% of the population in South Sudan depends on farming, so the FAO is currently working to implement a program that builds sustainable agriculture-based livelihoods in South Sudan to mediate food insecurity and promote conservation (FAO, 2014). The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has established projects in Ethiopia and South Sudan with the goal of preserving biodiversity in both countries. Similarly, in 2008 the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) implemented the Sustainable Development of the Protected Area System in Ethiopia (SDPASE) project, which aims at assisting the Ethiopian government in strengthening the management of selected protected areas, including Gambella National Park (UNDP, 2008). The UNDP is also established in South Sudan, but no specific projects exist due to the conflict in South Sudan in recent years. Currently, the UNDP’s main focus in South Sudan is to assist the government in developing sound governance structures (UNDP, 2015). It is important to recognize the ways in which South Sudan’s history of civil war conflict plague the region and ultimately make it difficult for international institutions like the UNDP to set up projects that improve conservation measures and sustainable development.

The recurring conflict in the Gambella and Boma Regions has made it especially difficult for the governmental forces in Ethiopia and South Sudan to establish tourism industries that take advantage of the ecologically diverse landscapes within the area (Hance, 2011; Taylor, 2011). Ecotourism is a relatively new strategy designed to encourage sustainability and conservation in a particular area without inhibiting a community’s ability to promote education and economic growth (The International Ecotourism Society, 2014). Both Ethiopia and South Sudan possess government branches that are responsible for developing tourism in their respective country. The Ethiopian Ministry of Culture and Tourism works closely with national and international stakeholders to promote the country’s vast natural resources in order to attract tourism (Ethiopia Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2012). The Ministry of Wildlife Conservation and Tourism in South Sudan shares similar goals in attracting tourists through the promotion of the country’s abundance of pristine and natural landscapes (UNDP, 2015).

Several NGOs are working in both Ethiopia and South Sudan with the goal of preserving natural landscapes and wildlife. The Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA) looks to scientifically conserve and manage Ethiopian wildlife (with specific focus in Gambella National Park) through collaboration with community stakeholders (EWCA, 2013). The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) of South Sudan possesses similar goals to EWCA, focusing on strengthening protected area management and aiding communities in enhancing self-reliance (WCS, 2015). The Horn of Africa Regional Environment Centre and Network (HoA-REC&N) is another NGO that works in both Ethiopia and South Sudan and implements mitigation projects designed to enhance environmental governance and management as well as to contribute to sustainable development (HoA-REC&N, 2015). Lastly, African Parks is an NGO that focuses its efforts on the long-term management of national parks in Ethiopia. African Parks is motivated to not only provide ecological stability to Ethiopia’s national parks, but also to promote the natural resources and wildlife abundance as a tourism opportunity that can lead to regional economic growth (African Parks, 2015).

Several local institutions also play a role in the conservation management practices in Ethiopia and South Sudan. Ethiopia has many different ethnic groups that have economic and cultural ties to the natural landscape, while South Sudan has several community groups at both the district and local level. The local communities in Ethiopia take responsibility for managing land through traditional systems. The Anuak and Nuer are the two largest ethnic groups in Ethiopia and have substantial political power compared to other ethnic groups in the region (The International Human Rights Law Clinic, 2007). The Anuak is a crop- dependent community that historically settled along the riverbanks, relying on shifting cultivation as a livelihood strategy (Sewonet, 2003). This method of land management involves cultivating different parcels of land every two to three years in a rotation; then, after about a seven to ten year period they return to the original plot of land and begin the rotation from the beginning (Horne, 2012). The Nuer community is slightly larger than the Anuak, making up about 40% of the population in the Gambella region (Sewonet, 2003). Unlike the Anuak, the Nuer community is heavily dependent on livestock, and often searches the region for suitable grazing land for its cattle. These cattle are essential to the culture of the Nuer, as they represent a vital source of food, wealth, and prestige in the community (Horne, 2012). These two groups also address any conflict regarding land use through a community forum, and have the ability to either adhere to certain policies or to dissent (Benjamin et al., 2013). In South Sudan, the local government (also referred to as “Boma”) is responsible for promoting self-governance as well as ensuring that community members partake in a democratic, transparent maintenance of the law (USAID, 2007). The complicated local institutions in both South Sudan and Ethiopia could potentially help or hinder conservation and land management in this transboundary area of interest.

In the midst of the struggle for Ethiopia’s institutions to successfully collaborate and mitigate issues pertaining to wildlife conservation, human-wildlife conflict has continued to threaten iconic migratory species like the white-eared kob (Amare, 2015; Van Aarst, 2012; Pearse, 2011; Rucker, 2011) The Government of Ethiopia has recognized the necessity for further institutional efforts (EPA-Ethiopia, 2015). The submission of a proposal for the inclusion of the white-eared kob on Appendix II of the IUCN’s red list exhibits their initiative in attaining any and all institutional help necessary for the successful conservation of the species (EPA-Ethiopia, 2014). Also, recent peace in South Sudan provides the exceptional opportunity to extend research on the white-eared kob’s migration into this country, where a large piece of the migration takes place (EWCA, 2013). As seen in Figure 3, the vast majority of the white- eared kob migration occurs in South Sudan. Because of the long history of conflict in the area, this essential piece of the iconic white-eared kob’s migratory path has yet to be fully explored or analyzed.

Despite this attention and opportunity, the white-eared kob remains largely understudied, especially in the context of human-wildlife conflict. Future protection strategies would benefit from a deeper understanding of the white-eared kob’s interaction with the growing human population in the area. Thus, this research intends to accomplish a deeper understanding through both an extensive review of current and potential mitigating strategies in both Ethiopia and South Sudan, as well as an unprecedented GIS approach utilizing new learning opportunities in South Sudan. This method can illustrate human-wildlife conflict along the entire migration route through time, which could ultimately fill an information void created by the past conflict in South Sudan. Successfully filling this knowledge gap would help to better inform current policy, especially compared to past policies, which were created with only a partial understanding of a quarter of the migratory path. This research could allow the development of policy with the entire transboundary picture of the iconic white-eared kob’s migration. The methods and findings of this research can also be applied on a broad spectrum to other landscapes in the East Africa region that have a high magnitude of human- wildlife conflict. The policy recommendations could potentially provide insight on future mitigation strategies for other threatened or endangered species in the region.

Figure 3. The general migratory path of the white-eared kob.
The majority of the migration path takes place in South Sudan (IUCN, 2014).

3. Methods

This study uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to examine how changes in land use and forest cover as well as patterns of human settlement and agricultural production impact the migration patterns of the white-eared kob. The analysis primarily focuses on the natural and anthropogenic factors that influence the kob in and around Gambella and Boma National Parks. Data include satellite data from United States Geological Survey (USGS), population density layers from AfriPop, crop production layers from HarvestChoice, global position system (GPS) collaring data of migrating white-eared kob, and administrative boundary layers from Natural Earth.

3.1. Landsat Satellite Imagery, NDVI Processing, and Elevation

As a first step in the GIS analysis, vegetation data was gathered on the area of interest in the form of Landsat images from USGS Earth Explorer (USGS, 2015). The Landsat images provided vegetation cover for the wet and dry seasons across four different time periods: 1986-1988, 1994-1995, 2002-2004, and 2013- 2015. The wet season coincides with the months ranging from March to April, and the dry season coincides with months ranging from November to December. The data of the area of interest consisted of several parcels that encompassed the entire migration pattern of the white-eared kob.

The next step involved calculating the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) for each Landsat scene. NDVI is an indicator that provides information on the overall density of tree cover and vegetation in the area of interest. NDVI is able to calculate the vegetation density on a patch of land by measuring the distinct colors and near-infrared sunlight that is reflected by plants. As the sun hits an object, certain wavelengths, correspond to different colors, are absorbed and others are reflected. NDVI has the ability to measure the energy reflected by chlorophyll in plant leaves (NASA, 2015). It also calculates the difference between the red sector of the electromagnetic spectrum (RED) that is absorbed by the chlorophyll and the energy that is reflected by the internal structure of leaves in the near-infrared (NIR) (NASA, 2015). The equation is as follows:

NDVI = (NIR-RED)/(NIR+RED)

NDVI was calculated by taking the Landsat data obtained through USGS Earth Explorer and running it through the data processing software RStudio (RStudio, 2015). For each given pixel, the results from the NDVI calculation yield a result from -1 to 1, with lower values indicating a lack of vegetation and higher values indicating that vegetation is present (pvts.net, 2002). The NDVI layers were then imported into ArcMap 10.2 to create informative NDVI maps for both the wet and dry seasons in 1986-1988 (Appendix IX, Appendix X), 1994-1995 (Appendix XI, Appendix XII), 2002-2004 (Appendix XIII, Appendix XIV), and 2013-2015 (Figure 4, Figure 5).

Figure 4. Wet season NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region, Dec. 2013-2014.

Figure 5. Dry season NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region, March.-April. 2014-2015.

Figure 6. Raster calculation for changes in NDVI, Dec. 2013-Apr. 2014.

Once the NDVI layers were calculated for each season in the desired time periods, raster subtractions were conducted through the use of the Raster Calculator tool in ArcGIS (Appendix III). These calculations allow the user to easily observe changes in vegetation across time periods and seasons. The symbology of the raster calculations was changed to represent areas of vegetation loss as red and areas of vegetation gain as green. Vegetation loss and gain can be attributed to a variety of natural and anthropogenic influences. Severe droughts throughout the 1980s made it one of the driest decades in Ethiopian history (Appendix IX, Appendix X). However, the years following the drought were amongst some of the wettest (Bewket & Conway, 2007). The long-term effects of these events can be monitored by examining the raster calculations across time periods (Appendix XV-Appendix XXV). Figure 6 shows the raster calculation of vegetation changes from December to April in 2013-2015. It is also possible to focus on particular locations in the area of interest and identify areas of both subsistence and commercial agricultural development and deforestation.

The next step in examining how natural processes influence kob migration was to create an elevation map of the area of interest to further analyze the natural factors influencing white-eared kob migration. In 2011, The Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) of Japan and NASA announced the release of an updated Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) Global Digital Elevation Model (GDEM) that covers 99% of the Earth’s landmass (NASA, 2012). ASTER GDEM gives the user the ability to draw a polygon over an area of interest and download its elevation data in meters. ASTER GDEM maintains a GeoTIFF format that can be seamlessly imported into ArcGIS where it can then be manipulated or analyzed. The average elevation of the entire area of interest was 422, with a maximum of 1668 m and a minimum of 241 m (the maximum elevation was recorded outside of the migration route).

3.2 Population, Refugee Camps, Food Production, and Collar Data

Population data from AfriPop were imported into ArcGIS, where the population data of South Sudan and Ethiopia could be extracted from this larger dataset to gain insight on the population density in the Gambella and Boma Regions. The Afripop project (afripop.org) is a sub-project under the surveillance of WorldPop, which provides high spatial resolution, contemporary data on human population distributions around the world (WorldPop, 2015). This dataset consists of the most recent estimates of total number of people per square grid across the entire continent of Africa. The data is downloadable in a format that is immediately compatible with ArcGIS. This data is useful for comparisons between the raster calculations as well as agricultural development in these areas.

To further understand the impact of human settlements on the migration patterns of white-eared kob, data on the locations of key towns and refugee camps in Ethiopia and South Sudan was necessary. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is an organization that was established in the 1950s with the goal of safeguarding the rights and well-being of refugees (UNHCR, 2001). The UNHCR website gives the user the ability to search for specific areas in the world and locate refugee camps through the use of an interactive map. Once a specific refugee camp is located, UNHCR supplies various pieces of information to the user. This information includes but is not limited to: a summary of geographic features around the refugee camp, the date the refugee camp was founded, the population of the refugee camp, and a record of incoming refugees into said refugee camp. A search query was done in the area of interest of this study, and results yielded several refugee camps in the area. The locations of these refugee camps could then be georeferenced by hand into Google Earth and imported into ArcGIS as a point layer. The locations of the georeferenced refugee camps in ArcGIS are only rough estimates, as there is a degree of human error in georeferencing. To most accurately georeference the points from UNHCR into Google Earth, it was necessary to read into the summaries of the geographic features surrounding the refugee camps. After obtaining written and visual information on the refugee camps in the area of interest, the Google Earth points were imported into ArcGIS.

Population data for major towns in Ethiopia were obtained from the Ethiopia Census tables from 2007. For South Sudan, the key towns were retrieved from Natural Earth (2011) and their populations were retrieved from Geohive (2008), an organization focused on global population statistics. These data layers containing refugee camps and key cities in the area of interest were then compared to the general migration pattern of white-eared kob to examine how white-eared kob migrations respond to these large settlements.

To examine areas of agricultural development in the Gambella and Boma Regions this study utilized HarvestChoice, a major source of crop production datasets. HarvestChoice organize data into a matrix of 10km x 10km cells that span across sub-Saharan Africa (HarvestChoice, 2015). HarvestChoice gives the user the ability to download ArcGIS-compatible datasets on the magnitude of crop production in various regions across Africa. These maps focused on the major crops that are produced in the area (maize, cereals, pulses, and roots and tubers) (African Development Bank Group, 2013). Datasets on each of these crops were downloaded from HarvestChoice and imported into ArcGIS to indicate areas of high crop production within the Gambella and Boma Regions. The data are useful for identifying areas of high crop production and comparing them to the data on population density and vegetation changes across time periods.

3.3 White-eared Kob Migration Collar Data

The Convention on Migratory Species under the IUCN, with funding from Norway, placed GIS satellite collars on 45 white-eared kob from 2012-2014 (CMS, 2012). This study utilized this data from 2014 and used an outline that traced the entirety of the white-eared kobs’ migration for that year. This study chose to apply a 10km buffer to the migration boundary (i.e., the area beyond which no collared kob were seen in 2014) to study natural and anthropogenic influences that might be constraining the migration.

4. Results

4.1. Vegetation Cover (NDVI), Elevation, and White-Eared Kob Migration

The relationship between the general migration pattern of white-eared kob and the changes in vegetation between the wet and dry seasons from 2013-2015 is examined in Figure 7. Green areas represent vegetation gain while red areas represent vegetation loss. A 10km buffer was placed to the outside of the migration pattern to further understand how changes in vegetation affect the migration route. At the north-most point where the migration seems to distinctly extend northward, the migration encompasses the more green areas and seems to avoid the bright yellow areas. As the white-eared kob reach the westernmost point of the migration and begin to move south, large areas of yellow and red remain outside the migration boundary and 10km buffer. As the white-eared kob migrate back toward the South Sudan-Gambella boundary, they encounter a large red area, indicating vegetation loss. However, the migration path continues through the middle of this red patch as the mammals continue to move in and around Gambella National Park.

