‘Facing conservation’ or ‘conservation with a human face’? People–park interactions in southern Ethiopia

ABSTRACT

Whereas some conservationists argue that ‘people-oriented approaches’ failed to achieve conservation goals, Nechisar National Park presents a case where ‘strict conservation approaches’ have at best been only partly successful. Nechisar National Park, heralded as a success in the 1990s, today shows a collapsed population of the endemic Swayne’s hartebeest and severe degradation of the emblematic grasslands of the plains. The park is also heavily under pressure from firewood collectors and fish stocks have plummeted. Drawing on the concepts of ‘indirect’ and ‘direct’ costs/benefits of conservation areas – as proposed by Richard Bell – we wanted to get beyond the ‘strict’ versus ‘people-oriented’ conservation debate. Based on semi-structured interviews (12 women, 4 men) and oral testimonies (19 women, 17 men) we analyse how access to natural resources evolved under different political regimes and conservation strategies. The strict conservation approach resulted in strong opposition against the park. By considering both the ‘indirect’ costs (such as loss of land) and the ‘direct’ costs’ (such as historical and cultural ties with the land) important insights for a conservation strategy with a ‘human face’ could be gained. Conservation with a human face will require: first formally involving the local people in the management of the park; second, that the historical rights of the pastoralists and the farmers over the area, as well as the legitimacy of their grievances with regard to the past management, are recognised. Such a new conservation strategy will however require political commitment and strong institutions at all levels.

KEYWORDS:

• Nechisar National Park
• Guji people
• Koore people
• fisherfolks
• firewood collectors

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority for providing us a study licence to work in Nechisar National Park. Many thanks to Dr Will Duckworth for providing us copies of his valuable reports. We are grateful to Ato Jarso and Ato Benti the park scouts and to all respondents for their kind cooperation during the fieldwork. Special thanks the late James Bannerman for commenting on an earlier manuscript and to Bart Wursten for correcting the language.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Areola, “The Political Reality,” 277.

2. Brockington and Wilkie, “Protected Areas and Poverty.”

3. King, “Conservation Geographies.”

4. We use the word approach as in ‘conservation approach’ to refer to broad methods of conservation such as ‘strict conservation approach’ or ‘community based conservation approach’. With strategy we refer to specific variations within an approach – e.g. more (or less) vigilant law reinforcement strategy within a strict conservation approach.

5. Hutton, Adams, and Murombedzi, “Back to the Barriers?”

6. Tessema et al., “Community Attitudes.”

7. Padwe, “Participatory Conservation”; Ogbaharya and Tecle, “Community-Based Natural Resources Management”; Baral, “Decentralization and People Participation.”

8. Adams and McShane, The Myth of Wild Africa; Hutton, Adams, and Murombedzi, “Back to the Barriers?”

9. Agrawal and Redford, “Conservation and Displacement.”

10. Sabatier, “Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approach”; Chambers, Rural Development.

11. Child, “The Practice and Principles of Community”; Adams and Hulme, “If Community Conservation is the Answer”.

12. The imperial regime before 1974, the socialist Derg regime (1974–1991), and the current regime of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (see section on Background).

13. Amati, “We All Voted for It”; Brown, “Innovation for Conservation and Development.”

14. Bell, “Conservation with a Human Face.”

15. Brown, “Innovation for Conservation and Development.”

16. Mariki, “Conservation with a Human Face.”

17. Carter, “Conservation with a Human Face”; Bell, “Conservation with a Human Face”; Mariki, “Conservation with a Human Face”.

18. Ibid.

19. Vymyslická et al., “Daily Activity of Swayne's Hartebeest.”

20. Alternative spellings are Nechsar and Nech Sar.

21. Clark, Nech Sar National Park.

22. Sabatier, “Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approach”; Chambers, Rural Development.

23. Datiko and Bekele “Population Status Swayne's Hartebeest”; Doku, Bekele, and Balakrishnan, “Population Status of Zebra.”

