ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

STUDIES

COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

PROGRAMME OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS FOR

SUSTAINABLE PARKMANAGEMENT: THE CASE OF ABIJATTA-SHALLA LAKES
NATIONAL PARK, ETHIOPIA

Thesis Submitted To

The College of Development Studies of Addis Ababa University in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Award of Masters of Arts in Tourism and Development.

By HELINA YILMA

Advisor: Feyera Senbeta (Ph.D)

June, 2018

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

STUDIES

COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

PROGRAMM OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS FOR

SUSTAINABLE PARKMANAGEMENT: THE CASE OF ABIJATTA-SHALLA LAKES
NATIONAL PARK, ETHIOPIA

Thesis Submitted To

The College of Development Studies of Addis Ababa University in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Award of Masters of Arts in Tourism and Development.

By HELINA YILMA

Advisor: Feyera Senbeta (Ph.D)

June, 2018
 Declaration
This is to certify that this thesis is my original work done under the guidance of Feyera Senbeta

(PhD) and that it has not been presented for a degree in any other university and all the sources

of materials used for this thesis have been duly acknowledged.

Declared by:

Name: HELINA YILMA

Signature: ________________

Date: ________________

Confirmed By:

Name: Feyera Senbeta (PhD)

Signature: _____________

Date: _____________

Place and date of submission: Addis Ababa, June 2018

 Addis Ababa University
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

STUDIES

This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Helina Yilma, entitled: “Community Participation
in the Decision Making Process for Sustainable Park management: The Case of abijatta
shala lakes National Park, Ethiopia” is approved for the Award of Masters of Arts in Tourism
and Development.

Signed by the Examining Committee:

Advisor _________________________ Signature____________________ Date _____________

External Examiner_________________________ Signature____________ Date _____________

Internal Examiner_________________________ Signature____________ Date _____________

Chair of Department or Graduate Program Coordinator

 Acknowledgement
The number of people that‟d need to be credit in the process of preparing such a document is too
many for any such list to be exhaustive. There is always bound to be failure on the author‟s part
in extending gratitude to some of those people that made it all possible. Hoping to avoid such
grave mistakes, I‟d like to extend my gratitude to all those that helped me in the process of
preparing my thesis.

It‟s by the almighty God that I live and breathe and keep going and I would like to say praise to
him. Next, I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Feyera Senbeta who dedicated his precious time
and energy and did the most to help me prepare a thesis worthy of everyone involved. I‟d also
like to thank my parents for having been my rocks during long writing and editing sessions,
which were stressful.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement i
table of contents ii
List of tables iv

list of figures v
list of accronyms and abbreviations vi
Abstract vii

CHAPTER ONE: 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background to the study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 3
1.3 Objectives of the study 5
1.4 Research Questions 5
1.5 Significance of the Study 5
CHAPTER TWO: 7
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 7
2.1. Concepts and Definitions 7
2.1.1 Community 7
2.1.2 Participation 8
2.2 Different kinds of Participation 9
2.3 The Origin of Community Participation in Decision Making Processes 11
2.3 Community Participation in Planning and Financing for resource Management 12
2.4 Involving communities in local decision-making 13
2.5 Community participation and natural resource conservation in Ethiopia 14
2.6 Role of communities in community based natural resource management 15
2.7 Community Participation (CP) in Sustainable Tourism Development 16
2.9 The Ethiopian Protected Area System, their recognized benefits and the policy
framework at work 20
2.10. Ethiopian Tourism Policy Review on Community Involvement in National Parks 23
CHAPTER THREE 25
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH METHODS 25
3.1 Description of the Study area 25
3.1.1. Socio-demographic situation of ASLNP 28

ii
 c) Local government 30
d) Identification of Ecosystem Services of the Park 31
3.2 Research design 32
3.2.1 Data sources 33
3.2.2 Target Population 33
3.4 Instruments of Data Collection 34
3.4.1 Interview 34
3.4.2 Focus Group Discussion 34
3.4.3 Field observation 34
3.5 Data analysis 35
CHAPTER FOUR: 36
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS 36
Introduction 36
4.2 The Local Communities‟ Involvement in Decision Making Process for Sustainable Management of
ASLNP 38
4.2.1 The Local Communities‟ Involvement during the Establishment Phase. 39
4.2.2 Involvement during the Planning Phase. 40
4.2.3 Involvement during the Implementation and Management Phases. 41
4.2.4. The Importance of Communities‟ Participation in the Management of the ASLNP 41
4.2.5. Local community participation in decision making towards management of ASLNP
44
4.2.6 The levels of local communities contribution towards ASLNP sustainable management 48
4.2.8. Challenges of sustainable management of ASLNP Park 52
4.2.8. The opportunities in place to ensure participatory decision making for the sustainable
management of the ASLNP 55
4.3. Summary 57
CHAPTER FIVE: 59
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 59
5.1. Conclusions 59
5.2 Recommendations 60
APPENDIX 67

iii
List of tables

Table 1.Main Typology of participation ....................................................................................................... 9

Table 2.Types and descriptions of ecosystem services ............................................................................... 19
Table 3.List of protected areas of Ethiopia ................................................................................................. 21
Table 2. Characteristics of participants ....................................................................................................... 37

iv
List of figures
Figure 1.Arnstein‟s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation (ALCP).......................................................... 17
Figure 2. Analytical Framework for the study ............................................................................................ 22
Figure 3.Map of the study area ................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 4. Soil degradation within the park .................................................................................................. 29
Figure 5. Acacia tree cut down for charcoal production at Shalla Billa Kebele ......................................... 30
Figure 6: Farmland with crops within the acacia woodland inside the Park............................................... 31
Figure 7. Grazing land established within the park by local communities ................................................. 32

v
List of Appendices

APPENDIX 1: Key informant interview protocol ...................................................................................... 67

APPENDIX2: Focus group discussion guidelines ...................................................................................... 68
APPENDIX 3: Checklist for observation ................................................................................................... 70

vi
 ABSTRACT

This study assessed the extent of community participation in the decision making process for
sustainable park management of the Abijatta-Shalla Lakes National Park (ASLNP), Ethiopia. A
qualitative method was employed to collect relevant data. A total of 32 people were involved in
the research. In which ways are local communities involved in the decision-making process
regarding park management, What are the perceptions of the local communities on the existing
decision making process regarding park management , What are the challenges faced in
engaging local communities in the process of decision-making, What are the existing
opportunities to support the sustainable management of ASLNP. One focus group a discussion
was conducted and 24 key informants were contacted for in-depth interviews. The findings of this
research revealed that communities members who were participating in decision making process
for ASLNP management, were the people who employed in park and other members of the
communities .There was no concrete effort to involve the communities in decision making in the
study area. The findings revealed that the communities’ sentiments about the form of decision
making processes in place were mixed including sometimes conflicting views about park
ownership and role to be played by each of the parties. The study advocates for integrated set of
solutions by both parties to reduce heavy dependency of local communities’ livelihoods in
ASLNP and by establishing a system of incentives so as to spur the spirit of environmental
consciousness for local community.

Keywords: Community Participation, Decision Making, ASLNP, Sustainable Park

Management.

vii
 LIST OF ACCRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ASLNP Abijatta-Shalla Lakes National Park

CAMPFIRE Community Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources
CBFRM Community-Based Forest Resources Management
CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management
CB-PES Community-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services
CCG Collaborative Group
CP Community Participation
ICDPs Integrated Conservation and Development Projects
JFM Joint Forest Management
SLM Sustainable Land Management

viii
 CHAPTER ONE:

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

For many developing countries including Ethiopia, travel and tourism serves as an important
source of foreign currency for their economy. However, it is still the industrialized countries that
are some of the largest beneficiaries of inbound international travel (UNECA, 2015).
Nonetheless, particularly in the case of Africa, tourism is seen as one of the main providers to a
successful development of the countries‟ economies as well as an important venue for poverty
reduction (Ashley and Mitchell, 2005).

As Carson (2015) explained developing countries encourage investment in tourism for mainly
economic reasons: tourism generates foreign exchange earnings and through taxation and other
fiscal measures and contributes to government income; creates employment and entrepreneurial
opportunities; attracts foreign direct investment; and stimulate regional development. The
tourism often brings a comparative advantage in development terms, compared to more
traditional sectors of the economy such as agriculture, small-scale manufacturing and mining.
The use of tourism attractions, which can include climate, culture, wildlife and heritage provide
an economic value to assets which previously might have been undervalued (Carson, 2015).

One of the key issues for pursuing sustainable development is the active participation of the local
community in the decision-making process. According to Burns et al. (2004) community
participation concerns the engagement of individuals and communities in decisions about things
that affect their lives. Community participation is separated from consultation by the fact that
communities play an active part and have a significant degree of power and influence in the
decision–making processes (Akortor, 2012).

Over the past few decades the phrase “community participation” has gained increasing usage in
academic literatures, policy making documents and international conference papers as a key
element in attempts to attain sustainable development in African countries. The issue of
community participation is now an established principle when one considers issues dealing with

1
decision-making to achieve sustainable development (Chirenje, Richard and Emmanuel., 2013;
Shackleton et al., 2002).

The concept of community participation in decision making is not a recent development, as since
long ago, man lived in small communities where decision-making and community participation
in community projects was mandatory. Local village chiefs and family heads met on issues
which varied from improving farming and fishing methods to deciding on the perfect punishment
for a criminal, right down to the community providing financial and physical support to help a
new couple put up their first matrimonial home. With the onset of westernization and in the case
of developing countries, the issue of colonization, western forms of governance were seen as
more civilized and thus, traditional forms of governance were discarded (Akortor, 2012).

On the other hand, in the case where the project„s existence is decided on by a group of experts
and the sitting government, it every now and then leads to apathy as the community may not
want that particular project at the said time and in some cases, boycott or sabotage it completely.
Several publications such as, Ekblom (2005), Newman (1997), Lawson (2007, p.9), exemplify
the government initiated project, which had led to the under-utilization of the project du to the
area becoming a principal crime area.

In spite of the widespread acceptance of the belief that community participation is necessary in
decision making (Fischer, 1993 as cited in Akortor, 2012), some people have the view that
decision making should be left to some experts (Cutler and Johnson, 1975; Kontoleon et al.,
2001). These are people who support the believe that the government and their technical experts
have better knowledge on community project implementation, and that involving the community
would lead to increasing the cost of the project.

Ethiopia possesses considerable natural resources, of which some of them are unique to the
nation This subsequently lead to the creation of conservation sites all over the country and there
have 30 conservation sites designated as protected areas since early 1960s.These area are
acknowledged to be high priority sites for the conservation of wildlife resources. However, all
the efforts made to conserve and manage these ecosystems have never been as planned mainly
due to direct human population dependency on these resources that led to severe environmental
degradation. As an example, Abijatta-Shalla Lakes National Park (ASLNP) is one of the
protected areas of the country that has been indicated as a heavily degraded ecosystem in the

2
country (Feyera and Fekadu, 2000) mainly owing to inadequate community participation in
process of park establishment and management.

This research work attempted to critically investigate the multiple realities surrounding the
concept of community participation in the decision making process for sustainable park
management by taking the special case of ASNLP which is located in the Central Rift Valley
System of Ethiopia.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Community participation is a process by which the local communities, influence and share
control over development initiatives and the decisions over the resources, which affect them.
Today, the need to involve communities and other actors, such as NGOs and the private sector,
as partners in sustainable natural resources management programs has been highlighted. It has
been demonstrated that when communities are empowered with responsibilities and rights for the
management, and receive benefits from them, there is an increase in community ownership of
resources and processes, thereby encouraging sustainable utilization of natural resources.
Evidently, the communities are always at the receiving end when it pertains to losses in the
exchange. Community participation was shown to be effective when the local population is
involved not as co-operating users but as natural resource managers or owner managers
(Chilenge et al., 2013).

While there have been strident calls for community participation in decision making to replace
elite democratic practices elsewhere, not much literature is available especially with regards to
tourism resource conservation in the case of Ethiopia in general, and in ASLNP in particular. For
instance, despite the ASLNP enormous potential for tourism activities, however, this specific
park has been, and still is, one of the heavily threatened ecosystems in the country. On top of
that, different studies have been undertaken to understand the situation related to its status
(Gobena, 2008; Tewodros and Afework, 2014); those studies have not attempted to shed light on
the level of community participation in decision making process and its impact on resources
management like ASNLP. Actually, there is a need to understand the causes of the unceasing
degradation of ASLNP resources and, whether people are correctly involved in decision making

3
processes regarding conservation efforts in place, and if so, to understand the practices of
community participation (CP) that is being implemented.

The literature on community based natural resources management is sparse to non-existent for
unique areas like a park that is host to a large human population. Much of the body of work on
this issue was conducted from the perspective of the need to protect natural resources to help the
local community extract livelihoods out of them. The case of ASLNP differs from such cases in
that the natural resource around the area needn‟t be protected in any special manner for the
community to depend on it for their livelihoods unless tourism and biodiversity are seen as
factors. To ensure a community is rallied around an area of natural resource that can be used as
tourism attraction, there needs to exist a deeply entrenched sense of ownership among the local
people about the said area and hence the need for community based decision making process.

ASLNP, from its inception, didn‟t put much emphasis on helping raise the standards of the local
peoples‟ lives. Rather, the people in and around the park were seen as invaders trampling on
precious natural resource, as is the case for many other parks in the country. That people weren‟t
consulted at the decision- making stages of the creation and further development of the park has
contributed to the marginalization of the local community and utter non-existence of community
conscious decision making.

An investigation of actual participation in conservation and tourism development provides an

opportunity to gather information about the status, and help to determine whether the situation
meets the community‟s expectations. Identifying the gap between the two can help to examine
the reasons for the gap and generates possible suggestions and solutions. Such findings can be
important for the successful conservation and sustainable tourism development in the ASLNP
and for other protected areas. This research therefore, examines the following key concepts:
current community participation in the decision-making process and the perceptions of the
people regarding the existing form of CP in the case of ASLNP resources conservation.

4
1.3 Objectives of the study

1.31 General objective

The main objective of this study is to critically analyze local community involvement in the
decision-making process for ASLNP management.

1.3.2 Specific objectives

1) To examine the extent of local communities involvement in decision-making process for

ASLNP management.

2) To identify bottlenecks for community participation in decision making for management of

the ASLNP.

3) To determine opportunities towards involving local community in the decision making

process for the management of the ASLNP resources.

4) To scrutinize community opinions about the form of decision making processes in place.

1.4 Research Questions

a) In which ways are local communities involved in the decision-making process regarding park
management?
b) What are the perceptions of the local communities on the existing decision making process
regarding park management?
c) What are the challenges faced in engaging local communities in the process of decision-
making?
d) What are the existing opportunities to support the sustainable management of ASLNP?

1.5 Significance of the Study

The results of this study contribute to the body of knowledge about better touristic resources
management, as it enlightens decision makers, and other practitioners in developing a

5
consciousness about the significance of community participation in decision making for the
conservation of protected areas as a way to promote sustainable tourism and natural resource
management. Information from this research can help in identifying the barriers that might
prevent communities from participating in conservation of ASLNP resources. It also provides a
standpoint for further researches on tourism and conservation regarding community participation
in decision-making processes in the case of ASLNP.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is comprised of the national park under study (ASLNP) and select few
communities that live around the park.Participation in the management processes was
determined by community involvement in activities of planning,budgeting and sharing benefit
from ASLNP resources.

1.7 Limitation of the Study

This study involves only four Kebeles out of eighteen constituting the study area due to the fact
that during the period of data collection security was not very good in rural Ethiopia. Therefore,
the study is limited to individuals who were purposively selected as they were found related
more appropriately with the topic under investigation and were easily accessible.
The data under study was generated from one group discussion (8 people of different age, sex
and education background) made of people that were living in the study area.
Considering the fact that there is only one park under study, this again takes the research findings
specific and hence cannot be generalized to a nation-wide scope. The information generated
under this study was from sites where the park had not started tourism revenue sharing programs.
So it might not capture the views of other communities,which are benefiting from these
programs.
1.8 Organization of the Thesis

This paper is organized into five chapters. The first chapter deals with the introductory part that
provides background on the subjects of tourism and development, on conservation and
community participation. It also presents the objectives of the study and research questions as
well as limitations of the study. The second chapter gives the literature review where different
context relevant for the study are explained in details based on past literatures. It also includes a

6
framework followed by the study. Chapter three describes the study under investigation, and
research methods followed to meet the study aims. The next part of the thesis presents the
findings as per the analysis performed, and the last chapter deals with conclusion and
recommendations from the findings.

CHAPTER TWO:

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Concepts and Definitions

For a better understanding of community participation in decision making leading to an

improvement in the resource conservation, which is fundamental for sustainable tourism
development and poverty alleviation, there is a need for the explanation of the significant
keywords that are repeated throughout this research.

2.1.1 Community

The word „community‟ is multifaceted and controversial depending on the angle at which one
chooses to look at it. In the Community Planning Handbook, Wates (2000 p. 184) describes a
community as a group of people living within close propinquity to each other. Community could
also refer to people who live in close proximity with each other.

The word „community‟ etymologically is derived from the Latin word “communitatem”1, which
means community or fellowship. With regards to the sociological point of view, a community is
one in which a community consists of people living within close proximity to each other.
Communities differ from one locality to another as a result of history and cultural traditions.
From a political position, a community consists of a number of dwellings and buildings which
are under a particular political jurisdiction. These are so divided for the ease of administration
and elections.

1
Online Etymology dictionary

7
The Webster„s New Collegiate Dictionary defines community as; “a group of people with
common characteristics or interest living together within a larger society”. For the purpose of
this thesis, this definition is adopted to mean community.

2.1.2 Participation

Participation „as a word is etymologically derived from the Latin word “participationem”2which
stems from the word “participare” which means to participate. Participation is synonymous with
words such as; involvement, teamwork and engagement. In relation to this study, participation is
about “joint collaboration with stakeholders with the aim of being involved in decision making
with a goal in mind” .2

The Oxford Dictionary defines participation as; “the action of taking part in something”. The
World Bank (1996) defines participation as; “the process through which stake-holders influence
and share control over development initiatives and decisions and resources which affect them”.
For participation to be genuine and sustainable, it should primarily be voluntary.

Notwithstanding, there have been quite a couple of cases where citizens took part in
deliberations in the locality because of incentives they stood to gain from it or as a result of
persuasion. This is also not sustainable because, once the attraction is absent; the participation
equilibrium would be unsettled.

Furthermore, Claeys (2001 as cited in Akortor,2012 p.17) also comprehends the ability of the
citizenry to participate regardless of their social and economic standing as, the respect that is
accorded to an individual recognizing, that he/she has the ability to contribute something
meaningful towards community advancement. Distrust in the administration of policies and
projects have been the backbone in the fight of the communities to be at the forefront of the
decision making process. Over the years, corrupted officials have used bureaucratic red-tape as a
means of preventing the public to get access to documents that may incriminate them. In
frontline position in the fight to be heard, are the activists followed by, non-elected
administrators in local government, then by citizens who have participated in at least a
communal process or event during the year (Akortor, 2012).

2
Online Etymology dictionary

8
2.2 Different kinds of Participation

In the views of Akortor (2012), the driving force behind participation is a result of a couple of
subjective forces. Human beings by nature are different and thus, the compulsion to undertake
participatory work unfortunately may sometimes be for the wrong reasons, whilst in some cases
it is for the right reasons.

According to Pretty et al. (1995 p.61) in their book “Participatory Learning and Action”, some of
the types of participation include:1) Manipulative Participation, 2) Passive Participation, 3)
Participation by Consultation, 4) Participation for Material Incentive, 5) Functional Participation,
6) Interactive Participation and 7) Self-Mobilization”. This is further explained in table 1 below.

Table 1.Main Typology of participation

Typology Characteristics of each type

Participation is simply pretenses, the community themselves are not willing to

1.Manipulative

participate in development processes but because of the external manipulation

participation

they simply pretend. Participation in this type is not sustainable because people
will not always pretend.

People participate by being told what has been decided or has already happened.
2.Passive participation

Information belongs only to the external professionals. This is regarded as top-

down approach to people participation and assume that people do not have
potential to decide for themselves. This type of participation is difficult when it
come to the implementation stage; people fail to support the project because they
were not involved during the planning stage.

People participate by giving answers to questions posed by extractive researchers

information
3.Participation

and project managers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. People

do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings of the
giving

research or project design are neither shared nor checked for accuracy.
in

9
 People participate by being consulted or by answering questions. There is no
room for the shared decision-making between the stakeholders and the
professional. In most cases people„s needs and priorities ignored by
for 4.Participation by

professionals. This also becomes difficult during the implementation of

consultation

development projects. This type creates the gap between the local people and
professionals.

People participate in work for food arrangements; They may also participate for
material incentive

the cash or other material incentives. The activities and the participation stop
5.Participation

when the material incentives stop. This type of participation is not voluntary but
people attracted by incentive given to them. The people themselves do not own
the development processes under this type.

Participation is seen by external agencies as a means to achieve project goals,

participation
6.Functional

especially reduced costs. People participate by forming groups to meet

predetermined project objectives.

People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and formation or
strengthening of local group, or institution that determine how available
resources are used. Learning methods used to seek multiple viewpoints. This type
is the best, because it regards local people as potential and equal partner in
participation
7.Interactive

development processes. This type of participation creates the sense of ownership

of the development project by the community.

People participate by taking initiative independent of external institutions. They

develop contact with external institutions for resources and technical advice but
mobilization

retain control over how resources are used.

8.Self-

Source: Based on Pretty, (1995, p. 61).

10
2.3 The Origin of Community Participation in Decision Making Processes

The history of CBNRM goes back to early African agrarian development, starting from the
traditional forms of forest management that were practiced by tribal communities for millennia,
prior to colonial administration. At this time resource governance was the main traditional
community management systems in Africa. Indigenous resource management systems reflected
the way communities organized their lives, within the constraints of the environment in which
they lived (Ordera, 2009).

CBNRM as a structural concept has crystallized in the past three decades as an effective
approach for the management of tree and forest resources (Ordera, 2009). Experiences from
various countries have shown that when communities are empowered with responsibility and
legally secured rights for the management of forest resources, and acquire benefits from them,
the rate of degradation is substantially reduced and in many cases the forest cover improves
visibly (Wily, 2002). Community-based forest management (CBFM) has gained a foothold in
virtually all countries in the continent through these rather informal footsteps.

Available country case studies (Wily 2002; Kajembeet al., 2003) show that, CBFM had been
initiated or implemented in over 35 countries in Africa by 2002. By 1999 only about 20 countries
were practicing some form of CBFM system and had developed policies and legal instruments
(FAO, 1999).Wily (2002) further states that at country levels, by 2002, the process had stretched
to more than 100 projects; 5000 communities participated in more than 100 national forests, and
1000 protected areas. This indicates a rapid rate of spread of the process, despite lack of states‟
active support. In wildlife management, increasing poaching pressure and shrinking habitats and
economies in African countries have led to a growing consensus among conservationists and
international conservation organizations that the American National Park model, commonly
referred to as the fences-and-fines approach, has failed to protect wildlife on that continent
(Songorwa, 1999).

As a result, since the late 1970s and early 1980s, conservationists and policy makers have been
searching for viable and sustainable alternatives or a “lasting solution” (Songorwa, 1999). The
most appealing alternative for the conservationists and other authorities was to retrace their own
footsteps and go to rural communities, their perceived “enemies” and ask for forgiveness and

11
promise cooperation, partnership and equitable distribution of wildlife costs and benefits (IIED
1994). This led to the birth of local community participation. The fundamental principle behind
this is that the local communities have been left out from resources they should rightfully
control, manage and benefit from.

2.3 Community Participation in Planning and Financing for resource Management

According to Wily and Monela (1999) the common constructs of CBFM in Africa ranges from
full community ownership over forests to small organized forest-user groups and top-down
community structures imposed on traditional user groups by intervention agencies (NGOs or
government). Communities in southern Africa, Malawi and Tanzania are involved in industrial
plantation programs under “out-grower” contract programs (Wily,2002); addressing forest
degradation and selling of forest products in Botswana (Mogakaet al., 2001); Mozambique
(Mansur and Cuco, 2002); Niger and Mali (Fries andHeemans, 1992). Malawi has articulated
supportive forest policies and a forest act that specify community rights and mechanisms for
achieving CBFM. Uganda, Lesotho and Namibia are also developing along the same lines
(Wily,2002). In Mozambique, CBFM is applied in forests where local people are involved in or
are affected by resource use (Mansur and Cuco, 2002). In Madagascar, a range of programs
promote state-people agreements that transfer power to communities for the first three years
followed by a 10-year term (Ordera, 2009).

In Zimbabwe the development of Community Areas Management Program for Indigenous

Resources (CAMPFIRE) and its implementation were guided by a loose consortium of
governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, and university departments known
as the CAMPFIRE Collaborative Group (CCG) (Mapedza and Bond, 2006). The communities
were not involved in the planning and budgeting of the program. The case of the Tanzania‟s
pioneering community-based forest resources management (CBFRM) is best understood when
looked at against the background of the country's village administrative structure, the new forest
policy and legislation, the land policy and law (MNRT, 1998).

12
However, as much as the local population was heavily involved in implementation, they were not
involved in planning and budgeting. Using the IIED typology, all African countries which were
identified in this review fit into categories 1) Passive participation; 3) Participation by
consultation and Functional participation. These categories identify limited participation or none
by communities in local decision-making through planning and budgeting.

