Result
Community Awareness, Resource use Interest and Dependency
There was a significant difference between the respondents of the study area in their awareness about the sanctuary (p < 0.05). 100% of the respondents in both Dendema and Agdora and 91.7%Erer Ebada kebele have the knowledge of boundary of the sanctuary. Whereas, 89(58.6%) HHs did not understand the wildlife laws (Table 2).
Table 2: Community awareness about the Sanctuary boundary and wildlife laws
Variable
|
No of HHs in the Kebeles
|
Total
HHs
|
p-value
|
Dendema
|
Agdora
|
Erer Ebada
|
|
|
44
|
36
|
72
|
152
|
|
Knowhow about the boundary
|
Yes
|
44(100.0%a
|
36(100.0%)ab
|
66 (91.7%)b
|
146(96.0%)
|
0.031
|
No
|
0(0.0%)a
|
0(0.0%)ab
|
6(8.3%) b
|
6(3.9%)
|
Knowledge of the wildlife laws and regulation
|
Yes
|
19(43.2%)
|
16(44.4%)
|
28(38.9%)
|
63(41.4%)
|
0.826
|
No
|
25(56.8%)
|
20(55.6%)
|
44(61.1%)
|
89(58.6%)
|
Note: The figures outside and inside parenthesis of each tables represent respondent frequency and percentage, respectively; Different superscripts letter denote in Kebele categories indicate significant difference between each other
Interest of the communities on the sanctuary resources
The result indicated that the respondents had high interest of utilizing the sanctuary resources (p < 0.050) in each kebeles. Among the total respondents 108 (71.1%) of the households have an interest to get sustainable income from the sanctuary. On the other hand, from the total respondents 53(35%) and 11(7.2%) were interested in getting pasture land for their livestock and exploiting forest resources for different purposes respectively (Table 3).
Table 3 Communities’ interest on the resource use and engagement of BES management.
Variable
|
No of HHs in the Kebeles
|
|
|
Dendema
|
Agdora
|
Erer Ebada
|
Total
HHs
|
p-value
|
|
Communities interest
|
|
44
|
36
|
72
|
152
|
|
Sustainable income
|
38(86.4%)a
|
36(100.0%)b
|
34(47.2%)c
|
108(71.1%)
|
0.000
|
|
Getting grazing land
|
24(54.5%)
|
14(39%)
|
15(20.8%)
|
53(35%)
|
0.010
|
|
Extraction of forest
|
2(4.5%)
|
0(0.0%)
|
9(12.5%)
|
11(7.2%)
|
0.013
|
|
Protecting wildlife
|
43(97.7%)a
|
33(91.7%)a
|
24(33.3%)b
|
100(65.8%)
|
0.000
|
|
|
|
Causes of resource use conflict between Communities and the Sanctuary
The result in the Table 4 showed that there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). Wildlife Risks and lack of community participation on the conservation of the sanctuary in each kebeles. Whereas, the results showed restricted resources use access and illegal harvest of forest products indicated significant differences among kebeles.
Table 4: Causes of resource use conflict in the study area
Variable
|
No of HHs in the Kebeles
|
|
|
Dendema
|
Agdora
|
Erer Ebada
|
Total
HHs
|
P-Value
|
Cause of conflict b/n community and BES
|
|
44
|
36
|
72
|
152
|
Restricted resource use
|
24(54.5%)a
|
31(86.1%)b
|
14(19.4%)c
|
69(45.4%)
|
0.000
|
Wildlife risks
|
2(4.5%)
|
0(0.0%)
|
3(4.2%)
|
5(3.3%)
|
0.446
|
Lack of benefits
|
4(9.1%)a
|
1(2.8%)a
|
31(43.1) %b
|
36(23.7%)
|
0.000
|
Lack of participation
|
12(27.3%)
|
9(25.0%)
|
14(19. %4)
|
35(23.0%)
|
0.592
|
Competition over
natural l resources
|
39(88.6%)a
|
33(91.7) %a
|
27(37.5%)b
|
99(65.1%)
|
0.000
|
lack of awareness
|
20(45.5%)a
|
8(22.2%)b
|
11(15.3%)b
|
39(25.7%)
|
0.001
|
Poaching
|
13(29.5%)a
|
11(30.6%)a
|
5(6.9%)b
|
29(19.1%)
|
0.001
|
The driving forces for resource use conflict
As shown in the table 5 below, drought, population pressure, poverty and scarcity of resource are among the most driving factors. From the total households, the most top driving forces of resources use conflict in the sanctuary were scarcity of resources (44.1%) followed by poverty.
