EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION APPROACHES: MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS IN

By

ARTHUR RWABITETERA MUGISHA

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2002

Copyright 2002

by

Arthur R. Mugisha

I would like to dedicate this work to my wife Martha for her inspiration and support, and to my children Jean and Dean for all their love, patience and encouragement.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My study program was made successful by the generous support of many individuals and organizations, which supported and financed this research. I am particularly indebted to the McArthur Foundation, the Wildlife Conservation Society, the

Compton Fellowship Foundation, the Beineckle Brothers Foundation and the Ford

Foundation. I cannot forget to thank the Program of Studies for Tropical Conservation, which played a key role in developing and implementing this research project.

I wish to thank Dr. Lauren Chapman and Dr. Colin Chapman, who gave me the inspiration, encouragement and assistance to join the University and embark on this degree. I am indebted to my committee chair, Dr. Susan Jacobson, for her support and encouragement during my entire study program. Special thanks go to my wife Martha, and my children, Jean and Dean, for their patience support, and understanding throughout my studies. Members of my committee: Dr. Janaki Alavalapati, Dr. Peter Hildebrand Dr.

Mark Hostetler and Dr. Colin Chapman also helped me greatly and I thank them sincerely. My friends gave me confidence to finish this undertaking. I am especially indebted to Matthew Udziela, Andrew Lepp, Karl Pomeroy, Elly Amani-Gamukama and many others who helped me in numerous ways. My research assistants in Uganda: Mr.

Jimmy Mugisha, Mr. Kenneth Sabila, and Mr. Martin Asiimwe, did superb work collecting the field data. The staffs of Uganda Wildlife Authority also assisted me during the data collection. I am indebted to Executive Director Dr. Robbie. Robinson, Research

Director Ms. Apophia. Atukunda, and the field wardens, who gave me their cooperation

iv

and support. I also acknowledge the support of my sister Joan Nyakato, my parents, and all my friends during the fieldwork in Uganda.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv

ABSTRACT...... ix

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Protected Areas in Africa...... 1 Establishment of Protected Areas ...... 2 Introduction of Community-Based Conservation...... 5 Literature Review...... 6 Community-Based conservation (CBC) ...... 6 Factors for Success...... 13 Research Hypotheses and Objectives ...... 15 Hypotheses...... 15 Objectives...... 16

2 DO COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION PROGRAMS HELP REDUCE THREATS TO PROTECTED AREAS? A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SIXTEEN PROTECTED AREAS IN UGANDA ...... 25

Introduction...... 25 Methods...... 27 Threat Reduction Assessment (TRA) Technique ...... 27 Document Review...... 32 Interviews of the District Leaders; Local Council Five (LCV) ...... 32 Survey of Managers ...... 33 Results...... 33 Threat Reduction Assessment Indices and Threats Percentage Occurrences...... 33 Documented Illegal Activities ...... 34 Responses from the District Leaders and Protected Areas Wardens...... 35 Discussion...... 36 Effectiveness of Management in Mitigating Threats to Protected Areas ...... 36 of the Protected Areas...... 39 Threat Reduction Assessment and Illegal Activities ...... 39

vi

Linkages between People’s Aspirations, Threat Reduction and Survival of Protected Areas ...... 42 Linkages between Political Leadership and Protected Area Management...... 48 Limitations of the Study...... 50 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 52 Conclusions ...... 52 Recommendations ...... 53

3 DO COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION PROGRAMS POSITIVELY INFLUENCE ATTITUDES, BEHAVIORS AND INCREASE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PROTECTED AREAS? AN EMPRICAL STUDY OF COMMUNITIES NEIGHBORING PROTECTED AREAS IN UGANDA...... 95

Introduction...... 95 Hypotheses and Objectives of the Study...... 99 Hypotheses...... 99 Objectives...... 99 Methods...... 100 Study Sites and Respondents Selection...... 100 Survey Design...... 101 Administration of the Survey...... 103 Results...... 104 Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics ...... 104 Attitudes toward Protected Areas and Conservation...... 106 Explanatory Responses to the Open-ended Questions...... 108

Responses to knowledge questions ...... 109

Responses to behavior questions ...... 111

Responses to costs and benefits questions ...... 112

Comparison among Protected Areas...... 114 Discussion...... 116 Comparison of Attitudes, Knowledge and Behavior of Community Members between CBC and Non-CBC Protected Areas...... 116 Conflicts between Conservation and Peoples’ Needs...... 116 Linkage between Community Needs and Protected Areas Values...... 119 Association between Socio-demographic Variables with Attitudes and Knowledge ...... 119 Access to Resources...... 120 Importance of Communication and Dialogue in Influencing Attitudes...... 120 Problem Animals...... 121 Comparison of Attitudes, Knowledge and Behavior among All Protected Areas.. 122 Influence of Community-Based Conservation, on Attitudes and Behavior ...... 122 Benefits and Costs Analysis between CBC and Non-CBC Communities...... 123 Guiding Principles for Effective Protected Areas Management in Uganda ...... 126 Limitations of the Study...... 131

vii

APPENDIX

A WARDENS’ SURVEY...... 169

B SUMMARY OF GROUP DISCUSSIONS AT 16 PROTECTED AREAS ...... 171

Introduction...... 171 Bokora Wildlife Reserve (Non–CBC)...... 172 Bugungu Wildlife Reserve...... 173 Bwindi Impenetrable National Park...... 176 Karuma Wildlife (Non-CBC)...... 178 (Non–CBC) ...... 180 (CBC)...... 182 Kidepo Valley National Park (Non–CBC) ...... 184 Kigezi Wildlife Reserve (Non–CBC)...... 187 (CBC)...... 189 Matheniko Wildlife Reserve (Non-CBC)...... 192 Mgahinga gorilla National Park (CBC)...... 194 Mt. Elgon National Park-North (Non-CBC)...... 195 Murchison Falls National Park ...... 198 Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve (Non-CBC) ...... 199 Queen Elizabeth National Park...... 200 Semuliki Wildlife Reserve (Non-CBC)...... 203 Conclusion...... 205

C QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY...... 206

D SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTED ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES ...... 215

E MAP 1...... 231

F INFORMATION FROM DISTRICT LEADERS ...... 232

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 235

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 246

viii

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

EVALUATION OF COMMUNTY-BASED CONSERVATION APPROACHES: MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS IN UGANDA

By

Arthur Rwabitetera Mugisha

May 2002

Chairperson: Dr. Susan K. Jacobson Major Department: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation

Unsustainable resource use and increasing human population threaten protected areas (PAs) in developing countries. Uganda is endowed with diverse natural resources that are becoming isolated in PAs. Loss of wildlife and its habitats, and conflicting relations between PA management and neighboring communities continue to challenge conservation efforts and threaten the survival of Uganda’s PAs.

To secure support from neighboring communities and ensure long-term sustainability for Uganda's PAs, a policy of community-based conservation (CBC) was adopted in 1988 on a pilot basis, as a management approach in some PAs. This research evaluates the effectiveness of CBC approach in comparison to the traditional PAs’ management in Uganda, using the threat reduction assessment indices, group discussions and document review at seven CBC and nine non-CBC PAs. The average threat reduction assessment indices at CBC PAs ( x = 49.0 ±12) were not different from those at non-

CBC PAs ( x = 37.96 ± 21.6) ( c2 = 16.0; p > 0.05). However, general trends indicate

ix

that CBC PAs tend to have higher indices than non-CBC PAs. Management approaches at both CBC PAs and non-CBC PAs mitigate fewer than 50% of identified PAs threats.

Three hundred personal surveys were administered at communities surrounding three CBC and two non-CBC PAs to measure and compare residents’ attitudes, and knowledge about the PAs. Results were not significantly different. Surveys with leaders of districts with CBC and non-CBC PAs showed no difference in their understanding and support of PAs.

A comparison of perceived CBC benefits and costs with benefits and costs of non-CBC PAs indicated that communities from non-CBC PAs receive 30 times more benefits than communities from CBC PAs. Findings indicated that local community members are interested in utilitarian values of natural resources, not their preservation.

They are interested in security of their crops, not of wildlife, and in access to resources rather than their protection.

Incentives that link people’s livelihood and ecosystem health are proposed for successful CBC intervention. Approaches that go beyond PA boundaries, address PA threats, involve different government departments, and strengthen PA institutions are recommended to address human welfare concerns and conserve PAs into the future.

x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Protected Areas In Africa

The importance of biological diversity as natural resource capital for economic development and sustaining human welfare has been documented (Costanza et al. 1997).

However, the rate at which natural resources continue to be degraded and the continued deterioration of human welfare in developing countries have been a concern at local, national, and international levels. One of the approaches to conserve the dwindling under the constraints of limited funding has been through designation of protected areas (PAs) in identified biodiversity “hotspots” (Myres et al. 2000; Bruner et al. 2001).

Africa is endowed with rich biodiversity, ranging from rainforests to savannahs, wetlands, and deserts. It is also a continent where its people heavily rely on natural resources, for their livelihood, which, in combination with other factors such as demographic, social and economic, threatens PAs (World Bank 1996). The searches for interventions that would achieve conservation and human development goals have therefore been of much relevance at all levels in the continent.

Uganda, in East Africa, is endowed with diverse natural resources that are increasingly becoming isolated in PAs. Loss of wildlife and its habitats, and conflicting relations between PAs and local people continue to challenge conservation efforts. This research evaluates two approaches of PA management: (1) the traditional PAs exclusion

1 2 model, and (2) the community-based conservation model that involves local people.

These have been used to varying degrees to manage Uganda’s PAs. Findings will contribute to the understanding of the PAs’ management challenges and recommendations for future management.

Protected areas are defined as areas of land and/or sea set aside and dedicated to protection and maintenance of biodiversity for cultural, aesthetic, educational, scientific, and tourism values (International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] 1994). One of the characteristics of protected areas is that they cover a large area, often thousands of square kilometers (although small protected areas also exist, to protect special biodiversity). The need for a large area is to allow for migration of wildlife, and to support diverse ecological processes. Historically, large areas would also ensure the notion of wilderness or pristine environment as viewed by the elite from the European countries in the late 18th century (Grove 1987; MacKenzie 1988). Another characteristic of protected areas is the principle of human exclusion on which they were established.

Human settlement within protected areas was outlawed, causing serious conflicts with local people in the process of establishing and managing PAs. Also, there were concerted efforts to prevent human consumptive use of resources to preserve the wilderness status of these areas.

Establishment of Protected Areas

Establishment of PAs in Africa has its roots in the hunting ethos and natural history studies that were popular at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries in the western world (Beinart 1994). The dire need for a pristine natural place where manhood could be proven through hunting by colonial masters led to enactment of detailed legislation that restricted game to the few elite, and separated human settlement

2 3 from the land that was deemed suitable for game (Makombe 1993; Adams and Infield

2001). Also, by the end of the 19th century, natural historians and hunter elites started to sound alarms about the rate at which African game was being hunted and also decimated by rendeerpest.

As a result of these concerns, pressure groups mostly comprised of colonial governors, aristocrats, sport hunters, and leading landlords in the colonies began to advocate for game preservation (MacKenzie 1988). These pressure groups wanted to have wildlife protected in Africa for a number of reasons. First, Africa had a rich endowment of the mega-fauna, such as elephants, rhinos, and that were of special interest to hunters. These hunters had turned around to be promoters of conservation.

