2. Forest Resources
Three major forest/woodland types are distinguished in Eritrea: highland forests, Acacia woodlands and riverine forests. Originally the highland forests of Juniperus procera and Olea africana would have extended over much of the plateau, but have been largely destroyed or degraded; only remnants now survive. On the lowlands and lower escarpments, Acacia woodlands occupy about a quarter of the surface of the country. Riverine forests fringe river systems of the Gash/ Mereb, Setit and Barka in the Lowlands, where Doom palm is an important constituent. These forests are under the greatest threat as they occupy fertile, well-watered and level sites – suited to development for commercial agriculture. However, they are also vital to the lives of the local population. On the coastal plains tree cover becomes increasingly sparse towards the sea. In places mangroves border the coast, the main species being Avicennia marina.
Natural forest cover has been classified according to six major vegetation types following international methodology.
Highland forest, composed of a mixture of coniferous species (Juniper) and broad- leafed species (African olive and associated species)
Mixed woodlands of Acacia and associated species, occurring mainly in the
Southern part of the western lowlands, but also in restricted areas elsewhere in
the country;
Bush or shrub vegetation, which is the dominant cover in Eritrea;
Grasslands and wooded grasslands, which occur in many parts of the country;
v) Riverine forest, composed essentially of Dom palm, which is common in the
Western Lowlands and is frequent in the Eastern Lowlands; and
vi) Mangrove occurring in many places along the coast and concentrated mainly
around Assab and between Tio and Massawa.
The natural vegetation of the country constitutes 0.8% highland forest. Forest and woodlands, including riverine forest and mangroves cover 13.5% of the total area. The category "bush" is the dominant vegetation in Eritrea covering 63% of the total area. The riverine forests and mangroves play important ecological and economic roles for rural communities, and occupy 1.5% and less than 0.1%, respectively
(Table 1).
|
Forest Type |
Km2 |
Share of Total Area |
|
Forest Closed to medium forest Open forest |
591 410 |
0.8% |
|
Woodland Closed to medium closed woodland Open woodland |
4533 9541 |
11.3% |
|
Bush land Grassland/Wooded Grassland Bush land |
25,577 53,824 |
63.8% |
|
Riparian forest Riverine forest Mangroves |
1,865 64 |
1.6% |
(Source: Interpretation of Land sat TM by FAO project TCP/ERI/12 (July, 1997)).
Prior to liberation (before 1991), though few accurate records were maintained, tree planting was concentrated within 6 major catchments (namely, Anseba, Nefhi, Damas, Mereb, Ferendayt and Leghede) as part of a soil and water conservation strategy, based on Food- for-Work. In this way over 10,000 ha of plantation were planted, mainly consisting of Eucalyptus cladocalyx, but also E. globulus, E. camaldulensis, Acacia saligna, A. decurrens, A. mearnsii, etc. Such work was nearly always combined with physical terracing operations. Due to the lack of subsequent maintenance, few of these plantations remain.
In the years leading up to liberation, tree planting by farmers appears rarely to have taken place. Tree planting for amenity by municipalities has obviously taken place in the past, to good effect, but due to the uncertainties prevailing over latter years, existing trees have been damaged, or have died, and there has been little management or replacement.
Following liberation (1992 - 1999) about 69.9 million seedlings have been planted.
The main afforestation programme is directed at soil and water conservation and fuel wood production. There has been a major and commendable commitment by the Eritrean Government to continue a programme, which evolved under the Ethiopian regime as an instrument of international food assistance. The old model of Food For Work (FFW) or Cash For Work (CFW) was successful to the extent that it engaged community participation in the short term. Nevertheless, it has no mechanism to engage them beyond that because they are unable to identify with the objectives and outputs, hence the government is assessing the cost-effectiveness of continued investment along these lines.