2.4 Involving communities in local decision-making

As noted by Alexander and McGregor (2000) in the 1990s when CAMPFIRE was being
introduced in Zimbabwe, at times it was challenged with violent resistance by communities who
felt disenfranchised in the whole process. The communities in the CAMPFIRE locations did not
participants in the formulation process of the project and therefore did not understand it nor saw
its benefits. This ultimately led to conflicts between the project managers who had good
intentions and the communities who on paper were the beneficiaries of the proposed projects.
The communities in Tanzania and Mozambique were also not involved in the formulation of
policies for the management of natural resources in their environment. This means there is very
limited sense of ownership of the projects by the communities who constitute the major group in
the projects (Chilengeet al., 2013).

Today, the need to involve communities and other actors, such as NGOs and the private sector,
as partners in sustainable natural resources management programs has been highlighted. New
policies, legislation and regulations in favor of CBNRM have either been enacted or still in the
making. According to FAO (2003) experiences from many countries have showed that CBNRM
in the past decade has proved itself to be an effective approach to sustainable natural resources
management. CBFM projects that have been implemented have paved the way for policies and
laws that have in turn embedded the practice in the national forest development agenda. In this
regard, the policy and legislation development have benefited immensely from the experiences
of the pioneering pilot village community trials (Chilenge et al., 2013).

It has been demonstrated that when communities are empowered with responsibilities and rights
for the management, and receive benefits from them, they come to recognize the importance of
sustainable natural resources management and respect forest management rules.

13
It is important that governments of developing countries involve communities in participatory
planning and budgeting in local decisions. This can be achieved through involving the
communities in local policy formulation which can be adopted at national level thus
guaranteeing a bottom-up approach in governance and management. Policy formulation can
integrate the communities through granting them veto power in voting for programs, projects and
activities. The communities should also be awarded the opportunity to formulate their own ideas
which will be supported financially and technically by the government, NGOs and other
institutions. This will increase community ownership of resources and processes thereby
encouraging sustainable utilization of natural resources (Chilenge et al., 2013).

2.5 Community participation and natural resource conservation in Ethiopia

Awimbo et al. (2004) in their broad review of community participation and natural resource
conservation in the IGAD region state including Ethiopia they recommended that special effort
needed to be made to enhance the decentralization process, which should focus on the
empowerment of communities, and in the creation of an appropriate environment for the needs
of community-based natural resources management requirements. This needs to be reflected in
the policies and regulations, as well as the institutions responsible. The implementation of a
policy of decentralized natural resources management requires the establishment of decentralized
structures, and capacity building interventions at regional, zonal, district and community levels.”
(Awimbo et al. 2004)

Demeke and Ashok (2013) in their study on ecotourism for environmental conservation and
community livelihoods, in the case of the Bale Mountain National Park found out that people
engagement in conservation activities involved activities such as fire protection, wildlife and
forest protection in the national park, helping to provide information about illegal activities
noticed in the park, and involvement in ecotourism associations of the park. The communities
were also involved with the work of park boundary demarcation and fence construction around
homesteads to protect crops of local people from wildlife damage.

14
2.6 Role of communities in community based natural resource management

A case study realized in Tanzania, on areas where joint forest management (JFM) was practiced,
the right holder (owner of the resources) was the government and the local communities were
duty bearers and in the course of the management process they tended to have their share of
benefits and costs. JFM represented a fundamental shift in forest management methods and
conceptually envisages a movement from centralized to decentralized management (Kajembe
and Kessy, 2000, as cited in Chilenge et al., 2013). In areas where CBFM was applied, the
resources belong to the communities and governments only acts as facilitators sending in experts
and materials.

WTO envisaged that the livelihood of poor people (local people) and their environments are the
major focuses that need sustainable tourism or ecotourism it recognizes the ecological, social and
economic aspects of the environment (WTO, 2002).Under CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe, the natural
resources belong to the Department of Wildlife and Natural Resources and the local communities
work to conserve the resources so as to gain some material benefits (Hughes, 2001, Chilenge et
al., 2013). In Mozambique the communities own the natural resources and are actively involved
in the protection of the forests by setting up fire-guards and limiting the harvest of the forest
resources (Mansur and Cuco, 2002 as cited in Chilenge et al., 2013). It was realized that in the
implementation of the different programs the communities were involved in all the activities.
However, the local communities were not part of the decision-making processes in the
formulation stages where there is planning and budgeting (Chilenge et al., (2013).

In the views of Chilenge et al. (2013) the results clearly demonstrate that communities already
play a crucial role in the implementation of programs, projects and activities. It is the local
communities who supply labor and local materials for the projects and at times local knowledge
is priceless for the management of natural resources. There is need to actively involve the
communities in the decision-making processes from policy formulation through to
implementation and even during evaluation. In the developing countries that were identified by
Chilengeet al., (2013), the communities were only involved in the implementation of the
programs. This led to deliberate negligence of the programs by the local communities and
ultimately to failure. Also dependence on donor funds and resources for projects was established
to be problematic. In Zimbabwe loss of NGO support that followed the end of donor funding had

15
severe negative effects on outcomes (Mashinya and Balint, 2007 as cited in Chilenge et al., 2013
p. 14).

Because of too much dependence on donor resources while ignoring the potential of the local
communities to provide and sustain their own projects, failure becomes inevitable. Thus the
participatory role of communities in planning and budgeting will enable stakeholders to identify
resources among communities, which can be used in programs, projects and activities reducing
their dependence on donors. Empowering the local communities through sustainable allocation,
management and exploitation of resources are key elements of poverty alleviation (Chilenge et
al., 2013) and to sustainable management of natural resources.

2.7 Community Participation (CP) in Sustainable Tourism Development

According to Tosun (2005) “community participation is a categorical term that legitimizes

various forms (direct, indirect, active, passive, etc.) of participation at different levels (local,
regional, and national) under specific circumstances”. CP has been adopted as a strategy to
improve development and conservation projects (Pearl et al., 1996; Lee, A.K.-Y., 2016).
Through CP, tourism development incorporates the opinions of the local community, which can
help to fulfill their expectations. The local community will be more supportive of tourism
development if they have a chance to participate in the planning and development process and to
help create a more democratic community. However, a lack of interest in or knowledge of
tourism development can be a major barrier to the success of CP in rural areas (Mak, 2012).

A ladder of citizen participation proposed by Arnstein (1969) addresses the degree of power
distribution in terms of a typology of citizen participation that includes eight rungs
(manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power, and
citizen control) that are further categorized into top, middle, and bottom levels of participation
(Figure 1). The bottom rungs of the ladder, (1) manipulation and (2) therapy, represent levels of
non-participation because the authority holds the real power to avoid allowing local community
participation in decision-making about development. The middle rungs of the ladder, (3)
informing, (4) consultation, and (5) placation, describe levels of tokenism that allow the local
community to know and offer opinions on projects. It is not ensured that their views will be

16
taken into consideration in the decision-making process. The top rungs of the ladder are (6)
partnership, (7) delegated power, and (8) citizen control.

Real participation begins where negotiation between various stakeholders is included and the
local community takes up part of the responsibility for decision-making. At levels 7 and 8,
participants‟ views have been taken into consideration in the decision-making arena, and they are
empowered to development Arnstein (1969). Arnstein‟s ladder of citizen participation (ALCP)
has been adopted by tourism scholars to understand both the nature of the participation expected
of the community and the community‟s actual participation in tourism development.

Figure 1.Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation (ALCP)

Source: Adapted from Bonnie et al. (2017)

17
2.8 Ecosystem services as a benefit of protected areas

Ecosystems provide a range of benefits to all people, including the benefits of provisioning,
regulating, cultural, and supporting services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005) 3.The
protected areas include lakes, parks, and others. These areas consist a variety of rich ecosystems
that provide a different range of services to the local population and to Ethiopia as a whole. The
number of services benefitted from the protected areas‟ ecosystems differs from area to area and
may be related to the following classification (See Table on next page).

3
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press:
Washington. DC, USA.

18
Table 2.Types and descriptions of ecosystem services

Source: Adapted from Richardson (2010)

19
2.9 The Ethiopian Protected Area System, their recognized benefits and the policy
framework at work

Ethiopia‟s Protected Area System is larger than the global average, covering 14% of its
landmass. The recently created Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA) is managing
13 National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Reserves and regulates as well as administers
wildlife utilization in the entire country. Other protected areas, including a number of National
Parks, Forest Priority Areas and Controlled Hunting Areas, are managed by various regional
authorities in the nine states of the federation (Lakew and Ludwig,2008).

In Ethiopia protected areas comprise National Parks, Wildlife Reserves and Sanctuaries, Forestry
Priority Areas and Controlled Hunting Areas, forming the cornerstones of the national
conservation strategy. As such, they are an integral part of sustainable development for Ethiopia
in providing protection to centerpieces of wider landscapes and watersheds as source of
important ecosystem services. They act as refuges for species and ecological processes that
cannot survive in intensely managed landscapes. Although protected areas were often created
primarily to conserve biodiversity, they also provide other essential benefits for local
communities as well as the national economy at large. Protected areas provide many resources
that can be used to provide direct gains, subsistence resources or less tangible benefits such as
climate change mitigation and erosion control. Benefits provided by protected areas can be
divided into four categories:
 Providing livelihoods services to local communities (e.g. grazing resources, forest products,
fish resources, wild food products, etc.)
 Supporting human life (e.g. potable water and clean air, providing water for electricity
production and irrigation)
 Regulating other important ecosystem functions and services (e.g. Mountain forests
regulating downstream water flows, carbon sequestration, natural disaster mitigation)
 Having cultural significance and providing opportunities for recreation (e.g. Sacred sites,
ecotourism and trophy hunting)

20
As to the policy framework in place regarding the relationship between protected areas and the
local community, many authors have decried it as unworkable and unsustainable. Flower (2011)
says “…expressed concern at the incongruity between the status of people living within the park
and Ethiopian federal regulations for National Parks, which, in accordance with IUCN Category
II, stipulate the exclusion of any occupation or resource use that go against protected area goals
of ecosystem protection (IUCN 1994). Ethiopia‟s exclusionary policy for national parks has been
indicated as a major source of conflict between communities living in/around the park and
authorities responsible for conserving park ecosystems and biodiversity”

Table 3.List of protected areas of Ethiopia

National parks of Ethiopia Wildlife sanctuaries of Ethiopia

 Abijatta-Shalla National Park  Didessa Wildlife Sanctuary

 Awash National Park
 Harar Wildlife Sanctuary
 Bale Mountains National Park
 Kuni-Muktar Mountain Nyala
 Chebera Churchura National Park Sanctuary

 Gambela National Park  Senkelle Swayne‟s Hartebeest

Sanctuary
 Kafta Sheraro National Park
 Stephanie Wildlife Sanctuary

 Mago National Park

 Yabelo Wildlife Sanctuary
 Maze National Park

 Nechisar National Park

 Omo National Park

 Simien Mountains National Park

 Yangudi Rassa National Park

Source: Adapted from Lakew and Ludwig(2008)

21
2.8 Conceptual Framework for the Study

Institutional factors
(facilitators)
Successful
Governmental, local
participation: community institutions,
other actors
Bottom-up,
learning and
information and
benefit sharing,
ASLNP sustainable
trust, equity,
management outcomes
empowerment, and achieved
ownership, better
accepted decisions,

Community participation
in decision making
regarding planning,
budgeting and sharing
benefits from the park

Figure 2. Analytical Framework for the study

Source: Author, 2017

22
2.10. Ethiopian Tourism Policy Review on Community Involvement in National Parks

The Ethiopian natural resources, tourism and national park theoretical underpinnings are sparse
at best and non-existent in some cases. The policy framework that is supposed to guide what
happens to the future of these resources and institutions is fragmented among various literatures
prepared by the many stakeholders like the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, The Ethiopian
Wildlife Conservation Authority and Ethiopian Tourism Organization. Among the many policy
documents prepared by these bodies, the most recent and the one that carries more weight among
the various stakeholders is the “Sustainable Tourism Master Plan”. This master plan was
prepared by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the United Nations Economic Commission
for Africa in 2015.

According to the tourism master plan “nature-based tourism is seen in the country as an avenue
through which the prevailing tourism product, which is predominantly cultural and heritage-
based, could be diversified. It is worth noting that as the prefix suggests, nature-based tourism
products rely heavily on the natural environment and, consequently, its sustainability and/or
conservation is of critical importance to the long-term development of the industry.” (MoCT,
2015) In the same paragraph is a bleak assessment of the state of the nation‟s natural resources.

While Ethiopia is endowed with ample natural resources as compared to neighboring countries
that rely heavily on nature-based tourism, it is assessed that the country ranks very low on
environmental sustainability. The main reasons that this assessment was made are “…stringency
of environmental regulation; enforcement of environmental regulation; sustainability of the
travel and tourism industry (mainly to do with prevailing policies to ensure that, for example,
nature-based tourism is developed in a sustainable manner); percentage of threatened species;
and environmental treaty ratification.” (MoCT, 2015)

To guide the actions of the various stakeholders, the master plan is organized into 10 actionable
„pillars‟. Out of these pillars, about 3 affect the communities‟ living in and around tourism
attractions directly. The pillar dealing with “Investment in Tourism Facilities and Services”
doesn‟t mention the local communities‟ with respect to founding, running and investing in the
said facilities and services.

23
That such an omission exists in the most important document for the development of the
Ethiopian tourism sector makes it very difficult for the stakeholders to help the local community
benefit from any tourism related commerce.

Another pillar of the master plan is called “Human Resource Development”. This pillar deals
with ways to solve the human resource shortage in the tourism sector and make the professionals
competitive. Here too, there is no mention of members of the local communities‟ living in and
around tourism attractions with respect to recruiting them into the sector.

A pillar titled “Conservation and Preservation of Natural and Cultural Resources” mentions local
communities in and around the park saying “Many of the wildlife protected areas and cultural
heritages do not have any legal boundary demarcated by the law of the country. Therefore, there
is a need to designate and demarcate the resources with involvement of local authorities and
communities.” (MoCT, 2015) It also talks about the need to build community awareness “Apart
from the moral and ethical imperatives to protect rare and fragile resources, host communities
will be made aware of their economic and amenity value both locally and to the nation at large
through the development of carefully planned and sensitive tourism activity. To achieve this,
continuous awareness programme will be implemented.” (MoCT, 2015) This, of course,
provides a clear indication as to the recognition of the role of local communities‟ in protecting
natural resources.

This review, while focusing on a single document shows just how little space local communities‟
decision making is given in the sustainable management of tourism attractions including natural
resources like ASLNP. That this master plan is the most important document in the development
of tourism whether it is natural-based or not means that its omissions are going to be felt
practically in the non-adequate support any initiatives to involve communities in the decision
making process will get.

24
 CHAPTER THREE

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH METHODS

3.1 Description of the Study area

ASLNP is located at 7° 30‟ N; 38° 30‟ in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia, some 200 km
South of Addis Ababa, with an altitudinal range of 1540 to 2075 m.a.s.l. Abijata-Shalla Lakes
National Park is located in the East Showa and West Arsi zones of Oromia National Regional
State at about 207 km South East of Addis Ababa.. It was established in 1974. The park area
covers three districts; Arsi Negele (North East and South), Shalla (South West), and Adami Tullu
Jido Kombolcha (North). It covers an area of about 887 km2 of which 405 km2is land and 482
km2 is water body (Feyera and Fekadu, 2000).

ASLNP comprises two types of ecosystems: aquatic (482 km2) and terrestrial (405 km2)
ecosystems covering a surface area of 887 km2. The climate of the study area can be described as
semi-arid for most of the year, with the rainy season between June and September and the dry
season from October to February and the small rainy season in between. ASLNP receives an
annual rainfall ranging between 500 and 700 mm with mean annual temperature of 20°C
(Alemayehu et al., 2006).

The area is one of the most scenically beautiful spots of Ethiopia, possessing blue lakes fringed
with flat-topped Acacia trees and alive with a spectacular wealth of bird life. According to Tefera
et al. (2002) a total of 453 bird‟s species have been recorded in the Park and 6 are endemic to
Ethiopia. Flamingos are the most prominent and important consumer in the lakes. The climate of
the area is semi-arid with two distinct rainy seasons, short rains in March to May and long rain
during June to September. The average mean annual rainfall in the area is about 500 mm to 700
mm (Legesse et al., 2002).

25
Table 4.physical attributes of ASLNP

Source:based on Reaugh-Flower(2011)

26
Figure 3.Map of the study area
Source: GIS data 2018

27
3.1.1. Socio-demographic situation of ASLNP
In terms of human population size, 31,545 settlers lived in Arsi Negele, 7246 people from Shalla,
and 4684 from Adami Tulu. This is based on archives from District Agricultural Offices of Arsi
Negele, Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha, and Shalla, (2010). According to feyera and fekadu (2001)
over the last three decades, the livestock population inside the park has increased from 30,410 in
1971 to 202,644 in 2010.

a) Settlement expansion and natural resource management problems in ASLNP

According to the District‟s Agricultural Office4 (2010) the population density of the settlers in
the park is 19 people per km2. Population pressure during the last three decades has resulted in
the conversion of natural vegetation, due to overgrazing of natural grasslands, removal of natural
shrub for firewood, and clearing of forests for construction material. As a consequence of these
changes in land cover, vulnerable sloping areas in the area face increased erosion and depletion
of nutrients required for vegetative growth (Ayenew, 2004).

b) Environmental implications of changes in the levels of lakes in the Ethiopian Rift

since 1970.

About 50% (436) of the bird species in Ethiopia have been recorded from the study area due to
the proximity of numerous and diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats in the area (EWNHS,
2002). Livestock-based Agro-pastoralism is central to the livelihoods of many rural households
around the Rift Valley even though it is progressively replaced by subsistence agriculture.
According to Tafesse (2008) greater dependence of residents on resources from the park to
generate their livelihoods, which can be regarded as direct economic benefits, and state
objectives in protecting the park as conservation area has increased instability and conflict in the
area.

4
Arsi-Negele Agricultural Statistical Data. Office Archive.

28
Figure 4. Soil degradation within the park

Source: Arsi-Negele Agricultural Statistical Data. Office Archive.

Land use and land cover (LULC) dynamics have been among the most important visible changes
that have taken place everywhere in the Ethiopian landscape. Such changes are severely affecting
ecosystem health including degradation of nature reserves and wild animal sanctuaries. One such
nature reserve in Ethiopia is the Abijata-Shala National Park (ASNLP). The Abjitata Shala
national park area is very much threatened by overgrazing and deforestation for fuel wood
production and illegal settlements and ethnic conflict (Temesgen et al., 2013). The population
density of the settlers in the park is 19 people per km2 that are spontaneously migrated from
densely populated highlands that surround the rift valley lakes region.

29
Figure 5. Acacia tree cut down for charcoal production at Shalla Billa Kebele

Official statistics indicate that migrants originated from Arsi Negele district (31,545 people)
Shalla district (7,246 people) and Adami Tulu district (4,684 people), quite often resulting in
conflict among different groups. Over the last three decades, it is not only the human population
that has increased but also the livestock population inside the park, which has gone from 30,410
in 1971 to 202,644 in 2010 (Reaugh-Flower, 2016).

c) Local government

The Arsi Negelle Woreda ARD office is located in Arsi Negelle town, which is 15 km from
ASLNP. The Woreda has several divisions grouped into teams. The Natural resource protection
team is responsible for protection and conservation of natural resources in the Woreda.
Protection is done through raising environmental awareness about the natural resources and their
importance related to the provision of environmental services, including fertility of land for
agriculture to local people through education. This activity also extends to controlling illegal
natural resource utilization such as extraction of sand, charcoal production and others. On the
other hand, conservation measure is through plantation of seedlings to their surrounding
environment advised and guided by the Development Agents in each Kebele (Arsi Negelle ARD,
2017).

30
d) Identification of Ecosystem Services of the Park
The most important ecosystem services local people obtained from the park include: Food
products (fruits, crop), water, raw materials (construction wood, charcoal wood, fuel wood,
Agricultural tool and household furniture making wood, thatching grass and animal fodder (from
grazing land) and medicinal resources. Households from kebeles inside and inside/outside the
Park are mainly dependent on the Park for the provisioning of services such as food, water and
raw materials for their livelihood. These local people use the services almost equally as they do
not have alternative means to depend on for their needs including a source of cash income. So, it
seems that the local people from kebeles inside/outside the Park are the ones engaged in the
production of charcoal in the park.
Figure:

Figure 6: Farmland with crops within the acacia woodland inside the Park

31
Figure 7. Grazing land established within the park by local communities
3.2 Research design

The main objective of this study is to assess the community participation in the decision-making
process for ASLNP management. A qualitative method was used to generate relevant data. This
approach was chosen because the study sought to investigate community participation in tourism
and conservation of the ASLNP resources.

To find answers to the specific questions of this study a qualitative research method was
conducted on Arsi-Negelle woreda (3) kebeles and Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha (1) Keble. To
understand community participation in decision making process regarding the management of
ASLNP. Relevant information was collected from different groups of people living in the study
area. Out of 50 people contacted for interviews, only 32 participants provided adequate
responses. The respondents were 8 people who participated in a focus group discussion in one of
the kebele of the study area. Due to the difficulty of gathering people for focus group
discussions, the researcher opted for in depth interviews and involved a total of 24 key
informants. It was intended that data on the community perceptions about ASLNP resources
management would be gathered mainly through focus groups with women, men, elders, and

32
youth groups. Unfortunately, only one FGD was possible because of the security situation in
rural Ethiopia during the period of data collection.

So, this research is based on reflections of 24 key informants who were interviewed. These
people include 4 communities‟ elders, 2 park wardens, 1 lodge owners, 2 park rangers and 4 tour
guides, 4 governmental officials, we also included 4 young local residents and 4 women living in
the study area and 1 representative of an organization involved in the management of the park.

3.2.1 Data sources

This study used both primary and secondary sources of data. The primary sources of data were
community elders, community representatives, park officials and managers, lodge owners,
government representatives and NGOs participated in conservation activities. In addition, the
secondary sources such as the books, published and unpublished materials and annuals were
examined.

3.2.2 Target Population

The target population of this study consisted of people living in villages adjacent to the ASLNP.
The villages were under 3 woredas namely Arsi-Negelle (pop. 260,129[1]) (with 8 kebeles),
Adami Tullu-Jiddo Kombolcha (pop. 20,923[1]) (with 3 kebeles) and Shalla (pop. 149,804[1])
(with 7 kebeles). The main criterion to select a given community was based on the size of the
community residents, and on how the residents‟ livelihoods activities were dependent on park
resources. However, due to both time and financial constraints only communities living in 3
kebeles from Arsi-Negelle woreda and 1 kebele from Adami-Tulu Jido-Kombolcha were
selected. The kebeles under Arsi-Negelle Woreda are Shala Bila (pop. 4,654), Muda Arja (pop.
5876) and Balena Kilo (pop. 3002) and that under Adami-Tulu Jido-Kombolcha is Desta Abijata
(pop. 6023). These kebeles were chosen due to their representative nature in the kinds of
economic activities they have, including sand extraction, charcoal making, above average tourist
flow and Bole Salt Stone and mineral salt extraction. To understand community participation in
decision making process regarding conservation of ASLNP relevant information was collected
from different groups of people. A total of 50 people were involved in the research. One FGDs
(of 6-8 participants) were conducted and at 8 key informants interviews were conducted. The

33
data on the community side were collected through focus groups with women, men, elders, and
youth groups. On the other hands key informants interviews were conducted with communities‟
elders, park wardens, lodge owners, park rangers and tour guides, governmental officials, and
other relevant stakeholders involved in the management of the park.

3.4 Instruments of Data Collection

Three types of instruments of data collection were used. Using multiple instruments of data
collection was used as a strategy to overcome the shortcomings of each instruments of data
collection. In relation with this issue Master and Kalton (1972 p. 126) stated that “using different
instruments of data collection provide a powerful research strategy for study.” This indicates that
using various tools of data collection is a powerful research technique, as it allows minimizing
the shortcoming of each tool in the study.

3.4.1 Interview

Interviews were conducted using prepared list of questions as interview guide. Community
representatives, park wardens, tour guides, park lodge owners, and government officials were
contacted. In-depth interview were conducted with different individuals so that they can be able
to forward their ideas, opinions feelings and knowledge regarding the challenges and the
possibilities for developing community participation in decision making regarding conservation
of ASNLP resources and on the existing form of community participation.

3.4.2 Focus Group Discussion

Focus group discussions were conducted with community elders, youth, women, and religious
leader. The issues discussed included the current challenges faced to participate in decision
making process, as well as the favorable conditions, according to their views as to how they
think community participation in decision making can be improved, so as to increase ownership
and hence to ensure ASLNP resources sustainable management.

3.4.3 Field observation

The researcher also used note-taking technique to record details observed on the field in a
prepared field diary. She also used a camera to capture important information and phenomena.

34
Observation was the main instrument of data collection to use especially during park visit in
order to observe the condition of biodiversity, the visitors, guides, tourism facilities, management
of tourism related activities, attitudes and feedbacks of different local peoples, environmental
consciousness and lifestyle of the local people, etc.

3.5 Data analysis

The primary data used in this study were collected through in-depth interviews and focus group
discussions conducted at community level. Following the completion of data collection, data
transcription was performed. It involved translation of the information,which was collected in
Afaan Oromo to English. Secondly, data from different key informants and from respective
study sites were categorized according to the research questions and analyzed descriptively to
reflect on the situation surrounding the practices of community participation in decision making
for ASNLP management. The analysis followed mostly thematic analysis and narratives
techniques to summarize important stories. In addition data collected through observation are
presented in forms of photos with a brief description on their bottom.

35
 CHAPTER FOUR:

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS

Introduction

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretations of the collected information from different
sources. To this end, qualitative information was collected on different topics. Those include the
extent of local communities involvement in decision making process, the challenges and
opportunities available for better involving local community in the decision making process for
the management of the ASLNP resources.

4.1. Background characteristics of respondents

This study involved individuals with diversified socio-demographic conditions, to gather

relevant information on community participation on ASLNP resources management. These
individuals were chosen because of three reasons: 1) Representatives of groups 2) Exposure to
the subject under investigation and 3) willingness to participate in the investigation. It turned out
that 65.6% participants (N=32) were male, more than 28.1% were in the age of more than 26
years,25% were illiterate and 53.1% were involved in agricultural and livestock farming
activities. This shows that the study area is mainly dwelled by farmers whose dependency over
natural resources is very significant and hence might raise critical issues relevant for the
understanding of the subject under study.

36
Table 2. Characteristics of Respondents
The table below illustrates the most relevant data about the respondents for this research. From
the table it is possible to see that the group is a bit biased in favor of literate people. There are
also a larger number of males than females. But overall, the table is more or less representative
of the population group under study.

No Demographic Characteristics of Frequency Percentage

Participants

1 Sex Male 21 65.6%

Female 11 34.4%

2 Age 18-25 4 12.5%

26-30 8 25%

31-35 7 21.8%

36-40 7 21.8%

>40 6 18.8%

3 Education Illiterate 8 25%

Level
Primary 10 31.3%

High school 7 21.8%

Bachelor 6 18.8%

Post graduate 1 0.3%

4 Occupation Agriculture & livestock 17 53.1%

Government 4 12.5%

NGOs 2 0.62%

Other off-farm activities 9 28.1%

Source: Sample Survey, May 2018

37
4.2 The Local Communities’ Involvement in Decision Making Process for Sustainable
Management of ASLNP

According to Reaugh-Flower (2011) based on the proposed list of ecosystem services and
following an extensive review of relevant literature and Ethiopia‟s legal definition of a
national park, the following emerged as top-priority park management objectives: ASLNP,
as a proposed national park, must adhere to the criteria established by law. In Ethiopia, a
National Park is defined as “an area designated to conserve wildlife and associated natural
resources to preserve the scenic and scientific value of the area which may include lakes and
other aquatic areas” (GoE 2007). Towards this end, the appropriate Ministry is required to
“ensure that wildlife conservation areas… meet international standards with a view to
facilitating their registration by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
[IUCN]” (GoE,2007).

IUCN standards for a Category II Protected Area (“National Park”) state that it is a
“protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation. [Specifically, a]
Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or
more ecosystems for present and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation
inimical to the purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual,
scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be
environmentally and culturally compatible” (IUCN, 1994).
o Protect wildlife, biodiversity (at species and genetic levels), natural resources and
ecosystem
o Processes within the park, with special emphasis on resident birds and mammals;
o Minimize impacts of resident human, livestock and dog populations in the park and
buffer area;
o Preserve the scenic and scientific value of the area;
o Provide high-quality habitat for Palearctic and African migrant birds as they transient
through the Rift Valley corridor;
o Provide high-value tourism opportunities for Ethiopian and international visitors;
o Reduce poverty through the provision of new and robust economic opportunities for
communities near the park; and

38
 o Increase revenue for EWCA to manage the park and expand conservation activities
across Ethiopia.
With these objectives in mind, the researcher collected relevant information, to complement
data collected based on specific objectives of the study.

4.2.1 The Local Communities’ Involvement during the Establishment Phase.

In the park establishment phase, the local communities are expected to be involved in and make
decisions that would affect them. In 1970, when ASLNP was established mainly due to its rich
bird life the local community didn‟t had a chance of participation. The communities in and
around the park might not even have known that a park had been established there due to the fact
that it took several years for any physical barriers to be set up. The local communities lived and
led their livelihoods disregarding any rules that the authorities might have wanted to impose.
Migrations and new settlements didn‟t stop and the lack of enforcement by the authorities
created a park that existed on paper only.

Negligence on the part of the authorities regarding ASLNP during its establishment phase not
only exposed it to further degradation of its natural resources by the increasing human and
domestic animal population, but also removed any chance of creating a community based
decision making process for the management of the park. Thus, we can safely conclude that any
structured and planned involvement of the community in the decision making process during the
establishment phase of the park was negligible. A local man succinctly explained this when he
said,

We didn’t know about any park back then. Nobody asked us to decide where it
should be and how to protect it. Some people did come in cars and asked us
where the park was and some insisted that our homes were in a park reserved
only for the birds and wild animals.

39
4.2.2 Involvement during the Planning Phase.

The role of local community on protected area and value of wildlife is vital for local people
support in conservation activities. Planning is one of the important exercises of management
undertaken by park managers. During field work key informants were asked if and how local
communities were engaged in planning about the resources of ASLNP.

The planning phase of the management of ASLNP couldn‟t have been any more participatory
than its establishment phase. Rather, due to lack of, even one-sided, non-participatory, planning
by successive governments, the natural resources of the park have been severely depleted. Lack
of any coordinated land-use planning had already resulted in a population explosion in the park
but no initiatives were taken to involve the community in any planning to protect the park from
further degradation due to human encroachment. As stated above, the human factor is very
important in any planning to be done concerning ASLNP management. But to date, no such
plans have been proposed and there are no policy initiatives to involve the community in any
such plans for the future.

Clearly, human habitation is a priority issue for ASLNP management and conservation planning.
Several recent reports, as well as relevant NGOs, recommend a community based co-
management approach as the best chance for successful biodiversity and ecosystem conservation
in ASLNP. (Reaugh-Flower, 2011)

The results henceforth imply that many of the community members who participated in the study
recognized that local communities did not participate adequately in the planning about the
establishment of ASLNP. It is posited that understanding of the factors that impede on involving
local communities in the planning activities, is important as this exercise has the potential to
improve the relationship between local communities and park management team and can help in
enhancing peoples‟ awareness about wildlife conservation in and around protected areas.

Therefore, investigation of the thoughts and outlook of the local communities is critical to
outline the boundary of the park, to set a buffer zone, to prepare a management plan and to put
down possible conservation strategies of the protected area taking into consideration local
communities initiatives is crucial. This is supported by the following statements:

40
“Local participation is when people are given the authority to gather their own efforts to take
care of their resources, make decisions and manage the activities that affect their lives”
(Akitanda, 1994).

Also, Sayer (2004) recognized that community participation is a deliberate procedure of bringing
together the various aspects of natural resource use into a structure of sustainable management.
IIED (1999) asserts that effective local participation is an important component for sustainable
management of national park, which can relate wildlife tourism to conservation and
development. Whereas Domfeh (2007) is of the view that participation is an indispensable
component of sustainable development in general and national park protection in particular.
Furthermore, Pound (2003) asserted that community participation can help increase a common
visualization of the way natural resources are supposed to be managed, build self-assurance and
competence for cooperative action, recognize, develop and integrate local ideas, ways of life and
principles.

4.2.3 Involvement during the Implementation and Management Phases.

It has been discussed that initiatives to involve the community in the decision making process for
the management of ASLNP has been non-existent. In the implementation phase of the
management scheme for ASLNP, the locals reported not having been given the chance to
participate. While most of the staff is from the area in and around the park, and thus part of the
local community, the way the park is implemented didn‟t allow for the interests of the
community to be properly represented.

The community in and around the park does not view the park as theirs. The way the park is
managed right now has resulted in them feeling alienated by an establishment that owns the area
they view as their own. This was evident during an episode of unrest in 2017, where members of
the local community burned down a few buildings used for management of the park.

4.2.4. The Importance of Communities’ Participation in the Management of the ASLNP

The protection and sustainable management of parks resources in any context and in developing
countries in particular cannot be achieved without the active participation of the millions of
small-scale farmers and landless people who every day depend on the forests and trees for their
livelihoods. It has been progressively recognized that effective local participation is an important

41
component for sustainable management of national park, which can relate wildlife tourism to
conservation and development (IIED, 1999).

As Domfeh, (2007) posited participation has been acknowledged as an indispensable component

of sustainable development in general and national park protection in particular. In theory, local
people may benefit under one or two scenarios:

First of all, it links local people residing outside protected areas to tourism initiatives through
benefit sharing schemes. And secondly, it creates community-based tourism initiatives on areas
owned by the community members, which are officially outside protected areas. Evidence
demonstrates that there is small or no incentive for local people to sustain conservation within
protected areas Drake (Domfeh, 2007).

The role of local communities on protected areas and value of wildlife is vital for local people to
support conservation activities. During field work one key informant who was working as a park
ranger in one of the study sites revealed:

Most of the local communities agree on the importance of conservation of the

ASLNP resources. They even show positive attitude towards the protection of
resources of the park…but I think that it is because they know the ecological and
economic benefit they gain from the park especially after awareness creation
done by some stakeholders in the past.
To foster partnership with adjacent community and successfully implement conservation
measures, it is imperative to educate and create awareness for local communities. It is also
essential to identify, test and validate wildlife protection initiatives, especially by promoting
alternative sources of livelihoods for those communities.

According to the park manager:

Local communities must be involved as equal partners in the development and

implementation of conservation strategies that might affect territories, waters
bodies, and other resources, and in particular, they should be key partners in the
establishment and management of ASNLP.
This was supported by one of the local community‟s member, who stated during an interview,

In park management practices, I think community participation should be the

most important determinant of the level of fulfillment with protected area

42
 conservation strategies….however the establishment of the ASLNP was not
participatory enough, I think, considering different conflict that has occurred
between the people and the park management
This was again confirmed by one community elder who articulated

…Community involvement in planning and in other decision-making exercises

promotes the sense of ownership, for example where locals cooperatively protect
reserves from outsiders and also regulate their own use of natural resources…I
believe no one knows the importance of the park and its resources more than the
local residents, and believe that they should be given role to play in implementing
plans too.
The interviewed key informant who was working at Woreda level also recognized that

…community participation should go beyond talking with local communities in

conservation activities…it should also try to make people understand that
conservations is absolutely different from restriction of access to resources as this
would never bring local communities positive attitude towards park areas…but
rather to finding ways to engage local communities I think that they have their
own ways of thinking about their environment .So, there is a need to motivate
them to find solutions using indigenous knowledge towards protecting their
habitats. Efforts from the park managers and other stakeholders should also look
at ways to spur local communities’ initiatives through an integrated system that
provides incentive to them. Currently, plans that are designed for ASLNP
management I am afraid to say they do not consider and give importance to local
initiatives, I think this needs to be improved.
Nevertheless, despite knowledge of the importance of involving local communities in sustainable
management of ASLNP, however, the FGD participants recognized that the park area was being
lost due to agricultural land expansion, grazing and settlement by agro-pastoral communities
from other parts of the country and by the number of impoverished resource-dependent local
populations which were still growing, both within and adjacent to the park territory and other
areas with high biodiversity value. They also indicated that illegal settlements and agricultural
practice in and around the park resulted in destruction of wildlife and its habitats.

The result henceforth shows that many of the community members who participated in the study
recognized that local communities did not participate adequately in the management and also
planning about the establishment of ASLNP. It is posited that understanding of the factors that
impede on involving local communities in the planning and management activities, is important
as this exercise has the potential to improve the relationship between local communities and park

43
management team and can help in enhancing peoples‟ awareness about wildlife conservation in
and around protected areas.

4.2.5. Local community participation in decision making towards management of ASLNP

According to one of the key informants serving as the park biodiversity manager, it would be
better to adopt co-management which is the distribution of authority and responsibility among
the government and the local communities who utilize the resources. So in order to have
flourishing co-management there should be the establishment of suitable organizations, which
should include the local communities.

According to one of key informants serving as a park guard,

Local community decisions making towards park management in circumstances

where several stakeholders within a certain protected environment take part are
considered in management activities.
From FGD respondents it was emphasized that in the participatory process; local people in the
group do not merely play a part as park suppliers or beneficiaries but contribute dynamically by
putting into practice all actions throughout the process.

One of the FGD participants stated:

…local community’s involvement in the park resource management, include

provision of indigenous knowledge and perception about areas of the park…The
communities surrounding the ASLNP take a deliberate involvement in the
management of the park, by sharing their ideas with management concerning the
use of the park and how it help boost park decisions management
activities…people also share information about people who would be degrading
the park resources.
It can be said that the kind of participation according to community in which the members from
the communities are engaged in is the participation in information sharing. It was noted in the
course of data collection and during the focus group discussion that, many students and
researchers frequented the study area to collect data for their studies. However, since the
community members do not get any benefit in return, some of them have started to become
reluctant to provide information to researchers.

44
Though few people are recognized to be active participants in the management practices of the
park, however, this shows that communities are not completely left out in the management of the
park natural resources. The community participates in the management of park resources
especially as informants in the process of resource preservation and protection. ASLNP
management has also stated that it had started to involve the communities in some aspects of
park resource management although the observations showed that it was not enough.

Makela (1999) asserts that in the last ten years. Community-based park management and
preservation has turned out to be an imperative area that needs to be stressed in international
development and conservation in the last decade.