Figure 7. Changes in vegetation cover from wet to dry season (Dec. 2013. to Apr 2015.) and white-eared kob migration pattern.

Figure 8. Changes in wet season NDVI (Nov. 1986 – Dec. 2014) and white-eared kob migration pattern.

Figure 8 represents the changes in NDVI that occurred from the wet season of 1986 to the wet season of 2014 along with the white-eared kob migration pattern. By comparing long-term changes in vegetation with the most recent white-eared kob migration pattern data, the natural landscape preferences of white-eared kob become increasingly evident.

To gain further insight on the vegetation preferences of white-eared kob, NDVI values within a 10km migration buffer (Figure 9) and the general migration pattern (Figure 10) were compared. As stated previously, areas that have experienced vegetation loss between 1986 and 2014 are represented by negative NDVI values, while areas that have experienced vegetation gain are represented by positive NDVI values. NDVI values in the migration buffer represent areas that the white-eared kob are avoiding, as they lie just outside of the edge of the migration pattern, while NDVI values inside the migration pattern indicate the preferred vegetation cover that the white-eared kob include inside their migration pattern.

The 10km migration buffer encompasses a greater amount of negative NDVI values in comparison to inside the migration pattern. For every negative NDVI value (from -800 to 0), there are more pixels encountered in the 10km buffer than the inside of the migration pattern. These results indicate that the white-eared kob are avoiding areas that have experienced vegetation loss since 1986. Additionally, the 10km migration buffer encompasses a lesser amount of positive NDVI values in comparison to inside the migration pattern for positive NDVI values. For nearly every positive NDVI value, the migration buffer encompasses less pixels relative to the inside of the migration pattern. The one exception lies at NDVI values greater than 700, where the pixels encountered are essentially equal within the buffer area and the inside of the pattern. These results indicate that the white-eared kob are choosing to migrate in a manner that encompasses areas that have experienced vegetation gain over the last twenty years. Overall, these NDVI calculations indicate that the white-eared kob prefer areas of high vegetation and choose to avoid areas that are experiencing vegetation loss.

Figure 9. Magnitude of encountered pixels of NDVI values within the white-eared kob 10km migration buffer.

Figure 10. Magnitude of encountered pixels of NDVI values within the general white-eared kob migration pattern.

Figure 11 represents the elevation of the area of interest and the white-eared kob migration pattern. The white-eared kob migration, including the 10km buffer, lies completely within 475 to 680 meters. The white-eared kob also appear to prefer areas of lower elevation, as the buffer zone encounters higher elevations than the migration route, with the migration route reaching 620 meters and the buffer zone reaching 680 meters (Figure 12).

Figure 11. Elevation and white-eared kob migration.

Figure 12. A comparison of elevation in the migration and 10km buffer.

4.2. Population and White-Eared Kob Migration

Figure 13 displays the general white-eared kob migration pattern in relation to population density in Gambella and South Sudan. This figure gives new and valuable insight on the human settlements in South Sudan and their impact on the white-eared kob migration pattern. Having just recently gained independence from the Second Sudanese Civil War, very little was known about both the emergence of human settlements and their impact on migrating wildlife in the region. In a similar fashion to the migration pattern in the NDVI figures, the general white-eared kob migration pattern was given a 10km buffer on the outside to examine how the human settlements affect the direction in which the kob travel. The brown dots in the population density layer are human settlements. It appears in several areas that the white-eared kob seem to be navigating around these settlements, specifically in the northern and western-most portions of the migration pattern. A string of settlements in both these areas are situated just outside of the white-eared kob migration boundary. Additionally, within the inner buffer of the migration lies the city of Pibor, another large settlement that the white-eared kob border in their great migration.

Figure 13. Population density and general white-eared kob migration in Gambella and Boma Region.

In the northern area of the migration boundary there appears to be additional evidence of white-eared kob avoiding human settlements. The white-eared kob appear to be migrating north, but a long string of settlements actually seem to be forcing the large ungulates to turn around and begin their journey to the southwest region of their overall migration pattern (Figure 14). Along the western portion of this northward extension, the white-eared kob seem to be avoiding human settlements as they move south.

Based on these findings, the white-eared kob seem to prefer migrating along landscapes that are not occupied by humans. The abundance of human settlements may be altering the path of white-eared kob and acting as boundary that inhibits migration.

Figure 14. White-eared kob northern migration boundary and human settlements in South Sudan.

In order to assess the relationship between white-eared kob migration patterns and human settlements, the percentage of population density pixels within the 10km buffer area of the migration route and the overall migration route were calculated. Figure 15 reveals the relationship between population density and the general migration pattern and buffered migration of the white-eared kob. The figure shows that 99.94% of the primary migration route does not encounter a population density between 0 to 0.05 people per square grid. The migration buffer does encounter areas of higher population density. The distribution of encountered population density can be seen in figure 16.

Figure 15. A comparison of population density pixels within the general migration pattern and the 10km buffer zone.

Figure 16. Percentage of population density for areas within the white-eared kob 10km migration buffer that encountered a greater than 0 population density.

Figure 17 provides a detailed view of the land degradation that has taken place due to the emergence of human settlements as shown in Figure 14. It appears that the areas that have been subject to increased human settlement have also experienced intensive land degradation over time due to subsistence agricultural practices. The areas of intense land degradation appear in red, meaning that vegetation has been lost over time in that area. These areas of intense land degradation seem to be located within the 10km buffer of the white-eared kob migration, indicating that the white-eared kob are avoiding these areas, likely as a result from the land degradation that has taken place as a result of subsistence farming practiced by the human settlements in this particular location. It is important to note that the existence of human settlements alone is not what is altering the white-eared kob migration pattern, but rather the combination of growing settlements and intensive land use are what seem to be major drivers of human-wildlife conflict between these small communities and the white-eared kob.

Figure 17. Detailed view of the linkage between the emergence of human settlements and land cover changes (1986-2014 wet season) along the northern border of the white-eared kob migration route.

The white-eared kob seems to avoid larger towns in South Sudan and in the Gambella region. The migration makes distinct reroutes to avoid Bor, Terekeka, and Pibor in South Sudan. A similar pattern in Gambella is shown as the white-eared kob appear to avoid Itang, Gambella, Abobo, and Gog (Figure 18). Several settlements around Gambella National Park also lie within the 10km migration buffer, and white-eared kob seem to avoid these populated areas. The white-eared kob also appear to avoid three refugee camps in the Gambella region, but four other refugee camps, including the largest in the region (Pugnido 1), are located within the migration route. The white-eared kob seem unaffected by the large Pugnido 1 refugee camp and the smaller Pugnido 2 camp (Figure 19).

Figure 18. Key towns in South Sudan and Ethiopia and white-eared kob migration.

Figure 19. Refugee camps in the Gambella and white-eared kob migration.