Second, Africa had a high diversity of game, which was also at a high density in comparison to other colonies at that time. Third, African tribes had a high population growth rate, and their hunter-gatherer lifestyles, plus shifting cultivation practices, were feared to increase agricultural expansion, which was viewed as a threat to the survival of wildlife. The colonial masters and the conservationist pressure groups felt that they needed to do everything possible to stop the disappearance of African game. Colonial officers, game wardens and rangers were appointed and given wide-ranging administrative and judicial powers over both the PAs and local people that lived within or around these designated areas.

The interests and concerns of the local African people were not considered in the establishment of these PAs. As MacKenzie (1988) rightly argues, foreign interests and not the interests of the African peoples influenced the legislation for wildlife management and PAs in particular. In many incidents, creation of these PAs deprived local people of a

3 4 resource that they had been accessing for a long time, for both their cultural and economic values (Barrow and Murphree 2001). By 1980 the United Nations listed 29 conservation provinces or biomes that were under a protection status in Africa. These provinces had a total of 324 protected areas covering a total area of 1,046,291.71 square kilometers out of a total of 30,244,050 square kilometers of Africa’s land surface, an equivalent of 3.5% (IUCN 1981; Almanac 2001). This approach of establishing and managing protected areas could partly explain the unsympathetic behaviors toward wildlife management in Africa by local people. The increasing human population and the resultant increased pressure on land resources increase the conflicts between PAs managers and neighboring communities.

Post-colonial African governments also continued to implement conservation policies that excluded local communities as an approach to managing PAs in Africa

(Gibson 1999). Local communities which used to have access to wildlife resources were excluded from the established protected area management. This exclusion was effected through deployment of para-military trained rangers whose job was to enforce wildlife laws by apprehending lawbreakers and either levying a fine on them, meting out punishment or having them prosecuted in the courts of law. Local community members, in efforts to secure their means of survival, were the majority of culprits of this wildlife management set up, and it caused much tension and conflicts between PA managers and the local people. Serious conflicts would arise where some of the communities claimed traditional access rights to resources in protected areas, such as the Balabaig and the

Maasai in Tanzania and Kenya (Lane 1996) and the pastoral Bahiima in Uganda (Barrow and Murphree 2001).

4 5

Introduction of Community-Based Conservation

In more recent years, however, the goals of protected areas have shifted from strict preservation of big game to conservation of biodiversity, and from the closed access for the rich few to be open to all, especially for tourism. The increased poaching of game, famine, human tragedies and the resulting environmental degradation of the 1970s led to the questioning of the traditional ideologies and conservation approaches of “setting aside” PAs for preservation of wildlife. For example, Hulme and Murphree (2001a) argue that the colonial designs were mostly based on scientific considerations and lacked a human dimension that would integrate conservation with human development needs. In the 1980s, conservationists, international conservation organizations and African wildlife departments conceded that the exclusion approach of managing PAs was increasingly becoming ineffective for a number of reasons (Jones 2001). First, the approach was believed to be too expensive to be sustained over a long period, as it would require many rangers to patrol vast areas of the PAs. Second, it was realized that local people are the main offenders of wildlife laws, so if they could become the guardians of wildlife, then

Africa wildlife would have a secure future. Third, it was pointed out that local people bear the biggest costs from wildlife by way of damaged property such as crops, loss of human lives and lost opportunities to use PA land, yet, they benefited least from wildlife conservation programs (Gibson 1999). This revelation, which coincided with the more general global trend in development studies, led to the initiatives to include local communities in wildlife management in Africa’s PAs (Gibson and Marks 1995).

In essence, the approach to involve local people, referred to as community-based conservation (CBC), aspires to turn the would-be wildlife conservation “enemies” to wildlife guardians. The underlying assumptions of this approach, which are examined in

5 6 this study, are that if communities benefit from wildlife, are knowledgeable and understand the importance of conservation, only then would they change their behavior to support conservation initiatives (McNeely.1989; Sibanda and Omwega 1996). This community-based approach has been applauded both at local and international levels, and supported by international non-governmental organizations, as well as donor agencies.

Literature Review

Community-Based conservation (CBC)

The concept of CBC originated from the international concerns for conservation and ecological balance at international levels by environmental organizations such as the

UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Program -1971 and the World Conservation Strategy-

1980 (Redclift 1984). For example, the 1982 third World Congress on National Parks in

Bali called for expansion and consolidation of PAs. A decade later, the preservation tone had changed, and the fourth Congress in Caracas in 1992 advocated involvement of partnerships with wide ranging interests to benefit people, PAs, and biodiversity: under the theme, “Protected Areas for life.” Also, the United Nations Earth Summit of 1992 in

Rio de Janeiro reaffirmed that PAs can play a part in sustainable development process

(McNeely 1993). In the context of this study PAs will refer to national parks and wildlife reserves.

Although interpreted differently by different people and in different contexts, community-based conservation philosophy is based on the premise that communities neighboring PAs are forced to exploit resources in the PAs because they lack any alternatives for their survival. Second, because they do not legally benefit from the existence of the PAs, they do not have enough incentives to conserve it. Third, they are

6 7 not given an opportunity to participate in the management processes of the PA, as they are alienated from the resources, and perceived as an obstacle to conservation initiatives

(Gibson 1999).

The CBC approach strives to reverse this situation by the following: (a) changing the roles of such communities into partners in the PA management process and (b) demonstrating that PAs are beneficial to local communities (Gezon 1997). There are many descriptive combinations of words that are commonly used to refer to the concepts of community-based conservation. Such terms include integrated conservation and development, community conservation, collaborative management or co-management.

For the purposes of this study, the term community-based conservation (CBC) will imply programs conducted in areas surrounding PAs, with the main purpose of soliciting support of neighboring communities for PAs, through such activities that raise conservation awareness and seek to benefit these communities.