The innovative approach pursues the shift in international growth circles to community-based
rural development and their involvement approaches: the attention is geared towards the people,
their means of living and local associations, native ideas and local organizational structures.
Interview with the manager in charge of community participation reveals that there are ongoing
programmers that involve the communities in the management of the park. Their participation
however can be said to be passive. According to the FGD participants, passive participants are
only informed on what is going to take place or when it has already happened. It was noted
during the discussion that community members were informed of what to do and what not to do
and they had to abide by that.

A greater number of those who said they participate in decisions making towards park
management of ASLNP come from FGD respondents followed by kebels. The reason why this

According to Mowforth and Munt (2003), for a tourism reserve to be sustainable, there should be
some education as to how the human and natural environment work and also on local
participation. Makela (1999) stated that the benefits that ecotourism can bring to the community
include the encouragement of local participation in the sustainable management of the natural
resources and in increasing awareness by local members on the need for environmental
protection.

FGD respondents confirmed that the community members have the desire to participate in the
management of the park so as to ensure its sustainable use. However, to ensure their adequate

45
participation, they need to get some education. It has also been shown that, majority of the
people aren‟t educated.

The communities alone cannot succeed in their efforts to participate whereas the management
alone cannot also succeed in urging the communities to participate without the two parties
cooperating and sharing ideas as to how their forms of participation should take place. For such
communities with low level of education, they need more information, ideas, knowledge and the
learning process in order to gain much understanding of issues regarding forest resource
management and the roles that they should play.

According to Sayer and Campbell (2004) research an integrated park management should intend
to make possible large numbers of people to discover the full range of options that are accessible
for dealing with their local resource management problems. This means building an environment
where science and local knowledge assist people to broaden a variety of locally appropriate
resource management solutions.

Meela (2001) presented the opinion of one school of thought that community participation as a
way of enhancing competence; the innermost idea is that if people are engaged in the activity
then they are more probable to have the same opinion with and agree to the new development or
service. This apparent confirm that when members from the communities are engaged in some
management activities, it is possible that they would adhere to and welcome innovations and
policies that would enhance the conservation of the resources. This would however, require
cooperation from both management and the communities. Since members of the communities
have low education, they would need educational assistance in order to discover the different
opportunities that are available within their environment.

During the FGD, participants from the communities revealed that, they would want to be
involved in some alternative livelihoods activities. Some of them gave examples of other park
management, planning and decisions making in other Kebeles, where communities were engaged
in other livelihoods activities and concluded that their involvement would help them to improve
their living conditions and learn more about the resources and other management activities.

Pound (2003) asserted that, participatory research increases the significance of the resource by
bringing forward innovative information and responses into the participatory learning and

46
adaptive management. According to Pretty‟s (1995) typology of people‟s participation, some
people participate for material incentive. Building from all the above perspectives one can argue
here that the people around the Abjata Shala National Park would be interested to participate
when they are able to get some benefit from the park resources. Which implies that their
participation can stop when the benefit cease. Hence, there is the need to devise mechanisms to
engage them in management activities,which can be sustainable to ensure their continuous
participation.

. In addition, there should be simultaneous generation of revenue that can be used for the benefit
of the people living in and around the conservation area.

Rapetto (in Ulhoi et al. 1996) asserts that certain changes are essential in achieving sustainable
development and these include a resource change to dependence on profits from the
environmental resources with no destruction to the resource base. Ulhoi et al. (1996) believe that
sustainable development can be achieved when the current ecological barriers have been
detached and the techniques for realizing this is including the use of appropriate expertise,
management of renewable resources to achieve increased yields; and to sustainably fulfilling the
needs of the poor and managing the environmental resources.

One informant who was a female stated that park officials have tried to create a link between
sustainability and human activities where human beings can continue to survive and thrive.
However, for all these notions on sustainability in development and in natural resource
management to be achieved require the participation of members of communities in which the
resources are found. Since resources are dynamic and changes in time and since human needs are
also unlimited they would continue to interact with their environment in order to satisfy their
needs so that they can continue to survive. Members of communities around the ASLNP Park
with such low education and few people participating would need more education and increase in
participation in order to sustainably use the park resources effectively.

47
4.2.6 The levels of local communities contribution towards ASLNP sustainable
management

It was also an objective of this research to find out whether there existed at all any local
community‟s contribution towards ASLNP park management (planning, budgeting, sharing
benefits, etc…). So, participants were asked whether they thought that by participating in the
management they can reduce poverty and at the same time being good rescuers of the park. All
FGD participants answered in the affirmative shows that even though few people participated in
management of the forest and majority of them have low education, they were aware that when
they participate they can reduce damage and keep tourist attracted to their areas and hence bring
incomes.

Their reasons to why they thought that their participation could reduce poverty were also
collected from each one of the focus group participants. Majority of the respondents said it was
going to create employment and park official said it will increase revenue. Majority of those who
said it was going to create employment also said it will increase revenue through their
engagement in other profit oriented activities like the sale of handcrafts for tourists, food supply
to hotels and through services such as tour guiding, etc.. Some of them gave multiple responses.
For instance during an interview who was working as a DA in the study area he suggested,

If community participation is not geared towards reduction of poverty then it is

not necessary.
According to the park biodiversity worker indications, members of communities who were
involved with ASNLP park management (planning, budgeting, sharing benefits…) were
improving their livelihoods. She added:

… You can see even how they feel responsible and have started to engage in
alternative livelihood activities hence increasing their income.
In the views who was serving as the park public relations officer, stated,

…I believe that better community participation initiatives should help to address

the issues of communities over dependence on forest resources exploitation
towards alternative livelihoods activities.

48
These views reflected above show that community participation has a link with poverty because
when the community members have options of engaging in activities that generate income, they
can be able to diversify their livelihoods activities. For instance, those who will be rearing
animals like snails, grass-cutter, bees and cultivating mushrooms would be employed by doing
so and can sell them to get revenue and also make sure that these activities go on throughout the
year to ensure sustainable income generation. Also when the community members are able to get
income from these activities, their reliability on the forest resources for survival decreases and
reduces the pressure put on natural resources allowing them to flourish, ensuring the
sustainability of forest resources as a whole. Similar views were derived from participants during
the Focus Group Discussion.

Glimour (1999) believes that it cannot be anticipated that societies which are poor would be
occupied by preservation when they have not been able to satisfy their basic needs. As a result,
there should be attempts to enhance their social and economic welfare in order for them to
become concerned with conservation. Rahman et al. 1998) asserted that, the relationship between
park conservations and employment were connected to each other and each of them had some
effect on the other. Safe guarding the environment can be straightly connected to the process of
economic development which in the end creates employment and reduces poverty.

In our case study, if members from the three communities would be employed by participating in
the alternative livelihoods activities, this would improve their financial conditions. Besides, the
results from interviews and FGDs showed that most of the respondents belonged to the low
income category and that could even be the explanation of the fact that few of them were
interested in the management of the park management.

49
4.2.7. Local community participation in budgeting of ASLNP resources
According to one of the key informant who was serving as the park biodiversity manager “….it
would better to adopt co-management scheme which is the distribution of authority and
responsibility among the government and the local communities who utilize the resources. So, in
order to have flourishing co-management there should be the establishment of suitable
organizations which should include the local communities”.
who was serving as a park ranger said, “Involving local community in decisions making
particularly budgeting, especially in circumstances of several stakeholders with diverse
objectives is not an easy thing. So, I do not think that when it comes to budgeting people are
being involved at all.”
Even though low education was identified as a challenge for the communities, it is unmistakable
that, local communities have certain indigenous knowledge which has been useful in managing
the forest successfully from the past generation to the present.
It can be indicated that the kind of participation in budgeting of ASLNP resources according to
communities‟ members, was once again limited on information sharing. It was noted in the
course of data collection and during the focus group discussion that, many students and
researchers frequented the study area to collect data for their studies. Nevertheless, since the
community members did not get any benefit in return, some of them had started to become
reluctant to provide information for researchers.
Though few people recognized to be active participants in the management practices of the park,
partly because they were employed as park rangers, however, findings revealed that communities
were not completely left out in the management of the park natural resources. The community
participation role of informants was recognized as a key role in the process of resource planning
and budgeting for preservation and protection. .
Interviews with the manager in charge of community participation revealed that there were
ongoing programmers that involved the communities in the management of the forest. Their
participation however can be said to be passive. According to the FGD participants, communities
were only informed on what is going to take place or when it has already happened. It was noted
during the discussion that community members were also informed of what to do and what not to
do and they had to abide by that.

50
The reasons provided to explain the current local communities‟ participation in budgeting of
ASLNP resources was the existence of employees of the park from the surrounding
communities. However, people from Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha stated that they would like to
be engaged more in the park management activities as this would help to improve their living
conditions. This can be done through income generation activities since they come into contact
with visitors and can sell traditional products, seedlings and other products such as handcrafts
and others. In the same way, similar opportunities should be created at the other communities in
order to reduce conflicts. Moreover, several reasons were given as to why they participate in the
management and why they do not.
During the interview with the manager, it was revealed that the members of the communities
were not allowed to sell their tourism products at the reception because if all interested members
in the communities were allowed to sell there, the place would be so clumsy and it would not
give a good impression of a tourism site. It was observed that, there was no member of the
community selling at the reception. Even though there was a shop where artifacts were sold, it
was indicated during the Focus Group Discussion that it belonged to a member of the
management team who was not a member of the local communities.
The same could be done for those who think they are not involved in any other activities, not
given the chance to be part of the management as well as those who think they cannot participate
because they do not derive any benefit from the resources.
The communities alone cannot succeed in their efforts to participate whereas the management
alone cannot also succeed in urging the communities to participate without the two parties
cooperating and sharing ideas as to how their forms of participation should take place. For such
communities with low level of education, they need more information, ideas, knowledge and the
learning process in order to gain much understanding of issues regarding forest resource
management and the roles that they should play. They also need confidence to promote their
indigenous knowledge about local resource management problems.
During the FGD, participants from the communities revealed that, they would want to be
involved in some alternative livelihoods activities. Some of them gave examples of other park
management, planning and decisions making in other Kebeles, where communities were engaged
in other livelihoods activities and concluded that their involvement would help them to improve
their living conditions and learn more about the resources and other management activities.

51
Building from all the above perspectives one can argue here that the people around the Abjata
Shala National Park would be interested to participate when they are able to get some benefit
from the park resources. Which implies that their participation can stop when the benefit cease.
Hence, there is the need to devise mechanisms to engage them in management activities which
can be sustainable to ensure their continuous participation.
In addition, there should be simultaneous generation of revenue that can be used for the benefit
of the people living in and around the conservation area. FGD respondents brought out the idea
that for sustainable park development to be achieved there is the need to preserve and develop
the park natural resource base and also integrate environmental issues in decision making.
Members of communities around the ASLN Park with such low education and few people
participating would need more education and increase in participation in order to sustainably use
the park resources effectively.
Theoretically, different authors believed that when communities participate in the alternative
activities there is the likelihood that they would earn some income which can be reinvested to
sustain their activities. Moreover, through community education, members of the community
would become aware that the sources of their income is from the forest resources and that would
give them the pride to do whatever possible to protect the forest and use its resources at a
sustainable rate.

4.2.8. Challenges of sustainable management of ASLNP Park

The research also covered the topic on collaborations or conflicts initiatives between the
management of the ASLNP and the local communities. When respondents were asked whether
there existed any conflict or collaboration between them and the management of the park, a
greater number of the participants recognized that there was collaboration with management
although inadequate.

Almost all the participants of the Focus Group Discussion discussants expressed their
dissatisfaction with the creation of the reserve, which has not brought any tangible benefit to the
local communities. Most of them commented on the dismissal of workers from the community
who were working on the park and lamented that it does not give a good impression of the
relationship between park management team and the communities. Demesse one of the
participant underlined,

52
 People here are not happy with their decision…if the park managers continue like
this, it will bring misunderstandings and if it should continue like this, the
population will never be at peace with management team of the park.
Those who said they were not at peace with management were asked to give their reasons and to
state the forms of conflicts that exist; and accordingly they gave several responses, which are
presented in the following paragraph.

Seven out of eight participants of the focus group said that they were not at peace with
management team because they do not get any benefit from the reserve as well as from the
tourism activities. There are three units/departments here; the law enforcement unit protects the
park from encroachers and poachers. The collaborative resource management/community
participation unit works with the fringe communities whilst the tourism unit handles the visitors
that come to visit the park.

One farmer responded that the source of conflicts arise as a result of farmer destroying the park
because the management team prevent them from selling their tourist products at the reception,
from the communities when the forest was taken from them. Some of them gave more than one
response. It is interesting however, that the management is aware of only one conflict. When
management was asked whether there exists any conflict, the response was yes but accepted only
one conflict. Which was based on the fact that one day an elephant had raiding on crops of
farmers around the park.

An interview with the management of the Park revealed that the communities
especially Desta shalla area, have benefited indirectly from the reserve. This is
because the current market structure and the primary school in the community
were built as a result of the park tourism initiative. However, it was disclosed
during the Focus Group Discussion that the community is not satisfied with just a
market structure and the school. . On discussant was of the view that,

One needs to have something to sell first, before he/she can go and use the market
structure!? In addition we also have to pay fees for our children to go to the
indicated school. So, in reality what we need is what to take to the market in order
to make money and be able to pay for our children school fees.

