Walia Special Edition on the Bale Mountains (2011) - Zoologische ...

Today, there is a paradigm change towards collaborative management of natural resources together
with the local community in the proximity of the protected area. This shift in approach is a move
away from preservation and exclusion, towards inclusion and sustainable use for conservation. Such
a management system is also in line with the IUCN category II, national Park, management in that
the guideline recognizes sustainable use of resources within natural ecosystems and one of the
management objectives of the IUCN category II is to take into account the needs of indigenous
people, including subsitance resource use (IUCN 1994). More importantly national names for
protected area may also vary depending on the context and the fact that people are using the national
Park does not force a change in IUCN management category or national naming conventions.
There have already been many successful attempts to integrate human and non-human
needs within conservation landscapes. For example, the philosophy of National Parks in many
western European countries is based on mixing social and conservation values (Dudley et al. 1999).
Balancing the dual aims of conservation and sustainable development led to the establishment of
Category V and Category VI protected areas where the compatibility between traditional people’s
rights, sustainable use and conservation are explicitly recognized (IUCN 1994). In areas where it has
not (yet) become widespread practice, engaging local people in protected area management requires
new skills and new attitudes amongst both conservation practitioners and local communities.
What is now needed in the BMNP are new approaches to conservation. The process of
establishing new systems begins by building respect and trust between the National Park and local
people. This process takes time but is in line with local level views and attitudes towards conservation.
In 2006, FZS (supported by FARM-Africa - SOS Sahel BERSMP) carried out a rapid survey of
community perceptions and concerns about National Park management. Two highly significant
results emerged; 72% of local people consulted supported the idea of improved management systems
for the Bale National Park; and 86% of people consulted felt that communities must be involved
in Park management (BMNP–GMP 2007). These figures indicate the high level of interest from
local communities both in the sustainable management of BMNP and in the joint management of
BMNP. In terms of seeking a mandate for proposed actions, the community consultations clearly
show the way forward, and the opportunity of community involvement. To ignore such a mandate
and opportunity, in the light of on-going conflicts and tensions between Park and communities, will
only take the problem beyond turning point.
Conversely, top down, externally imposed conservation schemes often entail huge social costs
in areas where people are directly dependent on the natural resources of the proposed conservation
area for their livelihoods (Adams and Hutton 2007). This is absolutely the case in Ethiopia. Much
of the new conservation literature includes terms which imply a simultaneous interest in the welfare
of people and nature – for example, collaborative natural resource management, joint natural
resource management, co-management, etc. Each expresses particular assumptions and meanings.
In general, such terms describe situations in which two or more stakeholders negotiate, define and
guarantee amongst themselves, a fair system of sharing in the management functions, entitlements
and responsibilities for a given territory, area, set of natural resources, (Borrini-Feyerabend et al.
<strong>Walia</strong>-<strong>Special</strong> <strong>Edition</strong> on the Bale Mountains 264