A number of researchers have noted that for conservation measures to succeed, there should be a sharing of both responsibility and benefits of managing PAs between government agencies and neighboring communities, (Adams and McShane1992;

McNeely et al. 1992; Pimbert and Pretty 1997).

Schmink (1999) points out that community-based conservation should seek to achieve social equity as its strategy, through community participation. She distinguishes community-based conservation from other forms of development projects by an emphasis on resource use and regard for both the community and the environment.

Further, CBC is a term that links development of livelihood systems and conservation of the resources in question. Murphree (1996) stresses the point of defining

7 8 community conservation from people’s perspective. He defines people/stakeholders in

Africa as small-scale farmers with usufruct rights to the natural resources. These farmers, he argues, are the de facto managers of the resources, by virtue of their remote location where the state’s management arm cannot effectively and easily access.

Other definitions of CBC programs are based on the interrelationships between non-human and human systems. For example, Barrett and Arcase (1995) define CBC, which they describe as integrated conservation and development, as a link between rural development and species conservation. They use the notion of exchange of access to natural resources by local communities for material gains, as a distinguishing character of this approach.

In the recent past, another term relating to natural resource management known as collaborative management (CM) has come up in the conservation literature. This is a form of community-based conservation, which seeks to create agreements between resource users and conservation authorities in respect of accessing and managing natural resources in the PAs. It aims at giving more autonomy to stakeholders in terms of decision-making (Barrow and Murphree 2001). Understanding the degree to which communities participate is important in understanding and defining community-based conservation. Pretty (1994), quoted in Pimbert and Pretty (1994), gives seven levels of participation ranging from passive participation to self-mobilization.

The agenda of getting communities involved in conservation is to make nature and natural resource conservation beneficial and meaningful to rural communities. It is argued that, only when conservation directly benefits those who incur costs of conservation, will rural communities take on resources management responsibility (Bell

8 9

1987). A number of conservationists believe that communities in control of natural resource management are better managers than state institutions, and through conservation practices, they will be able to improve their economic well being (Western

1994). The urge to get people involved in conservation initiatives came about after realization that success of the top-down approaches to conservation over the past several decades in the developing countries, fell short of its expectations. This limitation was attributed to the following: (a) limited central governments’ capacities to coerce their citizens to comply with unpopular programs, and (b) unpopular government policies that were not understood by local communities (Agrawal and Sivaramakrishnan 2000).

However, recently, the CBC approach has come under heavy critique. Brandon

(1998) raises some concerns that involving community interests in conservation has become a slogan laden with assumptions, which has constrained creative thinking to address park protection and biodiversity conservation problems. Also, Hackel (1999) raises concerns about the ability of the CBC approach to change people’s behavior through economic incentives, and argues that CBC cannot generate enough benefits to offset costs communities bear from wildlife. He further asserts that CBC does not engender the communities to comply with conservation laws, and by itself, CBC does not address the development needs of the people, hence it is most unlikely that local people will support it. He concludes that CBC can only act as a means by which old-style protectionist policies and approaches can be modified to suit socio-economic realities in

Africa. More recent research findings indicate that CBC does not meet conservation goals. For example, Lewis and Phiri (1998) found that in Lupande, Zambia, the Luangwa

Integrated Resources Development Project (LIRDP) had failed to reduce the incidences

9 10 of killing animals using wire snares. Wainwright and Wehrmeyer (1998) also found that the LIRDP project had failed to benefit the rural communities. In a similar tone, Wells

(1998) points out that few community-based conservation programs have enhanced conservation of biodiversity in Indonesia. Songorwa (1999) argues that the interests of communities are largely their own survival rather than conservation. It is therefore difficult to meaningfully engage them in conservation. Other literature indicates that community institutions have been eroded and compromised, to the extent that they cannot manage to take on conservation responsibilities (Barrett et al. 2001). Other weaknesses of involving local communities include failure of national governments to give the communities full responsibility to manage, as well as lack of capacity on the part of the communities (Songorwa et al. 2000).

The challenges of involving neighboring communities have been well examined

(Kiss 1990; Child 1995). One of the concerns noted is the degree to which communities are or should be involved in the management processes. Schmink (1999) emphasizes the importance of the degree of participation in the success of natural resource management.

She cautions about the social and political dynamism, which outsiders may encounter in trying to implement community-based projects.

Further complications in community conservation practices revolve around the definition of community, and the goals of conservation. By advocating for PAs that are designed in such a way that they benefit the people living around them, McNeely (1989) implies that community should be defined by the proximity to the PA. He emphasizes the resumption of the custodianship of natural resources by local institutions, where people directly depend on the resources, and where there is evidence of traditional management.

10 11

But even when the traditional management is in place, it cannot act in isolation. There could be other actors outside such a community with divergent interests that will have a big influence on the effectiveness of involving communities in PA management.

Naughton-Treves (1999) cautions about the challenges of re-assigning property rights of wildlife, since it is not a landed property. Because the ownership of wildlife is only decided when it has been killed, due to its transient and transitory status, assigning property rights for effective management may threaten the already threatened wildlife populations, particularly where human population densities are high. She advocates partnerships between people’s democratically elected committees and government agencies as the best institutions to involve in wildlife management, as well as the communities that are in proximity to a PA.

Ostrom (1997) has developed a set of tools to predict when community based conservation will be successful in forestry resource management. These conceptual tools are based on the attributes of the forest resources to be managed and the communities involved in management of these resources. Following on Ostrom’s work, Gibson et al.

(2000) and Baland and Platteau (1996) further considered the attributes of common pool resources and of users that will enhance formation of self-governance. Attributes related to CBC programs include the following: (a) attributes of the resources, such as the resource is in good condition, management information about resource is easily, cheaply available, and that the resource is small in size for easy management; and (b) attributes of the users, such as dependency on the resource for a major portion of their livelihood, a common understanding of the resource, trust, and beneficial relationships among the users. In addition, there must be a degree of autonomy, so that the users can determine

11 12 the rules of harvesting and access, and the users should have undergone some form of training about community organization.