24. Aregu and Demeke, “Socio-Economic Survey.”

25. EWCA, “Protected Wildlife Areas.”

26. Duckworth et al., “Survey of Netch-Sar.”

27. Derg, or alternative spelling Dirgue, is an Amharic word meaning committee and refers to the so-called ‘Military Coordinating Committee’ which in 1974 seized power ‘in name of the peasants’ (Brietzke, “Land Reform in Revolutionary Ethiopia”).

28. Lenaerts et al., “This Pasture is Ours.”

29. Abiyot, “Resettlement and Local Livelihoods.”

30. One exception to this was the Awash National Park of which the responsibility was retained by EWCO. As this park was across two regions it was felt that regional politics would not bode well for its management (Jacobs and Schloeder, Impacts of Conflict).

31. Jacobs and Schloeder, Impacts of Conflict.

32. African Parks foundation, Annual Reports.

33. Blonk, “Indigenous Peoples Versus Business.”

34. Brockington and Igoe, “Eviction for Conservation”; Adams and Hutton, “People, Parks and Poverty.”

35. Shado, “Challenges of Sustainable Livelihood.”

36. African Parks foundation, Annual Reports.

37. Abiyot, “Resettlement and Local Livelihoods”; Kelboro and Stellmacher, “Protected Areas Contested Spaces.”

38. Marsboom, “Vegetation Dynamics in Nech Sar.”

39. Aregu and Demeke, “Socio-Economic Survey.”

40. Teffera, “Ethiopian Rift Valley Lakes.”

41. The two oldest men in the sample of respondents claimed to be 120 years old but cross-referencing with historical events indicates that they must be between 80 and 85 years old.

42. Bernard, Research Methods in Anthropology.

43. A.R., 2 August 2013. We use a code for names of people to protect informants’ privacy; the date indicates when the interview took place.

44. A.G., 11 July 2013

45. A.W., 5 August 2013.

46. S.E., 6 August 2013.

47. B.O., 22 June 2013.

48. Z.E., 2 September 2013.

49. A.L., 3 September 2013.

50. A.D., 25 August 2013.

51. Brockington and Igoe, “Eviction for Conservation.”

52. See also Debelo, “Contesting Views.”

53. Scasta, “Fire and Parasites”; Trollope, “Fire to Manage Rangelands.”

54. Based on unpublished data from records at the park's office.

55. Dunn, “Contested State Spaces”; Turton, “Wilderness, Wasteland or Home?”

56. Turton, “Wilderness, Wasteland or Home?”

57. Doku, Bekele, and Balakrishnan, “Population Status of Zebra”; Datiko and Bekele, “Population Status Swayne's Hartebeest.”

58. Duckworth et al., “Survey of Netch-Sar.”

59. Duckworth et al., “Survey of Netch-Sar,” 111.

60. Duckworth et al., “Survey of Netch-Sar,” 105.

61. Z.E., 2 September 2013.

62. Duckworth et al., “Survey of Netch-Sar,” 105.

63. Brinkhoff, “City Population.”

64. Duckworth et al., “Survey of Netch-Sar.”

65. Teffera, “Ethiopian Rift Valley Lakes.”

66. Reid, Savannas of Our Birth.

67. Brockington and Wilkie, “Protected Areas and Poverty.”

68. Schuetze, “Narrative Fortresses”; Dondeyne, Kaarhus, and Allison, “Nature Conservation.”

69. Dondeyne, Kaarhus, and Allison, “Nature Conservation”; Ghiurghi, Dondeyne, and Bannerman, Chimanimani National Reserve Management Plan; Bell, Management Plan.

70. Nilsson et al., “Community-based Conservation Programs.”

71. Hurni et al., “Simen Mountains National Park.”

72. Gobeze et al., “Bonga Forest in Ethiopia”; Ameha, Larsen, and Lemenih, “Participatory Forest Management.”

Additional information

Funding

The research was conducted in the framework of a collaborative research project between Arba Minch University and KU Leuven as part of the STRONGBOW project funded by NUFFIC (NICHE/ETH/023). HoAREC is acknowledged for coordinating the project within Ethiopia.