53
Furthermore, it was made known during the interview with the management that, the
communities have been informed not to farm close to the reserve to prevent the lake and park
from attracting raiding wild animals. It was however observed that some farms were close to the
park and even shared their boundaries with the park. The various park field operators whom the
researcher interviewed also admitted that they do have conflicts with the forest communities in
which they work. Some of the conflicts include poaching, encroachment, communities‟ forest
management conflicts, complaints of communities not having fair share of tourists proceeds,and
so on.

Conflicts arise over the use of natural resources for numerous reasons. The most fundamental
reason is the reality that natural resource is entrenched in the environment where the activities of
one group can have unexpected consequences somewhere else or on another resource user.
Resources can be utilized by others whether intentionally or not, in ways that undermine the
living conditions of others. Political factors are frequently caught up in conflicts over natural
resources. Those who have more access to authority can best control or manipulate natural
resource decisions to suit themselves in parks. Some members of the communities around the
Abijatta Shala Lake National Park are not satisfied with the management of the Park because
they feel they are not treated well as far as the management of the forest is concerned.

Some of the members especially those from ASLNP complained that they are often beaten up by
the forest guards when they go to the forest but they often see these guards with grass-cutters and
other forest products. Because these guards have been given the power to go to the lake, they use
it to their advantage and this does not give a good impression of a reserve.

According to the interview with park wardens challenges faced in involving communities to
participate in the management of the Abijata Shala lake National Park arises from low education
level, and limited people involvement in alternative livelihoods activities, where they could gain
some income which would help to reduce they dependency over park‟s resources and
consequently lessen conflicts between people and the management of the park. Again,
collaboration would improve when there is benefit sharing between the communities and the
management.

54
From the field, the researcher realized that most of key informants wished to have a fair tourism
benefits sharing mechanisms and better means to involve all the local communities‟ members in
the management of the forest or provide them with alternatives. These views were not different
from those who participated in the Focus Group Discussions. According to the management,
some actions have been taken to reduce destruction of park by farmers in the area. But, this
action according to members of the communities is concentrated in other areas of the park which
were not covered under this research.

On the top of the above challenges, management challenges of ASLNP have been present for a
long time and are well known.
According to HGL & GIRD (2009) the following are the ongoing key conservation issues within
the park:
a)Reduction in water level and surface area of Lake Abijata due to reduced overflows from Lake
Ziway through the Bulbulla River; b)Collapse of fishery and near-collapse of tilapia population
in Lake Abijata; d)Near-disappearance of piscivorous birds from the lake (likely due to
combined impacts of disappearance of fish and habitat loss); e)Clearance of Acacia trees for fuel
wood and charcoal, as well as agricultural expansion and home building; f)Severe overgrazing
by cattle, sheep, and goats; g)Sand mining, with secondary effects of tree/grassland clearance,
wind and gully erosion; h)Habitat loss for terrestrial, shoreline and aquatic animals; and i)Water
abstraction by the Abijata-Shalla Soda Ash Share Company.

4.2.8. The opportunities in place to ensure participatory decision making for the
sustainable management of the ASLNP

Cognizant of the relationship between community participation in Abijatta Shala lake National
Park resources management and poverty reduction through tourist attractions, it was essential to
investigate on the views of local communities on different opportunities towards involving the
local communities in the sustainable management of Abijatta Shala lake National Park resources.
This research tried to find out from the informants the forms of activities that they would like to
be engaged in as a way of their involvement towards sustainable management of the park.
During interviews and focus groups, community members were asked to give different ways
through which they would like to participate in the sustainable management of the forest. Thus if

55
they are to be engaged in the management process, what kind of activities would they like to
undertake. Some respondents indicated the following activities:

 Selling to visitors’ forest and local products at the reception: Informants were interested
in selling agricultural items like local fruits, traditional meals, and drinks, traditional
clothes and handcrafts.
 Provide tourism services: Other indicated that they would like to engage in services such
as animal rent like mule and horse whereas others would like to provide accommodation
services. Some interviewees were also interested in tour guiding exercise and they would
need to be employed and trained in order to fulfill that again were interested in educating
others on the importance of the forest. Most of the respondents gave multiple responses.

It was noted that most of contacted people were of the view that since the ASNLP‟s forest is then
a reserve and they were not allowed to go and get whatever they wanted from it, they should at
least be allowed to sell their products to visitors who come to visit the park, so that they can earn
some money. From FGD, the respondents indicated also that they would like to plant trees when
given the chance so that they can rely on them for wood and construction instead of the forest.
For them to do that, they would need land and seedlings from the forest.

All the respondents during FGD were of the view that crafts and arts were possible to undertake
and they were all interested to purchase them. Also during respondents believed that selling
traditional products was possible and they would like to produce them, one of them said,

It was not possible unless training were conducted.

The higher response from the communities to participate in these activities is a positive sign and
shows that they are really interested in the management activities. The management team also
indicated that the visitors had showed interest to purchase these local products and that is also a
possible way for management to assist the communities so as to increase their income and reduce
poverty in the area.

According to Odoi (1999) if the development of the society could be achieved from different
sources, it would reduce the effects of their actions on the resource to be preserved. Besides, it is
more probable for local communities to consent to preservation and management of resource use

56
if they can derive some profit from it. Also it was propose that in order to have a successful
resource management, there should be a provision of economic enticements intended for local
people to safeguard the resource (Makela 1999).

The Abijata Shala lake National Park has been selected as one of the eco-tourism site in the
country and as has been defined by the Eco-tourism Society in Makela (1999) that eco-tourism is
a purposeful travel to natural places with the intention of acquiring more knowledge on the
tradition and history of the environment and also that the local populace need to be given the
economic situations to enable them to benefit from the natural resources, it is essential that the
communities surrounding the Park engage in some activities that would benefit them as well as
the tourists and which in the long run would result in sustainable use of the natural resources.

Furthermore, Domfeh (2007) is of the view that communities have other duties to perform in
their participation in the management of the forest. These include creating their own
conservation norms in line with that of the national policy, embark on community education to
create awareness of the importance of the park and in sanctioning community members whose
activities damage the aim of the creation of the park reserve.

Here it‟s essential to recognize from the finding that the sustainable management of ASNLP
would be possible when communities actively participate in alternative livelihoods activities.
Because when their economic welfare is assured through their participation in the management,
ownership increases and conflicts with management would be reduced and this would reduce
dependency on the forest resources which would lead to sustainability.

4.3. Summary

Agriculture is one of the major factors contributing to conversion of land by exposing the
wildlife to different problems. Ecotourism can be used as a way to promote community based
natural resources management and to minimize the impact tourism on environment. It can help
fuel economic development and conserve protected areas by creating local jobs, providing a
sense of community ownership, and bringing in revenue that can be used to manage protected
areas in a sustainable way. If local communities directly benefit from the use of their land, water,
forests and other natural resources, they can be expected to support and participate in efforts to
conserve and sustain them.

57
From what has been discussed so far, it can be said that community participation in the
management of Abijata Shala lake National Park is inevitable as far as park conservations is
concerned. The sustainable management of Abijata Shala lake National Park depends upon
livelihoods diversification efforts that should involve the local communities in order to earn
income without depending on the Park resources for their survival. Furthermore if these activities
would ensure an active participation this would inculcate a sense of ownership which would
contribute to reduce poverty in the region.

Even though some members from the communities were in collaboration with the management,
others were not satisfied with the activities undertaken by the management team and were of the
opinion that the benefits from the Abijata Shala lake National Park were only helping the
management team whereas the forest was taken from them.

Similarly, it was undeniably confirmed by all who participated in the study that the establishment
and fair management practices of the natural resources is one of the practical ways to guarantee
that natural resources are conserved so as to meet the material and cultural needs of the current
generations without compromising the needs of the future generation. However, it is important to
be noted that for the sustainable management of the park‟s resources, local communities should
not be left out, because it is when their present needs are addressed that the conservation of the
resources for the future can be guaranteed.

58
 CHAPTER FIVE:

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Conclusions

This research aimed at assessing the community participation in decisions making about ASLNP
sustainable management. One of the striking finding from this study was that local population
dependence on the provisioning services for survival (source of food, water and raw materials)
was higher for many households from inside and inside/outside the Park areas. It was already the
case that inadequate community participation in the management of the park resources was
found to be confronting some issues especially regarding benefit sharing between the
management team and the local communities. Besides, because the local communities did not
perceive any benefit from the established schemes of making the park a reserved area for
conservation, without prior consultation on how they should participate in park management
activities, this generated conflicts among park management team and the local communities. It
was underlined by all informants from the community side as well as the management side that
local community involvement in decision making at all levels and sharing benefits would help
improve collaboration and reduce conflicts, ensuring the sustainable use of the park resources.

Regarding park ownership, planning and budgeting, the resources was between the park
management and the local farmers. According to informants from the park management team
ownership not only consisted of a set of ideas, but also inculcated a certain set of practices. Such
practices were still designated in a very back ward manner, that is, internally and externally
inconsistent, inappropriate ways of performing. Thus planning practices regarding the park
resources emanated from the differing external stakeholders, the situation which in turn
undermined the local institutions and led to loss of park ownership by the local community. So, it
was found out that community participation in the sustainable management of forest implied that
the kinds of livelihoods activities undertaken by members of the communities were in order with
conservation guidelines and allowed them to derive some benefits from the forest resources.

59
5.2 Recommendations

In order for communities to participate in park management activities to reduce poverty and also
to overcome some of the problems related to their participation as well as to ensure the
sustainability of Abijatta Shala lake National Park use, the following recommendations have
been forwarded for policy consideration:

 The communities surrounding the Abijatta Shala lake National Park need more education.
There should be a designed educational programs targeted at educating the communities to
have a deeper understanding of the objectives behind the creation of the reserve.

 Community participation in forest management activities should be the prime focus of the
managers in charge of community participation. They should design programs together with
the communities and reach out to those who are interested to participate in the programs.

 These programs should be geared towards reducing poverty and increasing community
participation especially for women since they form a greater part of the population and it is
these women who collect non timber forest products from the forest for the members of the
households.

 There should be a conscious effort to involve communities surrounding the Abijatta Shala
lake National Park in other activities that they can undertake to earn some income whilst
conserving the park.

 There should be increased communication between management and communities.

Information regarding the forest and activities going on in other communities should be made
known to all the communities. This has to be consistent among all beneficiaries. This will
help boost their interest to undertake some management activities.

 There is the need to establish a committee representing local communities‟ interests that
would work alongside the community and the management team of the forest. This would
enhance communication flow between management and the community. This group should
also be in-charge of all community participating activities. The members of the group should
be given the necessary training to run the community management activities and to ensure its
sustainability.

60
 There should also be benefit sharing for all stakeholders. All stakeholders including members
of the communities should come to a consensus as to what percentage of benefits should
accrue to all parties involved. This will be a good way to reduce conflicts on the use of the
park resources.

 The communities must be involved in decision making especially those that concern them.
This will not only help to reduce conflicts but also improve collaboration and enhance the
communities understanding in park conservation efforts.

 The management of Abijatta Shala lake National Park should partner with other NGOs that
are interested in community participation issues to come to the aid of the communities
especially in the area that concerns capacity building for livelihoods diversification.

 There is also the need to improve on the agricultural base of the communities around the Park
since majority of them are farmers. Provision of incentives to farmers can assist them expand
their production and market which can also contribute to sustain the park.

 Members of the communities should be encouraged to participate in other activities like the
making of soap, agro-processing and other local industrial products with raw materials from
their farm products.

 There should be the development of other attractions in the communities that have tourism
potentials. Abijatta Shala lake National Park Reserve can also be turned into another
attraction site managed by the communities around it. This can help to ease the pressure on
the Abijatta Shala lake National Park and provide additional revenue for communities around
these areas.

61
 REFERENCES

Akortor S. E. A (2012). The Quest for Community Participation in Decision Making Process in
Büyükkonuk (North Cyprus). Master‟s thesis, Eastern Mediterranean University, Cyprus.

Alexander J, and McGregor J. (2000). Wildlife and politics: CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe.

Development and Change, 5:605–627

Campbell B, and Shackleton S. (2001). The organizational structures for community-based

natural resources management in Southern Africa. African Stud Quart. 5:1–2.

Carson L. Jenkins (2015) Tourism policy and planning for developing countries: Some critical
issues, Tourism Recreation Research.

Demeke Asmamaw and Ashok Verma (2013) Ecotourism for environmental conservation and
community livelihoods, the case of the Bale Mountain National Park, Ethiopia. Journal of
Environmental Science and Water Resources. ISSN 2315-7259 Vol. 2(8), pp. 250- 259.

FAO. (2003). Proceedings of Second International Workshop on Participatory Forestry in Africa;

18–22; Arusha, Tanzania.

FAO.(1999).Pluralism and sustainable forestry and rural development. Proceedings of an

international workshop; 9–12 December 1997, Rome.