Pye-Smith and Borrini-Feyerabend (1994) give a detailed analysis of success stories of community-based conservation in Africa. They indicate a number of factors that lead to successful implementation. In Zimbabwe, in the CAMPFIRE program, they cite dedication of the community members to conservation. This dedication stems from tangible benefits accruing from use of wildlife. They attribute the success to fully empowering communities to manage, and the communities’ understanding of their rights and agreement to take on responsibilities. Some critiques, though, have noted that the local communities do not fairly benefit from the program, as the decision-making powers are still central at the district council level (Patel 1998). In Mauritania they point to the user group institutions and self-governance, which promote the community’s sense of ownership of the project. Training of the local people in livestock management is also cited as one of the successes of the livestock project, funded by the World Bank (Pye-

Smith and Borrini-Feyerabend 1994). In Uganda, with the Pallisa Community

Development Trust, they point out a clear mission statement, sense of control and responsibility, a participatory process of problem identification, and a sense of ownership and control by community leaders themselves. These attributes help in understanding the conditions under which community-based conservation is effective, and point out indicators for success in a community-based conservation programs. Policy, institutional reforms, and capacity in policy research are also mentioned as important factors in conducting community-based conservation (Mugabe and Clark 1998).

12 13

Factors for Success

Table I lists potential factors leading to successful community-based conservation programs. These data are generated from researchers’ work evaluating programs at single sites and multiple sites, as well as scholarly reviews of programs in conceptual terms. For purposes of this research, these factors are broadly categorized as follows:

· Institutional factors, such as (a) authority and responsibility, (b) social factors, (c)

leadership within a community, (d) division of labor and gender, (e) membership

composition and definition of a community.

· Factors that act as incentives for conservation in a community, such as (a)

financial, (b) economic, (c) cultural values, (d) drastic changes in policy or (e)

natural calamities such as hunger that threatens people’s livelihood security.

· Resources-related factors, including (a) knowledge of the resource, (b) type and

definition of the resource (e.g., tenure rights, size, location, and any other

information relating to the resource).

· Supporting factors, including (a) policy and legislative factors, (b) political

support, (c) governmental and NGO support (d) social support, (e) technical

support e.g., collaboration with technical and professional people such as the

researchers, (f) Social support, (g) financial support.

· Management factors, such as conflict resolution and negotiation skills.

In spite of this burgeoning literature on CBC evaluation it would be unwise to make generalized policy prescriptions about CBC approaches in PAs' management.

Particular case studies put emphasis on different factors with no mention of other factors that would enable comparison of cases or test alternative hypothesis. Besides,

13 14 methodologies of carrying out these case study reviews are often hurried, and project implementers are the ones who provide most of the information. As such, many of the findings could be differently interpreted. This kind of evaluation approach can be biased to the expert opinion of each study's author and fail to take into consideration real management challenges on the ground. In addition, each country has its own unique conditions that may influence implementation of conservation programs differently. Even within a country, there are variations from PA to PA. This research study compares two approaches to PA management, and hence, provides empirical evidence of how different approaches work under different conditions in Uganda.

In Uganda, wildlife is legally owned by the state, for the benefit of its citizens

(Uganda Wildlife Statute No.14 1996 sect. 4 (1)). Like in any other African country, serious legislation for protected areas establishment started in the early 1930s in the form of forest and game reserves. Establishment and management of PAs was on the principle of “setting aside” and “exclusion” of the people. This modus operandi of establishing and managing PAs continued up to the late 1980s with the declaration of more PAs.

Presently, there are 20 PAs (excluding forest reserves) that cover about 14% of the total land surface area of the country (Mugabe and Clark 1998). In the late 1980’s community- based conservation programs were initiated on a pilot basis, as an alternative management concept to the traditional top-down approach in order to improve PAs’ management.

The ultimate goal of CBC programs is to achieve behavioral changes that are pro- conservation. In the CBC approach it is assumed that if local people are aware and benefit from the PAs, then their behavior will change to support PAs’ management

14 15 programs (Mordi 1991). Community-based conservation programs in Uganda can be classified into three main components. The first is aimed at directly benefiting local communities around PAs and is directly linked with wildlife conservation. It entails sharing of monetary revenues generated from tourism in a PA regulated access to natural resources (mostly plant materials) from the PAs, and providing employment opportunities to neighboring local residents. The second component also aims at benefiting local communities by contributing toward social infrastructure development. It is indirectly linked to conservation, and entails provision of public goods to communities neighboring PAs, such as schools, dispensaries, and health clinics. The third component aims at generating and promoting environmental awareness as well as creating capacity at local level for responsible behavior toward PAs. It entails education and extension programs, institutionalization of environmental stewardship in community government set up and decentralization of natural resources management to grassroots levels.

Research Hypotheses and Objectives

Hypotheses

This research was designed and carried out to test three main hypotheses that form the underlying assumptions of the CBC approaches.

Hypothesis I: Protected areas where CBC programs are being implemented will have reduced threats to their natural resources, compared to PAs without CBC.

Hypothesis II: Protected areas where CBC programs are being implemented will have more support from their neighboring communities than those protected areas without CBC. The term support implies that members of the community will demonstrate

15 16 greater (a) knowledge and understanding about natural resources, (b) positive attitudes toward the protected area, and (c) pro-environmental behavior.

Hypothesis III: Where CBC programs are implemented, the benefit/cost ratio of the protected areas to the neighboring communities will be higher than those protected areas without CBC programs.

To determine the effectiveness of CBC approaches in achieving conservation goals in Uganda’s PAs, the above hypotheses were tested by comparing CBC with non-

CBC PAs. Group discussions with PAs managers and community leaders were conducted at 16 PAs to identify main threats and assess the effectiveness of management approaches, using a threats reduction assessment (TRA) technique (Salafsky and

Margoluis 1998). Seven of the PAs practiced CBC, and nine practiced the traditional top- down type of management. A structured questionnaire survey to measure knowledge, attitudes, and behavior toward PAs was also administered to 60 respondents at each of five PAs, three of which practiced CBC and two that did not. Another semi-structured questionnaire was administered to district leaders in whose districts the PAs were located.

Responses of the district leaders where CBC was being undertaken were compared with those responses of district leaders where CBC was not being practiced. Also, secondary data were collected by reviewing documents, such as patrol, monthly and annual reports compiled by wardens, from both sets of PAs for comparison.

Objectives

The effectiveness and efficiency of community-based management as a means of integrating divergent needs of wildlife conservation and human development is explored.

Specifically, this study set out to accomplish the following objectives:

16 17

· Analyze the effectiveness of the CBC approach in achieving conservation

objectives in comparison to the traditional approaches of PA management through

the threat reduction assessment techniques.

· Analyze if community conservation approaches, compared to traditional

management approaches, increase benefits and reduce costs of a PA to the

neighboring communities.

· Evaluate the effectiveness of the current CBC initiatives in imparting knowledge,

influencing attitudes and behavior, though investigating differences in attitudes

and behaviors of neighboring communities toward PAs, between communities

subjected to CBC programs and those with the traditional PA management

approach.

· Investigate socio-economic and institutional conditions under which CBC

programs succeed or fail.

· Generate guiding principles for effective protected areas management and

biodiversity .

17

Table 1-1: Factors leading to successful community-based conservation programs Based on reports evaluating 35 sites Category Factors leading to success 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Institutional Author ity and responsibility. x x Spirit of cooperation in community. x x x x Leadership in a community. x Division of labor and gender. x x Composition of a community. x x Respected social / traditional x x x institutions. x Cohesive institutional set up. x x x x x x Recognized and legitimate x x x institutions. x x x x x Ambitious community members. x x x x

Democratic processes. 18

Table 1-1 Continued Category Factors le ading to success 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Incentives Financial incentives x x Economic incentives x Cultural values x x Social prestige x Religious values x Calamities (natural or man-made) x Perceived or real livelihood risks x Resources related Information about a resource x x x x Secure resource / land tenure x x x x x x x x x x Size and location of the resource x x Dependency on the resource x x Resource use not just conservation x x Resource not irreparably damaged x x x Policy/legislation Community friendly x x x x x x x legal framework 19

Technical support NGO support x x x x x Government support x x x Social support x x Research support x x Adequate Financial support x x x x

Table 1-1 Continued Category Factors leading to success 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Management Freedom of community to develop their own technology and institutions. x x x x Low human populations density. x x x x x x When participating is a learning process. x Need long time frame. x x x Low cost conflict resolution mechanism x Monitors are users or accountable to users x Autonomy to make rules and regulations of x x x access. Co-management arrangements arrived at x x x through a consensus manner. Agreement on conservation objectives by all x x stakeholders.

Training of community members x x x 20 Integration of biological and socio-economic x x needs of the community. Linkages between extension, government x x x regulations and community. Opportunity for experimental management. x Awareness rising among the community x members. Key to authors: 1=Veit et al. (1995); 2 = Pimbert (1994); 3 = Pye-Smith and Borrini-Feyerabend (1994); 5 = Murphree (1996); 6 = Ostrom (1997); 7 = Bodmer (1994); 9 = Hill and Press (1994); 10 = Donovan (1994); 11= Otto and Kent (1994); 12 = Wells (1994); 13 = Tengue and Associates (1994); 14 = Nkana (1994); 16 =Little (1994); 17 = Lynch and Alcorn (1994).

Table 1-2: Summary of reviewed evaluation cases Author Field of Focus of evaluation Participants in Role of Recommendations/ Findings. evaluation Evaluation participants Jassat, et Community Self-help organization for 74 members of the Responding to Too much pressure on the project al. (1990) Development rural development in self help group questionnaires Coordinator from the donor and the Rushinga district and 27 non- community leadership. The poorest of the members in the poor people in Rushinga district did not fully district and Project participate in the project. managers. Covarrub Power sector Why are power projects 26 SSA countries/ Provide access The World Bank should play a more ias Development in Sub- Saharan Africa Governments. to archives, and supervisory role in management of the power (1996) (SSA) less successful government sector. than in other regions. documents. Adams Natural Impacts of community Park staffs, parish Provide The program is not addressing the real issues. and Resources conservation on local residents information The benefits from the park are not enough to Infield management people. neighboring compensate opportunity costs of the park. (1998). Mgahinga Gorilla 21 National Park. Singini Agriculture How the Farmer Support Farmers in the Giving Land tenure policies are needed for further and in the home Program (FSP) has black homelands information development. FSP strategy has a far wider Rooyen lands of increased effectiveness in development impact at substantially lower (1995) South Africa agricultural development. cost than large-scale centrally managed Provide guidelines for the settlement projects and state farming future course and schemes. development of agriculture. FSP as an integrated approach to rural development. Ortmann Economic Agricultural support and Households from Answering The impact of FSP appears to have been et al. evaluation structural change policies the wards in Kwa- questionnaires small. The costs of implementation were high in agriculture in Kwa- Zulu. Zulu Natal

Table 1-2 Continued Author Field of Focus of evaluation Participants in Role of Recommendations/ Findings. evaluation Evaluation participants Scott et Levels of Standard of living in two The inhabitants of Provision of Some of the international indicators were al. (1973) living in communities of Anogi and the two villages. information. not relevant to the two villages. Others Greece. Ballos on the island of Using the were obsolete, as they had been overtaken Crete. inhabitants to test by events. the indicators of development as stated by the United Nations Research Institute for social development. Patel H. Wildlife Improved welfare of local Local chiefs, Information That the popularized campfire program (1998) utilization- communities from donors, provision was forcibly evicting people to create 22 Campfire utilization of wildlife. government room for wildlife was not benefiting the program in officials, and people whose land was taken by the Zimbabwe independent program and was not participatory. researchers. Taylor Wildlife Income accruing from Only the researcher Only to be Wildlife utilization is a feasible (1993) Utilization wildlife utilization in informed of the investment. The dividends from wildlife Nyaminyami district, outcome do not accrue to the landowners that bear Zimbabwe. the cost s of conservation. There is mismanagement of the program at the local level.