Table 5: Drivers of conflict around BES area (Multiple responses)
Variable
|
No of HHs in the Kebeles
|
Total
HHs
|
p-value
|
|
Dendema
|
Agdora
|
Erer Ebada
|
|
Drivers of conflict around BES
|
|
44
|
36
|
72
|
152
|
|
Drought
|
35(79.5%)a
|
20(55.6%)b
|
6(8.3%)c
|
61(40.1%)
|
0.000
|
|
Population pressure
|
35(79.5%)a
|
21(58.3%)b
|
4(5.6%)c
|
60(39.5%)
|
0.000
|
|
Poverty
|
38(86.4%)a
|
19(52.8%)b
|
7(9.7%)c
|
64(42.1%)
|
0.000
|
|
Scarcity of resource
|
32(72.7%)a
|
24(66.7%)a
|
11(15.3%)b
|
67(44.1%)
|
0.000
|
|
|
Problems of Management Practice and Resource Trends
Regarding the management problems of the sanctuary, 7.2% of the respondents replied less responsiveness given to the sanctuary and to the community, the other (7.2%) of the respondents replied there was weak law enforcement, and 17 (11.2% ) of respondents replied there was less concern of the community to the sanctuary, 8.6% replied lack of awareness. While, a few respondents (1.3%) with no significance difference (p>0.05) replied human encroachment (farming and expansion of settlement) in the sanctuary, 3.3% of the respondents replied the Sanctuary is highly impacted due to poor/weak law enforcement however, 7.9% of the respondents didn’t know the problems (Table 6).
Table 6: Respondents perceptions on problems of management practice in BES
Variable
|
No of HHs in the Kebeles
|
|
p- value
|
Dendema
|
Agdora
|
Erer Ebada
|
Total
HHs
|
Respondent believe
|
|
44
|
36
|
72
|
1 152
|
Less attention linkage
|
9(20.5%)a
|
0(0.0%)b
|
2(2.8%)b
|
11(7.2%)
|
0.000
|
Weak law enforcement
|
7(15.9%)a
|
4(11.1%)a
|
0(0.0%)b
|
11(7.2%)
|
0.015
|
Less community concern
|
11(25.0%)a
|
3(8.3%)ab
|
3(4.2%)b
|
17(11.2%)
|
0.002
|
weak protection to BES
|
1(2.3%)
|
0(0.0%)
|
4(5.6%)
|
5(3.3%)
|
0.282
|
Farming/settlement in BES
|
0(0.0%)
|
0(0.0%)
|
2(2.8%)
|
2(1.3%)
|
0.324
|
Poor coordination
|
3(6.8%)
|
4(11.1%)
|
2(2.8%)
|
9(5.9%)
|
0.214
|
Lack of Awareness
|
11(25.0%)a
|
1(2.8%)b
|
1(1.4%)b
|
13(8.6%)
|
0.000
|
Don't have the knowledge
|
7(15.9%)a
|
5(13.9%)a
|
0(0.0%)b
|
12(7.9%)
|
0.003
|
Suggestion of the Communities to Solve the Conflict (Multiple Responses)
Based on the results obtained from the respondents as shown below (Table 7), Community participation, Stakeholders attention and Strong law enforcement were the most suggested to solve the conflicts in the sanctuary. However, the results for re-demarcation, sharing the benefit from the sanctuary and making a fence on boundary line were not significantly different in each kebeles as being viewed problem solving for resource use conflicts in the Babile Elephant Sanctuary (Table 7).