4.3. Maize Production and White-Eared Kob Migration

Figure 20 provides insight on the relationship between maize production and the general white-eared kob migration pattern. Throughout the area of interest in South Sudan there are predominantly green pixels, indicating areas of little maize production. In the southern portion of the general migration pattern there are more intense areas of maize production that the white-eared kob actually encompassed during their migration pattern. Moving through the southeast and through Boma National Park toward the international border of Ethiopia, the white-eared kob encounter a large area of maize production, with the more intense production of the area lying within the migration pattern and the less intense production area lying outside of the migration pattern and 10km buffer. As the white-eared kob migration continues into Gambella, there is an area of maize production on the outside of the buffered migration pattern. This area in Gambella is also an area of larger-scale human settlements, so it is possible that the patterns observed in this situation are similar to those in section 4.2. The kob still migrate over the international border where slightly more intense maize production occurs, but to a much lesser extent.

An assessment of the relationship between the general migration pattern and the maize production in the area of interest can be seen in Figure 21. Areas with little area harvest (less than 10 ha per pixel) are dominant across the area of interest, but areas of heavy maize cultivation are found in both the migration area and in the 10 km buffer – suggesting that the white-eared kob migration may currently be unaffected by maize production. However high concentrations of maize production in the eastern and southern boundaries of the migration route may indicate a current or future constraint on the kob’s movements.

Figure 20. White-eared kob general migration pattern and maize production in Boma and Gambella Region.

Figure 21. A comparison of population density within the white-eared kob 10km migration buffer and the general migration route.

Figure 21 further shows the relationship between maize production and the migration pattern of the white-eared kob in the dry season (a slightly more sporadic and complicated pattern in comparison to the previous figures). In the area near the southernmost part of the migration route, there is slightly less maize production encompassed by the dry season migration route compared to the general migration route. As the white-eared kob continue to the eastern region of the migration pattern in a similar fashion as the analysis above, the white-eared kob seem to be avoiding the areas of high maize production. The white-eared kob navigate around the eastern portion of this area of maize production (in orange/yellow) and then continue their migration a little over 50km south, leaving this area of high maize production on the outside of their migration route. As the kob continue back north and into Gambella, results show a very similar pattern to the migration above, with the areas of high maize production lying outside of the buffered migration area. Again, this could be due to the strong presence of humans in that area of Gambella. In Ethiopia and South Sudan crop systems, maize is typically grown from the months of September to February. Thus, maize is primarily a wet season crop (Taffesse et al., 2012). This is another possible explanation for the sporadic relationship between the dry season migratory route and maize production.

Figure 22. White-eared kob dry season migration pattern and maize production in Boma and Gambella Region.

Figure 23 shows a comparison of maize production within the overall migration and dry season migration patterns. The dry season migration pattern encountered pixels of 0 maize harvest for 38.8% of the area within the route. The overall migration pattern encountered pixels of 0 maize harvest for 37.5% of the area within this route. These findings suggest that the white-eared kob encompass more maize production in their general migration route in comparison to their dry season migration route. The dominant percentage between the dry season migration and the overall migration varied when measuring encounters with pixels of all other values.

Figure 23. A comparison percentage of maize density pixels between the dry season migration and the general migration.

4.3. Cereal Production and White-Eared Kob Migration

Figure 24 represents the white-eared kob migration and cereal agricultural production in the area of interest. There are high levels of cereal production in the north-northwest, south, and eastern areas (especially along the international border of Ethiopia and South Sudan) of the white-eared kob migration route. The 2009 National Baseline Household Survey (NBHS) revealed that more than 75% of the rural households in South Sudan consume cereal, and that 80% of the total cultivated land in the area is traced to cereals, making it a staple in the South Sudanese diet (African Development Bank Group, 2013). In the north-northwest and east along the international border, the white-eared kob appear to migrate directly through areas of high cereal production, seemingly unaffected by the intense harvest.

Figure 24. White-eared kob migration and cereal production in Boma and Gambella Region.

Figure 25 shows that the production of cereals does not seem to affect the migration of the white-eared kob. However, from 100 to 500 hectares the migration seems to encounter a larger abundance of cereal, on average. The averages for the rest of the values vary. The encounter percentages for all values did not reveal any overall trends. In areas with little harvested cereal (less than 100 Ha), the migration buffer encounters these areas more than that of the general migration.

Figure 25. Comparison of the density of cereal production within the white-eared kob migration and 10km buffer.

4.4. Pulse Production and White-Eared Kob Migration

The migration pattern of white-eared kob and the production of pulses is illustrated in Figure 26. Pulses are not widely harvested in the area of interest, but increased areas of pulse production are located in the north, southwest, south-southeast, and along the South Sudan-Ethiopia international border. For the most part, the general migration pattern encompasses the harvested pulse area in the south and along the international border, but the areas of high pulse production in the north and southwest seem to lie just outside of the 10km migration buffer area. White-eared kob appear unaffected by the less-intense harvest areas (light green and green-yellow areas), but seem wary of entering the intense pulse harvest areas of the north and southwest.

Figure 26. White-eared kob migration and pulse production in Boma and Gambella Region.

Figure 29 shows that the production of pulses does not seem to affect the migration of the white-eared kob. Both the buffer and the migration route encounter a large spike at 9 and 10 hectares harvested, however the spike proportionately affected both the buffer and migration route. This spike suggests that both the migration and the buffer encounter specific areas of higher cereal production rather than smaller scale production areas, but the route does not seem to be affected by these pockets of large scale production.

Figure 29. A comparison of pulse production within the white-eared kob migration and the 10km buffer.

4.5. Roots and Tubers Production and White-Eared Kob Migration

Figure 30 highlights the visual relationship between the general white-eared kob migration and the harvested area of roots and tubers in the area of interest. Roots and tubers do not seem to be harvested in South Sudan, but areas of increased harvest seem to lie along the international border and in the eastern Gambella Region. Due to the lack of harvest in South Sudan, it is difficult to deduce a relationship between the migration route of white-eared kob and the harvested areas. While the white-eared kob do encompass the roots and tuber production along the international borders, these are still rather low levels of agricultural production. The areas of high roots and tubers production in Gambella are located just outside of the 10km migration buffer, with some areas of intense harvest lying within the northeastern portion of the 10km migration pattern buffer, indicating that the white-eared kob may be avoiding these areas. In general, the production of roots and tubers is miniscule in the area of interest, showing little influence on white-eared kob migration.

Figure 30. White-eared kob migration and roots and tubers production.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Vegetation Cover (NDVI) and White-Eared Kob Migration

The goal of this research is to assess the natural and anthropogenic factors that influence the white-eared kob migration throughout Ethiopia and South Sudan. Analytical tools such as GIS prove to be effective mechanisms in examining the relationship between migratory species, changes in vegetation, and anthropogenic influences. Prior research indicates that the availability of natural resources plays a major role in influencing the migration routes of white-eared kob (Fryxell & Sinclair, 1988). These results are consistent with those of previous studies (Fryxell & Sinclair, 1988; Marjan, 2014) stating that white-eared kob tend to be attracted to areas of high vegetation, and during the dry season kob prefer to position themselves in areas with adequate resources. Boma National Park is an example of an area that provides these resources to white-eared kob during the dry season, and more recent studies have similar findings (Marjan, 2014).