Table 1-2. Continued Author Field of Focus of evaluation Participants in Role of Recommendations/ Findings. evaluation Evaluation participants Metcalf Development. Promoting sustainable Evaluation team, Provide Develop a bottom-up institutional (1996) through development so that project staff, Govt. information and development strategy. Support the conservation pressure is taken off and USAID ideas about the implementation of the parks mgt. Plans. project. protected areas. officials and some project Promote and monitor multiple use community leaders programs. Promote farmer participatory research. Continue funding to the 3rd phase. Namara Community Existing community The consultant and Provide It is important to keep dialogue between (1998) Perspectives initiatives in natural the leaders of the information and communities and govt. institution. There is on Natural resources management. community participate in a need for the govt. to remunerate resource mgt. projects visited. stakeholders’ participating members of the community. In Uganda workshop. People need permanent access to

resources, and not to be limited by access 23 agreements. Economic incentives to participating members are important for appreciation of natural resources conservation. Destruction of property by wild animals from a PA is contrasted to the denial of access to resources in the PA. People see law enforcement as unfair and a mockery of the realities on the ground. Lack of tenure security is a hindrance to community-based conservation.

Table 1-2 Continued Author Field of Focus of evaluation Participants in Role of Recommendations/ Findings. evaluation Evaluation participants

Namara Interactions Post community 380 randomly Providing Land use had changed from dominantly and between L. conservation project selected families information. pastoral to mixed farming, cattle with Infield Mburo evaluation of Socio- around L. Mburo cultivation. Land-less households were (1998) National Park economic baseline. national park, and still at large. Perceptions about the park and the the investigator. had not changed but park/people relations neighboring had improved. Law enforcement rangers communities were corrupt. Poaching levels had reduced. Benefits were perceived to have been got in those areas where the program was active. Need to influence land use outside the park to ensure dispersal areas for wildlife. Education programs should be

intensified and expanded. Formulate 24 policies to manage problem animals outside the national park. Kazoora Economics of Assess the cost Investigators and Reviewing Develop a policy framework for and Ray community effectiveness of the project staff. literature and community conservation and a strategic (1997) conservation community conservation carrying out action plan. in L Mburo program in Uganda interviews. Explore more cost effectiveness of National Park. carrying out community conservation programs. Identify how best to achieve objectives at the least costs. Develop indicators against which to measure the effectiveness of CC. Budget for CC as a basic park function. Integrate CC into the overall planning process of UWA.

CHAPTER 2 DO COMMUNITY BASED CONSERVATION PROGRAMS HELP REDUCE THREATS TO PROTECTED AREAS? A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SIXTEEN PROTECTED AREAS IN UGANDA

Introduction

Community-based conservation (CBC) approach has been lauded as a better approach to protected areas (PAs) management in Africa (Pimbert and Pretty 1994;

Western 1994; Barrow 1997; Schwartzman et al 2000) than the traditional top-down management approach. The later approach has been blamed for failing to provide protection to PAs (Hulme and Murphree 2001b).

Recently however, the community-based conservation approach itself has been heavily criticized as having failed to achieve much needed conservation results (Hackel

1998; Songorwa 1999). As the debate continues about whether CBC is effective, empirical data are needed to understand if indeed CBC works and under what conditions, in order to propose appropriate policies for PA management and biodiversity conservation.

In Uganda, both the traditional top-down management and the community-based conservation approach have been operating concurrently for a decade in different PAs.

This research evaluates and compares the ability of protected area management to mitigate threats, at CBC and non-CBC PAs, as a proxy measure of conservation success.

Sixteen PAs in Uganda were examined to determine whether CBC-PAs have better addressed threats than non-CBC PAs as far as their conservation status is concerned.

25 26

Seven of the PAs have been practicing CBC for more than ten years, while nine have not been exposed to CBC approaches (Map 1). This study tests the hypotheses that: PAs with

CBC programs have reduced threats in comparison to non-CBC PAs. Specific objectives were as follows:

· Learn from primary stakeholders (neighboring communities and PA

managers) what they perceive as threats to the survival of respective PAs.

· Evaluate and compare the effectiveness of the PA management, using the

threat reduction assessment technique, in mitigating the identified threats to

respective PAs.

· Document concerns and aspirations of neighboring communities and how

these relate to threat reduction and the future survival of the PA.

The study used a threat reduction assessment (TRA) technique (Salafsky and

Margoluis 1998) to collect data from the sixteen PAs, to assess the effectiveness of PA management to mitigate threats to the PAs. In a participatory manner, impending threats to PAs were identified and PAs’ management evaluated based on how effective the management approaches had been in addressing the identified threats.

The TRA technique is a cost-effective way of defining and measuring conservation success for different interventions. It has practical advantages of using data collected through simple techniques relevant to local primary stakeholders of resources for which evaluation is being done (Salafsky and Margoluis 1998). It is relevant to local people’s perceptions and understanding, and therefore the evaluation objective becomes clearer from a local standpoint. As a research method, this was the first time TRA technique has been used to compare the effectiveness of management approaches in PAs

27 in Uganda, but it has been widely applied in the Asian/Pacific regions to evaluate community-based conservation programs (Salafsky and Margoluis 1999).