Table 7: Communities’ suggestion to solve conflict of the BES (Multiple responses)
Variable
|
No of HHs in the Kebeles
|
Total No of
HHs
|
|
Dendema
|
Agdora
|
Erer Ebada
|
p-value
|
Communities suggestion
|
|
44
|
36
|
72
|
152
|
|
Community participation
|
25(56.8%)a
|
19(52.8%)ab
|
25(34.7%)b
|
69(45.4%)
|
0.040
|
Stakeholders attention
|
25(56.8%)a
|
17(47.2%)a
|
2(2.8%)b
|
44(28.9%)
|
0.000
|
Water for the community
|
2(4.5%)
|
0(0.0%)
|
0(0.0%)
|
2(1.3%)
|
0.083
|
Strong law enforcement
|
16(36.4%)a
|
14(38.9%)a
|
10(13.9%)b
|
40(26.3%)
|
0.004
|
Stop deforestation
|
4(9.1%)a
|
12(33.3%)b
|
5(6.9%) a
|
21(13.8%)
|
0.001
|
Free from settlement
|
2(4.5%)a
|
5(13.9%)a
|
24(33.3%)b
|
31(20.4%)
|
0.001
|
Budget for rehabilitation
|
5(11.4%)a
|
1(2.8%)ab
|
0(0.0%) b
|
6(3.9%)
|
0.009
|
Re-demarcation
|
0(0.0%)
|
0(0.0%)
|
2(2.8%)
|
2(1.3%)
|
0.324
|
Making a fence
|
0(0.0%)
|
0(0.0%)
|
3(4.2%)
|
3(2.0%)
|
0.183
|
Sharing the benefit
|
0(0.0%)
|
0(0.0%)
|
2(2.8%)
|
2(1.3%)
|
0.324
|
Land use and land cover classification
The land use land cover of BES was classified into six categories based on the field survey and satellite imagery generated (Table 8).
Table 8: Land use and land cover category and description
Land use land cover category
|
Description
|
Bush land
|
Trees and shrubs are common: dominated by bushes, short grass is also available and ground cover is poor cover in %
|
Natural forest
|
Areas covered with both natural indigenous tree and riverine vegetation species
|
Grazing land
|
Land covered with grasses and used for grazing
|
Bare land
|
little or no vegetation cover at all mainly on areas with exposed rocks better to show in % of bare land
|
Settlements
|
Those closely associated and settled inside and adjacent to the boundary of the BES.
|
Cultivated land
|
Plots for annual rain fed and irrigation especially following Gobelel and Erer rivers.
|
Land use and land cover of the BES
The satellite image below indicated the highest and the least land coverage in 1989 was forest and bush land which covers 62.37% and 5.6% respectively. Forest (38.95%), bare land (30.4%) and farmland (15.53%) were the largest coverage in 1999; bare land (41.96%), forest (26.26%) and farmland (16.66%) were the largest coverage in 2009; and finally the bare land (38.78%), farmland (17.14%) and forest (10.81%) were the relative land covering 2019 (Table 9and figures 2).
Table 9. Land use and land cover of the BES
Land use class
|
Years
|
1990
|
2000
|
2010
|
2020
|
Ha
|
%
|
Ha
|
%
|
Ha
|
%
|
Ha
|
%
|
Bush land
|
39131.9
|
5.6
|
27898.3
|
3.99
|
27898.3
|
3.99
|
70209.2
|
10.05
|
Forest
|
435617
|
62.37
|
272028
|
38.95
|
183395.5
|
26.26
|
75513.1
|
10.81
|
Grassland
|
81416.2
|
11.66
|
20536.6
|
2.94
|
20536.6
|
2.94
|
56148.1
|
8.03
|
Bare land
|
58782.9
|
8.42
|
212332
|
30.4
|
293024.4
|
41.96
|
270814
|
38.78
|
Settlement
|
42782.6
|
6.13
|
57170.8
|
8.19
|
57170.9
|
8.19
|
106103
|
15.19
|
Farmland
|
40669.3
|
5.82
|
108435
|
15.53
|
116374.3
|
16.66
|
119613
|
17.14
|
Total
|
698,399. 9
|
100
|
698,400.7
|
100
|
698,400
|
100
|
698,400.4
|
100
|
Discussion
Community Awareness and Resource Dependency
The findings of this study revealed that there was lack of community awareness with respect to rules and regulation of the sanctuary conservation. Balakrishnan and Ndhlovu (1992) and Shibia (2010) thought that lack of awareness towards conservation issues and involvement of the local community in the decision-making processes might be significant determinants of negative attitudes towards protected areas. The communities in and around the Sanctuary were dependent on the resource of the sanctuary for grazing, water, farming, fuel wood collections, settlements and associated livelihoods whereas the sanctuary has been working towards protecting the wildlife and their natural habitat. The interest over the resource use by the community and protection for nature conservation caused serious conflict that has been intensified over time the conflict required integrated and community conservation strategies that could benefit both the wildlife and the locals. A local engagement in protected area management has a significant contribution as the management process considered problems of both.