5.2. Population and White-Eared Kob Migration

With natural seasonal fluctuations in rainfall and floods, especially in the expansive wetlands of the Gambella Region (Hirpo, 2011), the white-eared kob must adapt and change their migration patterns to account for the constant environmental changes that occur in this area. In addition to these natural influences, the white-eared kob is also threatened by the ever-increasing presence of human activity along the international border and the various national parks in the area. Population density appears to be the major anthropogenic factor influencing the kob migration route, as they seem to be avoiding these human settlements at some points during their migration patterns. This trend is evident in certain cases, especially in the northern area of the migration (Figure 14), where human settlements are densely concentrated.

The results of this study indicate that the white-eared kob seem to avoid key towns in South Sudan and in the Gambella Region. On average, the white-eared kob avoid these densely populated areas. Another factor in this occurrence may be the white-eared kob’s general inhabitance of the Gambella Region during the dry season, and their general inhabitance of South Sudan in the wet season. The scarcity of resources of the dry season may lead to the white-eared kob becoming more tolerant of humans for cause of food or water, as these resources are known to significantly affect the migration route (Marjan, 2014). Additionally, the white-eared kob seem to avoid all refugee camps, with Pugnido 1 and Pugnido 2 being the exceptions to this statement.

Global issues such as sea level rise, desertification, and water insecurity from droughts are extremely problematic in Africa, and are forcing residents to spread out and migrate (Gambari, 2011; Juma, 2010), which will only intensify the human-wildlife conflict in this region (Campbell, 2010). The results of this study are consistent with these previous findings. Population is continuously increasing in the Ethiopia and South Sudan region and, as a result human settlements, are constantly growing and appearing along areas of the white-eared kob migration. As these problems progress, the white-eared kob could be severely threatened in the long-term, especially during periods of drought (which are increasing due to climate change (Brock, 2012)) when people are hungry and in need of a protein source.

5.3. Agricultural Production and White-Eared Kob Migration

The results of this study further indicate that crop production may not be as significant as vegetation changes or the emergence of human settlements, but as settlements and population growth continue to develop in this region, agriculture has the potential to quickly become a severe threat to the white-eared kob. South Sudan is one of the youngest countries on the planet, having been recently plagued by long periods of civil war and subsequently gaining independence. Constant conflict may make it agricultural production difficult on a larger scale. However, South Sudan has the potential to become a major exporter of cereal (African Development Bank Group, 2015). As the South Sudan Grain Council begins to develop and expand its agricultural sector by heavily promoting grain trade and intensified production levels, vital areas of the white-eared kob migration may suffer from land competition. The struggle for land and resources between farmers and white-eared kob will heighten, which has the potential to drastically increase the likelihood of human-wildlife conflict in the region.

As South Sudan recovers from its most recent civil war, and as population and human activity continue to increase along the borders of Gambella and Boma National Parks, it is evident that land located within the white-eared kob migration path will be in high demand.

5.4. Limitations and Future Research

It is important to continue to monitor the white-eared kob migration patterns through the use of GPS collaring data. Similarly, annual or bi-annual assessments of the changes in the natural landscape through NDVI calculations are necessary so that the more recent collaring data can be linked to the current natural conditions of the environment. As the data collection for white-eared kob and NDVI is enhanced overtime, conservationists could examine how the migration patterns continue to change year to year in response to the growing natural and anthropogenic impacts in the region. As the most recent data that currently exits is from 2005, more recent data relating to agricultural production in the area would also allow for researchers to more accurately understand the impact of subsistence and commercial food production on migrating wildlife in South Sudan and Ethiopia. As population and refugee camps continue to grow in the path of the white-eared kob migration, the agricultural production in the area could emerge as a major anthropogenic factor that alters the white-eared kob migration.

Additionally, a thorough, on the ground analysis of the far-reaching effects of the Sudanese Civil War would provide a more complete look at the war’s impact on the migration. Analyzing the refugee camps in the Gambella region individually and attaining a more complex understanding of human-wildlife conflict on the refugee camp scale would aid the study of human-wildlife conflict in Gambella significantly. An in- depth analysis of specific battles and war camp locations near the migration, especially near Boma National Park, would also be extremely beneficial to gaining a better understanding of the war’s impacts on the white-eared kob population in South Sudan and Gambella.

6. Recommendations

The environmental policies that currently exist in the area of interest include the existence of Gambella National Park in Ethiopia and the Boma and Bandingilo National Parks in South Sudan. A major goal of the establishment of national parks in Africa is to protect areas of biological diversity and provide opportunities for economic development (African Parks, 2015). Another policy currently in place in the area of interest is the conservation status of the white-eared kob as defined by the IUCN. The IUCN identifies the white-eared kob with the label of “least concern” on the red list. The managing NGO of the park, EWCA, has limited capacity to successfully govern the national park as they have only 30 scouts and 2 operational vehicles (Gambella’s Hidden Treasures, 2012). Also, EWCA, HoA-REC&N, and African Parks are currently collaborating to develop a project that works towards sustainable development and management (HoA-REC&N, 2014). In South Sudan, the two-decade-long Civil War made it exceedingly difficult for the country’s government to manage the two National Parks in the study area.

In order to increase the capacity of these NGOs to manage the national parks, this study offers several policy recommendations. In general, this study recommends the empowerment of local communities to become ambassadors of conservation of the white-eared kob. In order to empower these local communities and preserve the historical cultural connections tied to this landscape, The Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Ethiopia and South Sudan’s Ministry of Wildlife Conservation and Tourism should host outreach programs that educate locals of the benefits of the park and the white-eared kob. Further, these programs could inform locals of alternative livelihoods other than agriculture or raising livestock, such as the NTFP’s option in Chapter Three of this update. These outreach programs should include the younger generations to ensure an adequate respect for nature in upcoming years.

This study also recommends a larger labor force for the NGOs along with more assets to aid in their defense of the National Parks. In Gambella National Park, the governing NGO, EWCA, would benefit significantly from a larger ranger force and more vehicles, so they can more adequately cover the large area of the park. This increased capacity would also allow for the necessary labor to construct acceptable signage for the boundaries of the National Park. Ideally, the labor force would be composed of local farmers, ranchers, or hunters as this would reduce human-wildlife conflict and provide local ecological knowledge, which is seen as more valuable than conventional knowledge (Altieri, 2004).

In South Sudan, increasing capacity must start from the ground up as the Civil War has made it challenging to develop conservation capacity building for the last two decades. For Boma and Bandingilo National Parks, the local communities play an even more vital role, as there is a lack of NGO presence. In order to address the National Park management issues that come with little to no NGO presence, this study also recommends more unconventional capacity building strategies. Local village chiefs with jurisdiction in areas near the white-eared kobs’ migration can be utilized as law enforcement officials. This strategy has seen success in Garamba National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo (de Merode et al., 2007). Also, a unique idea from Marjan (2014) suggests that the known poachers in the area should be approached and offered a job as a ranger team where they use their knowledge to conserve the white-eared kob instead of selling them for bushmeat. With this approach, poachers must be offered a better livelihood than poaching in order to make the transition from poacher to ranger. The local poachers in the area of interest have a better understanding about the geographic and ecological characteristics in the area compared to international stakeholders, which would be advantageous to South Sudan and Ethiopia. This strategy would not only reduce hunting and poaching (and thus, human-wildlife conflict) in Gambella and South Sudan, but also promote grass-roots conservation of the diverse landscape.

