1. CONFLICT, POWER AND MULTIPLE LAND USE ANALYSIS OF OLD OYO NATIONAL PARK
Oladapo Olukoya Oduntan Ph.d
Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management
College of Environmental Resources Management
Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta
Nigeria

2. Introduction
National parks serve as cornerstone of conservation policies and provide multiple benefits for humankind
Environmental
Social
Economic
etc
(Balmford & Whitten 2003; Stolton et al. 2006, Stolton et al. 2008).

3. Competing claims”: a variety of perspectives bringing about Conflicts Power: a variety of meanings can also identified
….‘negative’- some having control over others, the same as domination
or something ‘positive’, as necessary for agency and productive action?
….something ‘held’ by actors (powerful and powerless)
or something that pervades life, in all relationships and discourses?
….’zero-sum’ (always with winners and losers)
or something fluid and accumulative?

4. The Problems
Whilst these areas provide important multiple benefit at global, national and local levels; there is increasing concern about the conflict often involving National Park Resources and their neighboring Communities.

5. Picturing the Conflict
Over-exploitation of Park’s resources by neighboring communities.
Crop damages and other damages caused by Wildlife in neighboring communities.
Feelings that costs are mostly incurred by the local people
- Positively and Negatively

6. More people…
mid range projections as carried out by the UN population division

7. Global resource use

8. Objectives
To evaluate the multiple benefits characteristics of Old Oyo National Park to its Neighboring communities.
To analyse conflict involved in the claims on resources by the various stakeholder.
To analyse the powers of the stakeholders and the effect on resources management

9. Methodology Study Area
Map of Old Oyo National Park indicating Surrounding Communities

10. SURVEY METHODS 2 Communities sampled out of 5
- based on conflict prevalence in the study areas
- distribution and abundance of Wild animals

11. Data Collection Categories of respondents/Stakeholders
Objective(s) focused
Instrument(s) Used
Sampling Procedure & Size
Household heads (HHs)
1,2 and 3
Open-Ended Questionnaire &
In-depth Interview
All HHs ()
Snowballing (Non-probability)
National Park Officials
2 and 3
Representatives
Conservation Organization/NGO officials
Government Agencies Officials

12. Data Analysis Objectives Focus Tool(s) Used 1 Multiple benefit rating
Mantel (1965) 2
Conflict Analysis
Competing Claims Analysis Matrix 3
Powers Analysis & Effect
Picture Interpretation

13. Results

14. Evaluation of Multiple Benefits Derived from the Park by Villagers
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Grades 1 3 2 4 22 35 42 5 21 23 27 37 14 6 32 30
Sum of value2
10440
10923
9816
8803
7144
8083
9148
Benefits Interpretation
– Firewood collection
- Food
- Medicinal value
- Recreation
- Timber
- Bushmeat
- Water
Grades Interpretation
6 – Indispensable
5 – Very Important
4 – Important
3 – More Significant
2 – Significant
1 - Insignificant

15. Competing Claims Analysis Matrix
Stake holders
What do they claim?
What are the interests behind the claim? (what do they want to get out of it)
Current benefits?
Current costs?
Villagers
Wild Animal Damages
Compensation
None
Food Insecurity / Poverty
Conservation Organization / NGO
Wildlife Population Decline / Habitat Destruction
Conservation of Biodiversity
International support
Loss of Biodiversity
OONP Management
Intolerable Killing of Wild Animals by Locals
Free range and access to land for Wildlife
Weak Legislative Support
Decline in Wild animal Population / Habitat destruction
Government Officials
Need for Food Security / Poverty Alleviation
Local Support / Personal Interest
Vote / Local Acceptance -

16. Stakeholders and their Power Analysis
Wild animals
Old Oyo National Park Buffer zones
CO / NGOs
Villagers
Local Council Officials
Park Officials
Stakeholder
Stakeholder’s Power
Park Resources

17. Conclusion
Land is the dominant benefit of the people in the study area
Conflicting interest Park management and Local government council impedes strong policies that will protect wildlife in the study area.
Powers / interest of the Local government councils opposes that of the Park guards / managers

18. Consideration Possible Solution
Relocation??? - A lesson from the “De hoge veluwe”
Compensation???
Sustained Reconciliation of Interest

19. Acknowledgement Abogoh Oluwaseun – Graduate student
Adebowale Kareem – Graduate Student
Cora van Oosten – CDI, Netherlands
Nico Rozemeijer – CDI, Netherlands

20. Questions
Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta