Abstract

Conflict over natural resources including wildlife, forest, land and water is common particularly in developing countries. It is extremely difficult to sustainably manage a resource if it is under conflict. This study aimed to assess the causes of resource use conflict in Bale Mountains National Park and attitudes of local community towards the Park. Finally, to find measures to reduce resource use conflict. This study was conducted in Dinsho Woreda of Bale Zone, southeast Ethiopia from December 11, 2012 to May 10, 2013. Both primary and secondary sources of data gathering tools such as key informant and stakeholder’s interview, focus group discussion (FGD) and household survey techniques were used. The result revealed that conflict of interest between Bale Mountains National Park (BMNP) and the surrounding community could be traced back to the 1970s, the time of the park establishment. The establishment of the park gradually restricted free movement of herds of those living particularly by rearing animals. Gradual expansion of agriculture and the need for more land became additional cause of conflict. Based on the household survey, causes of resource conflict were exclusion of resources access from the park and illegal activity made either individually or in a group to access resources from the park by residents living in and around the park. There was no significant difference among kebeles and wealth classes, except lack of income (χ² = 8.083, DF = 2, P = 0.018). However, majority (63.5%) of the respondents had a positive attitude and the remaining (36.5%) had a negative attitude towards the park conservation. To reduce this conflict, different options were suggested by stakeholders: local community should be involved in the management of the park, compensation scheme should be made for crop raiding and livestock predation by wild fauna, government and NGOs should take initiatives in bringing developmental projects for local communities, and awareness creation of local community should also be made.

Key words: Attitude, illegal activity, management options, protected areas, punishment and stakeholder.