To promote economic development without threatening the natural ecosystem of the Boma and Gambella Regions, this study recommends the development of an ecotourism sector that involves the local communities. This economic development may be best suited for Ethiopia at the present moment, but hopefully South Sudan can attain stability and pursue ecotourism in the near future. The development of a locally-run ecotourism sector would enhance the economy of all Ethiopia, but especially the Gambella Region. The biodiversity of this region has seemingly yet to be discovered by the outside world, and its sustainable revelation has the potential to aid the lives of both humans and wildlife in the area. The emergence of these ecotourism job opportunities would also aid the white-eared kob because some local community members of the region would substitute occupations in agriculture, livestock, and hunting in favor of the more lucrative jobs in the ecotourism sector. Furthermore, the increased ecotourism in the Gambella Region would increase global awareness surrounding the white-eared kob and improve conservation efforts for the species.

In order to obtain the resources that are necessary to manage large National Parks, this study supports the recent recommendation of the president of EWCA (Gambella’s Hidden Treasures, 2012): the development of a peace park between South Sudan in Ethiopia. This would allow for the unimpeded migration of the white-eared kob between Gambella, Boma, and Bandingilo National Parks. The cultivation of this peace park has already begun with the establishment of the Trans Frontier Conservation Initiative with numerous domestic and international stakeholders (HoA-REC&N, 2014; EWCA, 2013; WCS, 2015). The development of a peace park may serve as the enabling factor for all the aforementioned recommendations, as peace parks seem to lure NGO presence and international support, which would greatly enhance the capacity for proper land management in the region. The presence of the Peace Parks Foundation itself, which specializes in the development of these transboundary conservation areas, would enhance the capacity building of both Ethiopia and South Sudan (Peace Parks Foundation, 2015). The attention received from NGOs and the international realm may cultivate finances necessary to implement many of the recommendations made previously. This agreement would give South Sudan and Ethiopia equal share in the resources within the area that encompasses the three major parks. A peace park not only allows for the two countries to combine assets to build support and awareness of the new national park system, but also allows South Sudan and Ethiopia to collaborate and develop the ecotourism sector for the peace park as a whole. Also, tourists may be more willing to visit a peace park between Ethiopia and South Sudan rather than a traditional National Park, as the name would suggest a safe and low-risk trip in a region with a history of conflict. In addition, the peace park could potentially increase NGO presence in South Sudan, which would address the issues surrounding the lack of NGO presence within the country. In order for Ethiopia and South Sudan to effectively provide their citizens with what is demanded in their constitutions, it is strongly suggested that the national governments, NGOs, and local communities work toward similar goals of conservation and social development.

One of the most prominent conservation NGOs in the region, African Parks, utilizes a five-tier approach to improve scenarios of largely undermanaged parks in Africa. The five-tier approach includes the following: a business approach to park management, a larger labor force on the ground, the development of a constituency for conservation, a focus on sustainable finances, and a long term commitment (African Parks, 2015). Their three most recent projects have resulted in an average of 35% increase in tourism revenue for the countries they began working with recently. One of these national parks, Zakouma in Chad, experienced a 72% rise in their tourism revenue (African Parks, 2015).

To achieve effective conservation of the white-eared kob and its vital migration route this study suggests the application of the African Parks model to the peace park between South Sudan and Ethiopia. Initially, the recommendation to create a peace park seems like an ambitious goal because the process and logistics would take several years to develop. However, the application of the short-term recommendations proposed in this section could be an effective method to encourage the development of the long-term, overarching recommendation of a peace park.

7. References

Abbink, J. (2011). “Land to the foreigners”: economic, legal, and socio-cultural aspects of new land acquisition schemes in Ethiopia. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 29(4), 513–535.

Adams, W. M. and Hulme, D. (2001). If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the question?. Oryx, 35: 193–200.

Adenle, A. A., Stevens, C., & Bridgewater, P. (2015). Global conservation and management of biodiversity in developing countries: An opportunity for a new approach. Environmental Science and Policy. 45: 104-108.

African Development Bank Group. (2013). South Sudan Infrastructure Action Plan – A Program for Sustained Strong Economic Growth – Chapter 6 – Development of Agriculture in South Sudan. Retrieved from http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/GenericDocuments/South Sudan Infrastructure Action Plan – A Program for Sustained Strong Economic Growth – Chapter 6 – Development of Agriculture in South%2

African Parks. (2014). African parks annual report. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.africanparks.eu/xMedia/PDF/AnnualReport/APN_AnnualReport_2014.pdf

African Wildlife Foundation. (2015). Conservation Tourism. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: www.awf.org/economic/conservation-tourism

Altieri, M. A. (2004). Linking ecologists and traditional farmers in the search for sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2(1), 35–42.

Amare, A. (2015). Wildlife resources of Ethiopia: Opportunities, challenges and future directions: from ecotourism perspective. Department of Natural Resource Management Wolkite University, Wolkite, Ethiopia, 6(1), 405-422.

Benjamin, G., Cummings, C., Evangelides, Ellen. (2013) Exploring the effects of land use and land cover change on white-eared kob migration in the Gambella Region, Ethiopia. Retrieved 1 December from:http://web.colby.edu/eastafricaupdate2013/key-issues-in-ethiopia-2013/chapter-2/

Bewket, W., & Conway, D. (2007). A note on the temporal and spatial variability of rainfall in the drought prone Amhara region of Ethiopia. International Journal of Climatology, 27(11), 1467–1477.

Beyene Enawgaw, C. (2013). Reconciling conservation and investment in the Gambella Omo landscape, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from:http://povertyandconservation.info/sites/default/files/12%20Cherie%20Enawgaw%20Byene%20,EWCA)%20%20Reconciling%20Conservation%20and%20Investment%20in%20the20Gambella-Omo%20landscape,%20Ethiopi.pdf

Brock, H. (2012). Climate change: drivers of insecurity and the global south. Oxford Research Group. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/Climate Change and Insecurity in the Global South.pdf

Brooks, T.M. Mittermeier, R.A. de Fonseca, G.A.B. Gerlach, J. Hoffman, M. Lamoreux, J.F. Mittermeier, C.G. Pilgrim, J. D. Rodrigues, A. S. L. (2006). Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science. 313, 58-61.

Browne, L. C. (2015). Hepatitis E outbreak among refugees from South Sudan – Gambella, Ethiopia. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report. 64(19), 537.

Campbell, I. (2010). Climate change and conflict, Saferworld, London.

Chardonnat, P. des Clers, B. Fischer, J. Gerhold, R. Jori, F. Lamarque, F. (2002). The value of wildlife. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: www.uesc.br/cursos/pos_graduacao/mestrado/animal/artigo_chardonet.pdf

Conover, Michael. (2002). Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: The science of wildlife damage management. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (1995). Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5a84.html.

Convention of Migratory Species. (2012). CMS bulletin. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.unep.org/pdf/CMS_Bulletin_3-4-2012_English.pdf

de Merode, E., K. H. Smith, et al. (2007). “The impact of armed conflict on protected-area efficacy in Central Africa.” Biology Letters, 3(3), 299-301.