Driving Forces for Resource Use Conflict
Human population increase in and around BES intensified expansion of human activity and encroachment of the Sanctuary. In developing countries in general, there is an ever-increasing exploitation of common resources, resulting from the rapidly expanding human population(Barrow, 2006).
The findings of this study provided evidences and supplementary information on the derivers of the resource use conflict between the sanctuary and the community. As shown on the (Table.6), poverty (food insecurity, economic problems & famine), recurrent drought, human population pressure and scarcity of resources (land, water, forest), were identified as major causes (driving forces) of resource use conflicts between the local community and the sanctuary.
Population growth has a double effect, simultaneously expanding demand of the population and reducing supply of resources such as land, water and forest. Poor people often destroy their environment not because they are ignorant, but in order to survive(Martinez-Alier, 2007). Likewise the result of this study revealed that the majority of the communities around the Babile Elephant sanctuary are living under poor and medium wealth status which leads to dependency on available limited resources and over exploitation.
Problems of Management Practice of the Sanctuary and Trends
This study investigated different views of the respondents regarding the management problems of the sanctuary. Insufficient government support, weak law enforcement, less concern of local community to the sanctuary, expansion of cultivation, poor coordination and lack of awareness among the local community are among the major management problems contributing to deterioration of the Sanctuary’s status over time. Furthermore shortages of resource and budget allocations, lack of infrastructure development (road, water, t, out posts, power etc...), expansion of settlement and poaching are the main challenges of the sanctuary. The growing number of the community on the contrary of resource scarcity and degradations further increased demand for land in the district for food production. This brought an adverse impact on the protected area (BES) and threatened management of sanctuary in general and aggravated encroachment into the Elephant home range in particular. The management approach along with the limited capacity of the sanctuary does not consider the needs and interest of the local communities living inside and around the sanctuary and thus conflict becomes imminent thereby undermines protection and management of the protected area(Ward et al., 2002). Due to the management problems of the sanctuary prevalence of illegal activities (livestock encroachment, expansion of cultivation and settlements, deforestation, etc.…), and human-wildlife conflict increased overtime and this accompanied by lack of compensation for losses from conflict. Some animals of the sanctuary were killed and their habitat also encroached by farming. Gobelel and Erer valleys in BES are the core habitats for African Elephant but it is mostly in these locations illegal farming and Elephant killing were reported. According to Gebremicael, (2014) and Gebretensae and Gebremicael, (2019) report 42 and 14, Elephants were killed in 2012 and 2013 respectively. Beside this, the sanctuary report indicated in the past 50 years poaching activities were extended and the population was declined by 60% (BES annual report, 2016). Poaching for ivory and human-wildlife conflict over critical habitats are the most noticeable anthropogenic challenges of the Sanctuary contributing to the critical decline of Elephant population.
According to the gap analysis reported on law enforcement in Babile Elephant Sanctuary by Gebremicael, (2014), there are major limitations in the wildlife proclamation (no. 541/2007 and 575/2008) and regulation no. 163/2009 which are well addressed in the updated version of legal frameworks drafted.
Land Use Land Cover Change
Change analysis of the land features is essential for better understanding of interactions and relationships between human activities and natural phenomena. This understanding is necessary for improved resource management and decision-making(Shalaby and Tateishi, 2007).
The land use land cover change of Babile Elephant Sanctuary of the last 3 decades (1989 – 2019) analyses indicated that forest and grassland coverage were declined. Whereas, farm lands, bush land, settlements and bare land coverage were increased. Deforestation for the purpose of charcoal productions, house construction and fuel wood, land for farming (irrigation) along the rivers (Gobelel, Erer & Daketa) and sever grazing of the livestock are the major activities in the sanctuary which led the land cover to change. Similar land use land cover changes were observed in the North Western low lands of Ethiopia related to high demand for wood and fodder which require significant clearance of forest/shrub resulted in huge habitat and deterioration of land cover(Campbell et al., 2005).