Feyera Senbeta and FekaduTefera (2010). Environmental crisis in the Abiyatta-Shalla Lakes
National Park. Ethiopia.

Fries J, Heemans J, (1992). Natural forest management in semiarid Africa: status and research
needs. Unasulva. 43:9–15

Gemechu, Bekele Dabassa (2010). The Challenges and Opportunities of Wetlands Management
in Ethiopia: The case of Abijiata Lake Wetlands. Master‟s thesis. Addis Ababa University.
Ethiopia.

Gobena, Adem (2008) Assessment of Ecotourism Potentials for Sustainable Natural Resources
Management in and Around Abijata-Shala Lakes National Park in the Central Ethiopian Rift
Valley Gujadhur T. (2000). Organisations and their approaches in community based natural

62
 resources management in Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. CBNRM Support
Programme Occasional Paper.

Hughes DM. (2001). Rezoned for business: how ecotourism unlocked black farmland in
Zimbabwe. J Agrarian Change.1:575–599.

IIED. (1994). Whose Eden? An overview of community approaches to wildlife management.

Nottingham: IIED.

Inskeep, E.(1994) National and regional tourism planning. In National and Regional Tourism
Planning: Methodologies and Case Studies; Routledge: London, UK; pp. 1–9.

Janet Awimbo Edmund Barrow and Maina Karaba (2004): Community Based Natural Resource
Management in the IGAD region, x + 249pp.

Kajembe GC, Kessy JF. (2000). Participatory local level consultative process in forestry: best
practices and lessons of experience for designing the national forest programme. Volume I.
Report submitted to the National Forest Support Project. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania/Indufor,
Finland.

Kajembe GC, Monela GC, Mvena ZSK. (2003). Making community management work: a case
study of Duru–Haitemba Village Forest Reserve, Babati, Tanzania. In: Kowero G, Campbell
BM, Sumalia UR, editors. Policies and governance structures in woodlands of southern
Africa. Bogor: CIFOR.

Kumssa T, Bekele A (2014). Attitude and Perceptions of Local Residents toward the Protected
Area of Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park (ASLNP), Ethiopia. J Ecosys Ecograph 4: 138.
doi: 10.4172/2157-7625.1000138

Lee, A.K.-Y. (2016). The role of private sector in built heritage conservation: A case study of
Xinhepu, Guangzhou. Asian Geogr, (V.33), 115–139.

Leonard I. Chirenje, Richard A. Giliba & Emmanuel B. Musamba (2013). Local communities‟
participation in decision-making processes through planning and budgeting in African
countries, Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 11:1, 10-16, DOI:
10.1080/10042857.2013.777198.

63
Mak, K.L.(2012) Community Participation in Tourism: A Case Study from Tai O; The
University of Hong Kong, China.

Malla YB. (2000). Impact of community forestry policy on rural livelihoods and food security in
Nepal. Unasylva, 51:37–45.

Mansur E, Cuco A. (2002). Building a community forestry framework in Mozambique. Local

communities in sustainable forest management. Paper presented at: Second International
Workshop on Participatory Forestry in Africa; 18–22; Arusha, Tanzania.

Mapedza E, Bond I, (2006). Political deadlock and devolved wildlife management in Zimbabwe.
The case of NenyungaWard.JEnv Dev. 15:407–427.

Mashinya J, Balint PJ. (2007). CAMPFIRE during Zimbabwe‟s national crisis: local impacts and
broader implications for community-based wildlife management. Soc Nat Res. 21:783–796.

Mbaiwa JE, (2003). Enclave tourism and its socio-economic impacts in the Okavango Delta,
Botswana.Tourism Management. 26:157–172.

MNRT. (1998). Guidelines for participatory land use management in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam,
the United Republic of Tanzania: Government Printer, 89.

MNRT. (2002). The New Forest Act. The United Republic of Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, the
United Republic of Tanzania: Government Printer, 174.

Mogaka H, Gacheke S, Turpie J, Emerton L, Karanja F. (2001). Economic aspects of community

involvement in sustainable

Oliver Kruger (2005). The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or Pandora‟s box?
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 579–600,
2005. DOI 10.1007/s10531-004-3917-4.

Ordera LA. (2009). The changing forest management paradigm in Africa: a case for community
based forest management system. Disc Innov. 21(1) (SFM Special Edition):27–35.

Pearce, P.L.; Moscardo, G.; Ross, G.F. (1996). Tourism Community Relationships, 1st ed.;
Pergamon: New York, NY, USA,; p. 259.

64
Pretty, N. et al. (1995). A Trainer„s Guide for Participatory Learning and Action: London, IIED.
Retrieved from: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uu

Raymond Samer, Lichia Yiu and Mario Filadoro (2015) Tourism development in least developed
countries: Challenges and opportunities. Centre for socio-economic development (CFSEND),
Switzerland.

Reaugh-Flower, Kathleen PhD (2011) Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park: Assessment of

Factors Driving Environmental Change for Management Decision-Making. Report to the
Ethiopian Wildlife Protection Authority‟s Sustainable Development of the Protected Area
System of Ethiopia Program. January 2011. 81 pp.

Robert B. Rischardson (2010). Ecosystem services and Food security: Economic perspectives on
environmental sustainability. Michigan State University. USA.

Shackleton S, Campbell B, Wollenberg E, Edmunds D. (2002). Devolution and community-

based natural resource management: Creating space for local people to participate and
benefit. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI), 1–6.

Songorwa AN. (1999). Community-based wildlife management (CWM) in Tanzania: Are the
communities interested? World Dev. 27(12):2061–2079.Spain. pp.10, 20, 42,65,37,40

Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in

developing countries.Tour. Manag., (V.21), 613–633.

Tosun, C. (2005). Stages in the emergence of a participatory tourism development approach in

the developing world.

Tosun, C.; Jenkins, C.L. (1998). The evolution of tourism planning in third-world countries: A
critique. Prog.Tour. Hosp. Res., (V4), 101–114.

Wates, N. (2000). The Community Planning Handbook. Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Wellman, B. &Wortley, S. (1990) Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and
Social Support, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 96. No. 3, pp. 558 – 588

65
WHO (1978). Declaration of Alma- Ata, International Conference on Primary Health Care,
Alma Ata, USSR, 6–12 September 1978. Retrieved from:
http//:www.who.int/hpr/NPH/docs/declaration_almaata.pdf

Wily A, Monela G. (1999). Communities and forests: What has been learnt and what is the way
forward? Final report on an evaluation of community involvement in forest management in
the Forest Resources Management Project. The World Bank and Forestry and Beekeeping
Division, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania.

World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and Netherlands Development Organization (SNV)

(2010). Manual on Tourism and Poverty Alleviation-Practical Steps for Destinations.
Madrid, Spain.

WTO, (2002). Tourism and Poverty Alleviation.World Tourism Organization, Madrid, Spain.

66
 APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1: Key informant interview protocol
1. What do you understand by sustainable park management?
2. What is your views regarding the current form of ASLNP management (ownership, planning,
budget, etc.)?
3. What are the roles of your organization in the management of the ASLNP?
4. What are the roles of the communities in the management of the ASLNP?
5. What components of your work are related with engaging (participating) the local people in
decision making regarding the park management?
6. What are the major challenges faced in participating local people in sustainable management
of this park?
7. What are the opportunities in place to ensure participatory decision making for the
sustainable management of the ASLNP?
8. How do you evaluate the role of local communities in decision making for conserving the
ASLNP resources (planning, budgeting, sharing benefits…)?
9. What do you feel about the current form of participation of local communities in decision
making regarding ASLNP management?
10. In summary, what do you think is going wrong with the management of the ASLNP?
11. How are the local communities contributing?
12. How the Government and other stakeholders are contributing?
13. What are your suggestion regarding making more participatory the decision making process
regarding ASLNP resources?

67
APPENDIX2: Focus group discussion guidelines
1. Who do you think should be the owner of the ASLNP?
2. What are the benefits from ASLNP to the livelihoods of local communities?
3. Do you think the ASLNP Park is threatened? Explain what is happening?
4. Do you think this park should be protected? Who is supposed to protect the park?
5. How do communities participate in the activities regarding the ASLNP management?
6. Do you get involved in deciding which activities to be conducted and how much they will
cost, and on how to share the benefits from the park?
7. What are the challenges faced by communities in getting involved in the decision making
process regarding protecting the ASLNP?
8. Do you think there are opportunities that can help to involve the communities in the
decision making process regarding protecting the ASLNP?
9. What do you feel about the current form of participation in ASLNP management by the
local communities?
10. What do you think should be done to improve the participation of communities in
sustainable management of ASLNP?

68
MIILTOO

MIILTOO 1: Pirotokolii ragaa gaafii afaanii kennitoota

1.Bulchiinsa paarkii walittii fufiinsa qabuu yeroo jedhamuu maal hubattaa?

2.Waa‟ee bulchiinsa paarkii biyyaaleessaa Haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa yeroo ammaa (waa‟ee
abbummaa, karoora,waa‟ee baajata fi kkf.) ilaalchii kee maalinnii?

3.Bulchiinsa paarkii biyyaaleessaa haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa irrattii qoodnii dhaabbata keessanii
maalinnii?

4.Bulchiinsa paarkii biyyaaleessaa haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa irrattii qoodnii hawaasaa maalinnii?

5.Dameen hojii keessanii bulchiinsa paarkii ilaalchisee murtiif namoota naannoo hirmaachisuu
maalinnii?

6.Bulchiinsa paarkii kanaa walittii fufiinsa qabuuf namoota naannoo hirmaachisuu irrattii
rakkoon isiin qunnamee maalinnii?

7.Bulchiinsa paarkii biyyaalessaa haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa walittii fufiinsa qabuuf murtoo
barbaachisaa dabarsuuf carraan jiruu maalinni?

8.Hawaasnii eegumsa qabeenya paarkii haroo biyyaalessaa haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa (karoora,
baajata, bu‟aa hirachuu) irrattii murtoo dabarsuuf ga‟ee qabuu haala kamiin madaaltaa?

9.Maanaajimantii paarkii biyyaalessaa haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa ilaalchisee murtoo dabarsuuf

haallii hirmaannaa hawaasaa yeroo ammaa kana jiruu irrattii maaltuu sittii dhagahaamaa?

10.Waliigalattii maanaajimantii paarkii biyyaalessaa haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa ilaalchisee

dogoggorrii jiruu maalinnii?

11.Hawaasnii naannoo haala kamiin gumaacha godhuu?

12.Mootummaa fi qaamonnii biroo gahee qaban haala kamiin gumaacha godhuu?

13.Qabeenya paarkii biyyaalessaa haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa ilaalchisee adeemsa murtoo

barbaachisaa raawwachu irrattii yaadni kee maalinnii?

69
MIILTOO 2: Qajeelfama Marii Garee Xiyyeeffannoo

1.Abbaan paarkii biyyaalessaa haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa eenyuu ta‟uu qabaa jettaa?

2.Jireenya hawaasaa naannootiif faayidaan paarkii biyyaalessaa haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa

maalinni?

3.Paarkii biyyaalessaa haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa seeraan qabameeraa jettee yaaddaa? Maal akka
ta‟a jiruu ibsii.

4.Paarkiin kun seeraan eeggameeraa jettee yaaddaa? Paarkicha eenyutu eeguu qabaa jettee
yaaddaa?

5.Waa‟ee gocha bulchiinsa paarkii biyyaalessaa haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa ilaalchisee hawaasnii
haala kamiin hirmaannaa gochuu qabaa?

6.Paarkicha ilaalchisee gochaan kam raawwatamuu qaba, gatii haammam nuu baasisaa fi bu‟aa
paarkicha irraa argannuu haala kamiin hiirachuu dandeenyaa dhimmoota jeedhan murteessuu
irrattii hirmaattee beektaa?

7.Paarkii biyyaalessaa haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa eeguu ilaalchisee murtoo dabarsuu irrattii
hawaasa rakkoo akkamiituu qunnamaa?

8.Bulchiinsa paarkii biyyaalessaa haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa ilaalchisee murtoo dabarsuu irrattii
hawaasa hirmaachisuuf carraan uummamee jira jettee yaaddaa?

9.Bulchiinsa paarkii biyyaalessaa haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa irrattii haala hirmaannaa hawaasa
naannoo amma jiruu maaltuu sittii dhagahamaa?

10.Bulchiinsa paarkii biyyaalessaa haroo Abiyaataa Shaalaa walittii fufiinsa qabuu ilaalchisee
hirmaannaa hawaasaa fooyyessuuf maaltu taasifamuu qaba jetta

70
APPENDIX 3: Checklist for observation
Table 6. The degree of the participation of communities in ASLNP management

Area of observations

1. SWC/ soil

2. Forest

3. Water

4. Wildlife

5. Livelihoods activities

6. Organizations involved in decision making

7. How meetings/trainings are conducted

8. ASLNP management activities

9. Women involvement

10. Youth activities

71