Devereux, S., & Guenther, B. (2009). Agriculture and social protection in Ethiopia agriculture. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.future-agricultures.org/pdf files/Social_Protection/Working Paper No SP03-Agriculture & Social Protection in Ethiopia.pdf.

Devereux, S., Teshome, A., & Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2005). Too much inequality or too little? Inequality and stagnation in Ethiopian agriculture. Institute of Development Studies, 36(2), 121–126.

Distefano, Elisa. (2005). Human-wildlife conflict worldwide: collection of case studies, analysis of management strategies and good management. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-au241e.pdf

Dickman, A.J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation. 13(5), 458-466.

Dudley, N. (2011). National Parks with benefits: how protecting the planet’s biodiversity also provides ecosystem services. Solutions for a Sustainable Future, 2(6), 87-95.

Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., & Martinez, N. D. (2002). Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: Robustness increases with connectance. Ecology Letters, 5(4), 558-567.

Goldman, M. (2003). Partitioned nature, privileged knowledge: Community-based Conservation in Tanzania. Development and Change, 34(5), 833–862.

Greg, L. (n.d.). Brief History of South Sudan. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: www.waterforsouthsudan.org/brief-history-of-south-sudan/

Geohive (2015). Geohive – population statistics. Retrieved 1 December, 2105 from: from http://www.geohive.com

Ecological Society of America. (2005). Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs. 75(1), 3-35.

ESRI (2014). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.2. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.

Epps, C. W., Mutayoba, B. M., Gwin, L. and Brashares, J. S. (2011). An empirical evaluation of the African elephant as a focal species for connectivity planning in East Africa. Diversity and Distributions, 17: 603–612

Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority. (2015). Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.ewca.gov.et/

Ferraro, Paul. (2002). The local costs of establishing protected areas in low-income nations: Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar. Ecological Economics. 43, 261-275.

Food and Agriculture Organization. (2002). Livestock and the environment: finding a balance. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: www.fao.org/docrep/x5303e/x5303e00.htm#Contents

Food and Agriculture Organization. (2014). Ethiopia. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index/en/?iso3=ETH

Food and Agriculture Organization. (2014). South Sudan profile – Overview – BBC News. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.fao.org/emergencies/countries/detail/en/c/147627/

Francis, O. (2015). South Sudan crisis creates ‘wildlife refugees’ Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/south-sudan-crisis-creates-wildlife-refugees-/24673

Fryxell, J. M., & Sinclair, A. R. E. (1988). Seasonal migration by white-eared kob in relation to resources. African Journal of Ecology, 26, 17–31.

Gambari, I. (2011). Sudan: Water for Peace in Darfur. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.sunanews.net/english-latest-news/20699-article-on-water-for-peace-in darfur-.html

Gambella’s Hidden Treasures. (2012). Gambella’s hidden treasures. Ethiopia: HoA-REC/N and EWCA. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrZ-WWotCr0.

The Government of Ethiopia. (2014). Proposal for the Inclusion of the White-Eared Kob (Kobus kob leucotis) on CMS Appendix II.

Government of the Republic of South Sudan. (2015). Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.goss.org/index.php/ministries/agriculture-forestry

Greg, L. (n.d.). Brief History of South Sudan.

Hamlin, D. (Director). (2010). Great migrations [Motion picture]. United States: National Geographic.

Hance, J. (2011). As South Sudan eyes independence, will it choose to protect its wildlife? Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://news.mongabay.com/2011/02/as-south-sudan-eyesindependence-will-it-choose-choose-to-protect-its-wildlife/

HarvestChoice. (2015). About-What We Do. Retrieved from harvestchoice.org

Hillman, J. (1991). The current situation in Ethiopia’s wildlife conservation areas. EWCO, Addis Ababa. 9 pp.

Hirpo, L. A. (2011). Climate change and wetland resources vulnerability: Impacts on livelihoods and opportunities for enhancing in Ethiopia (pp. 50–58).

Horn of Africa Regional Environment Center and Network (HoA-REC&N). (2015). Vision, Mission, & Objectives of The Horn of Africa Regional Environment Centre and Network Environmental. Retrieved from http://www.hoarec.org/index.php/en/2013-05-09-13-09-13/2013-05-16-09-55- 55

Horn of Africa Regional Environment Center and Network (HoA-REC&N). (2014). Ethiopia’s endemic birds and landscapes. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.hoarec.org/index.php/en/2013-05-09-13-09-36/2013-05-09-13-09-57/externalnews/364-ethiopia-s-endemic-birds-and-landscapes

Horn of Africa Regional Environment Center and Network (HoA-REC&N. (2015). Vision, mission, & objectives of The Horn of Africa Regional Environment Centre and Network Environmental. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.hoarec.org/index.php/en/2013-05-09-13-0913/2013-05-16-09-55-55

Horne, F. (2012). “Waiting Here For Death:” Forced displacement and “villagization” in Ethiopia’s Gambella Region. (pp. 1–120). New York. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/ethiopia0112webwcover_0.pdf

The International Ecotourism Society. (2014). What is ecotourism? Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: https://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism

The International Human Rights Law Clinic. (2007). The Anuak of Gambella, Ethiopia. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/ngos/IHRLC.pdf

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. (2008). Strategic planning for species conservation: a handbook. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/scshandbook_2_12_08_compressed.pdf

International Union for the Conservation of Nature. (2008). Kobus kob. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/11036/0

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. (2015). Transboundary Conservation. Retrieved from http://www.tbpa.net/newsletters/39_TB_BPG_- _FINAL_WEB_COMPLETE3.pdf

International Union for the Conservation of Nature. (2015). About IUCN. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from:http://www.iucn.org/about/

Jacobs M, Schloeder C. (2001). Impacts of conflict on biodiversity and protected areas in Ethiopia Washington, D.C.: Biodiversity Support Program; 45

Jawad Al-Tamimi, A. (2015). Watching the new state of South Sudan fall into chaos. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.crethiplethi.com/watching-the-new-state-of-south-sudanfall-into-chaos/the-middle-east/middle-east-democracy/2012/

Juma, M. (2010) ‘Security and regional cooperation in Africa: how can we make Africa’s security architecture fit for the new challenges’ in Heinrich Böll Foundation, climate change resources migration: securing Africa in an uncertain climate, Heinrich Böll Foundation Southern Africa, Cape Town, pp. 16 – 25

Kaushik. (2012). The Impenetrable Wetlands of Sudd in South Sudan. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.amusingplanet.com/2012/08/the-impenetrable-wetland-of-sudd-in.html

Lambeck, Robert. (1997). Focal species: A multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology. 11(4), 849-856.

Langpap, Christian. Kerkvliet, Joe. (2012). Endangered species conservation on private land: Assessing the effectiveness of habitat conservation plans, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 64, 1-15

Marjan, M. (2014). Movements and Conservation of the Migratory White-eared Kob (Kobus Kob Leucotis) in South Sudan. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from:http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=dissertations _2

McCrummen, S. (2009). As war becomes a memory, South Sudan calls back its wildlife. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2009/10/03/AR2009100302986.html

NASA. (2012). ASTER Global Digital Elevation Map Announcement. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: https://asterweb.jpl.nasa.gov/gdem.asp

NASA. (2015). Measuring Vegetation (NDVI & EVI). Retrieved from: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MeasuringVegetation/measuring_vegetation_2.php

National Environmental Management Authority. (2006). Ecosystems, ecosystem services and their linkages to poverty reduction in Uganda. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: ewww.unpei.org/sites/default/files/e_library_documents/UG_ecosystems_rpt.pdf

National Parks Worldwide (2015). Boma National Park – Southern Sudan. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.nationalparks-worldwide.info/sudan.htm

Naughton-Treves,L. Holland, MB. Brandon, K. (2005). The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 30, 219-252.

Panthera. (2014). Jaguar | Panthera. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: https://www.panthera.org/cat/jaguar

Peace Parks Foundation. (2015). Peace Parks Foundation. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.peaceparks.org/story.php?pid=100&mid=24

Pearse, F. (2011). Agribusiness Boom Threatens Key African Wildlife Migration. Yale Environment 360, 1-3.

Pvts.net. (2002). Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.pvts.net/pdfs/ndvi/3_3_ndvi.PDF

R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.Rproject.org/

Roberge, Jean Michel. Angelstam, Per (2004). Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conservation Biology. 18(1), 76-85.

Rucker, A. (2011). Sudan’s wildlife migration miracle. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/frontlines/sudan-south-sudaneducation/sudan’s-wildlife-migration-miracle

Sewonet, A. (2003). Breaking the Cycle of Conflict in Gambella Region (pp. 1–7).

South Sudan profile – Timeline – BBC News. (2015). Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14019202

South Sudan profile – Overview – BBC News. (2015). Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14069082

Stem, C. Lassoie, J. Lee, D. Deshler, D. Schelhas, J. (2010). Community participation in ecotourism benefits: the link to conservation practices and perspectives. Society and Natural Resources. 16, 387-413.

Suddath, C. (2011, June). Census update: What the world will look like in 2050. Time. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2080404,00.html.

Taylor, M. (2011). Newly independent, South Sudan sets sights on ecotourism. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.accidentaltravelwriter.net/accidental-travel-writer/2011/07/southsudan-wants-to-promote-ecotourism.html

Taffesse, A., Dorosh, P., & Asrat, S. (2012). Crop Production in Ethiopia: Regional Patterns and Trends. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/essprn11.pdf

UNDP. (2008). Sustainable Development of the Protected Area System in Ethiopia (SDPASE). Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.et.undp.org/content/ethiopia/en/home/operations/projects/climateriskandresilence/project_ProtectedArea.html

UNDP. (2015). South Sudan Overview. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from:http://www.ss.undp.org/content/south_sudan/en/home.html

USAID Sudan. (2007). Southern Sudan environmental threats and opportunities assessment. Retrieved from: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadl108.pdf

Van Aarst, S. (2012). Protected Areas Delineation and Land Use Planning – Gambella Case. Ethiopia: University Water Sector Partnership. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.thewaterchannel.tv/hn/component/hwdvideoshare/viewvideo/1392/ecosystem/p rotected-areas-delineation-and-land-use-planning-gambella-case.

Van Jaarsveld, A. S., Freitag, S., Chown, S. L., Muller, C., Koch, S., Hull, H., Bellamy, C., et al. 1998. Biodiversity assessment and conservation strategies. Science, 279: 2106–2108.

Van Vliet, N. Nasi, R. Abernethy, K. Fargeot, C. Kumpel, N.F. Obiang, A.N. Ringuet, S. (2012). The role of wildlife for food security in Central Africa: a threat to biodiversity?. The State of the Forest. 123-135.

WCS. (2015). East African Forests & Savannahs. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from:http://wcs.org/ourwork/regions/east-african-forests-savannahs

West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology. 35, 251-277.

Wolfgang, T. (2014). South Sudan creates Ministry for Tourism and Wildlife Conservation. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.eturbonews.com/43797/south-sudan-creates-ministry tourism-and-wildlife-conservation

Woodroffe, Rosie. Thirgood, Simon. Rabinowitz, Alan. (2005). People and Wildlife: conflict or coexistence. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge Press.

World Bank. (2013). Ethiopia Overview. World Bank. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/ethiopia/overview.

World Conservation Society. (2015). Africa. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://wcs.org/ourwork/places/africa

World Parks Congress. (2004). Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: Global perspectives on local efforts to address human-wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 9, 247-257.

World Wildlife Fund. (2004). How effective are protected areas?. Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/protectedareamanagementreport.pdf

WorldPop. (2015). What is WorldPop? Retrieved 1 December, 2015 from: http://www.worldpop.org.uk

Wunder, Sven. (2006). The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology. 21, 48-58.

Chapter 2

Human Wildlife Conflict along the Transboundary Migration of White-Eared Kob in and around Gambella and Boma National Parks

Table of Contents

Research Highlights

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Background

2.1 Historical Context

2.2 Current Institutional Context

3. Methods

3.1. Landsat Satellite Imagery, NDVI Processing, and Elevation

3.2 Population, Refugee Camps, Food Production, and Collar Data

3.3 White-eared Kob Migration Collar Data

4. Results

4.1. Vegetation Cover (NDVI), Elevation, and White-Eared Kob Migration

4.2. Population and White-Eared Kob Migration

4.3. Maize Production and White-Eared Kob Migration

4.3. Cereal Production and White-Eared Kob Migration

4.4. Pulse Production and White-Eared Kob Migration

4.5. Roots and Tubers Production and White-Eared Kob Migration

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Vegetation Cover (NDVI) and White-Eared Kob Migration

5.2. Population and White-Eared Kob Migration

5.3. Agricultural Production and White-Eared Kob Migration

5.4. Limitations and Future Research

6. Recommendations

7. References

8. Chapter 2 Appendices

Appendix I: Landsat Satellite Imagery Data Tables

Appendix II: Landsat Satellite Imagery & NDVI Processing Detailed Instructions (Benjamin et al., 2013)

Appendix IV. Detailed Instructions for Mapping Population Density

Appendix V. Instructions for Mapping Refugee Camps from Google Earth

Appendix VI. Instructions for Mapping Agricultural Production

Appendix VII. 2013-2014 dry season white-eared kob migration in Boma and Gambella Region

Appendix VIII. 2013-2014 general white-eared kob migration in Boma and Gambella Region

Appendix IX. Wet Season NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (1986)

Appendix X. Dry Season NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (1986-1988)

Appendix XI. Wet Season NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (1994)

Appendix XII. Dry Season NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (1995)

Appendix XIII. Wet Season NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (2002)

Appendix XIV. Dry Season NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (2002-2003)

Appendix XV. Wet Season Change in NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (1986-1994)

Appendix XVI. Dry Season Change in NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (1986-1995)

Appendix XVII. Wet Season Change in NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (1986-2002)

Appendix XVIII. Dry Season Change in NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (1986-2002)

Appendix XIX. Dry Season Change in NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (1986-2015)

Appendix XX. Wet Season Change in NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (1994-2002)

Appendix XXI. Dry Season Change in NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (1995-2003)

Appendix XXII. Wet Season Change in NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (1994-2014)

Appendix XXIII. Dry Season Change in NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (1995-2015)

Appendix XXIV. Wet Season Change in NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (2002-2014)

Appendix XXV. Dry Season Change in NDVI for Boma and Gambella Region (2002-2015)

Slideshow