Group discussions, were used to explore socio-economic and environmental issues that could impact PA management. Three additional methods were used to provide additional data and to triangulate the results of the TRA technique (Wholey et al. 1994).

A review was conducted, examining documents from the sixteen PAs, to catalogue types of illegal activities and their occurrences. Also, a questionnaire was administered to the highest political office in the district, Local Council Five (LCV) to measure the support and appreciation of the PAs at the district level. Lastly, a questionnaire was administered to the respective PA managers to understand their views about the conservation status of their PAs.

Methods

Threat Reduction Assessment (TRA) Technique

Evaluation of the effectiveness of PA management in mitigating identified threats to PAs was conducted through threat reduction assessment techniques (TRA) (Salafsky and Margoluis 1999). This was carried out by organizing group discussions at each of the

16 PAs. The discussion groups were composed of representatives from: communities at a parish level, PA management staff representatives especially from the research, law enforcement, and community conservation departments as applicable, conservation non- governmental organizations (NGO) staff members working at the PA, and research institutions where applicable.

To get representative views from neighboring communities to the PAs, caution was exercised in the participant selection process. First, all the parishes around the PAs

28 were identified and communities grouped into socio-economic groups according to their livelihoods, e.g. pastoralists, cultivators, and fisher people. Second, a reconnaissance visit was made to local council two (LC II) chairpersons who are the political heads of parishes, to discuss the purpose and objectives of the intended plans to hold group discussions with representatives of communities neighboring respective PAs. To keep the number of participants to manageable sizes especially for bigger PAs, some participants represented more than one parish, but where the number of parishes was few, each parish was represented. The final decision of who would represent community interests from a community was left to LC chairpersons with their councils. The ability of an individual to: (1) express community views in a group, (2) understand local peoples’ problems, and

(3) have knowledge of aspirations of the communities, were emphasized as criteria for participant selection. The main focus of participant selection was guided by the need to have a diversified group whose members could easily communicate, to avoid redundancy during discussions (Alreck and Settle 1995). The number of community representatives ranged from 15 to 20 depending on the size and the number of parishes neighboring the

PA.

The assessment is based on three main parameters of the environment: habitat integrity, quality, and ecosystem functioning. Local people are assisted to internalize their thinking about these parameters, and think back, to make an evaluation and value judgment. The key principle of TRA as an evaluation tool is that if threats to a PA are mitigated, then the management will have succeeded. Conversely, if the threats are not mitigated, the PA management approach will have failed. It is therefore imperative that the assessment group is able to identify threats to the PA, and with facilitation, estimate

29 the degree to which these threats have been reduced as a measure of PA management success. A threat reduction index (TRA-I) is then used to evaluate the effectiveness of a management approach.

First, participants were led through a “brainstorming” exercise, whereby in a relaxed atmosphere, they were encouraged to think out loud and write down what they thought were threats to the existence of the PA being discussed. Everything that participants cited as threats were written on a flip chart to help participants visualize and reflect on the identified issues. Threats, for purposes of this research were defined as any human related phenomena that could be avoided, either by the PA management or any other management agency that negatively affect the existence of the PA in question and are viewed as the inverse of opportunities (Salafsky and Margoluis 1999). Natural phenomena such as natural fires or earthquakes were not considered to qualify as threats.

Second, to assist participants to focus their thinking about habitat integrity, quality, and ecosystem functioning, these threats were ranked according to their relative importance. This was achieved by considering the speed at which the threats could destroy the PA, their intensity of destruction, and the area that they could affect. A ranking scale of one to five was used throughout the exercise as it was found to be convenient and acceptable to participants. Five represented the maximum score for each area of ranking, and a score of one was the minimum. A total sum score was computed after all the threats were scored.

Third, a consensus building exercise was used with the group to assess the extent to which the PA management had mitigated each threat. All participants were given approximately five minutes to think about each threat and evaluate independently, to

30 what extent the management approaches had addressed a specific threat. Scores were assigned on a percentage basis. If a threat had not been addressed at all, management would score zero. Where management had fully mitigated a threat, the score would be

100 percent.

During the initial stages of the exercise, it was observed that personal assessment and scoring could be influenced by some of the most vocal participants. To overcome this, a means of writing one’s score and keeping it secret from other participants until all had finished scoring was devised to guard against such influences. When there were large disparities in the scores, a discussion would be conducted to ensure that an objective consensus was reached. After the scoring and ranking exercise, total ranking scores were multiplied by the percentage of the threat met to get a raw score for each threat. Dividing the sum of the raw scores for each threat by the total possible rankings of all the threats and multiplying by 100 computed the threat reduction index (TRA-I): (TRA-I = å Raw

Scores / å Possible Rankings X 100) (Salafsky and Margoluis 1999). This means that the higher the index, the more successful management has been in mitigating the threats.

This procedure was carried out for all sixteen PAs, to have a meaningful comparison of the indices. To find out if threat indices differ between CBC and non-CBC PAs, a t-test was carried to compare the indices at CBC with those at non-CBC PAs.

Some PAs had unique threats due to their locations and other development plans.

For example, planned development projects such as hydroelectric power dams were a threat to some PAs, but did not occur in others. Also, due to insecurity from guerillas and banditry activities in some parts of the country, some PAs identified insecurity as a threat and others did not. Such threats greatly affect the final TRA index as they would score

31 zero, since the PA management could not mitigate them. To streamline the comparisons across all the PAs, two TRA indices were computed for PAs that had unique threats such as those mentioned above, that a PA management had no legal mandate to mitigate. The first index includes the unique threats, while the second one excludes them. The index without the unique threats is used for comparison purposes with other PAs while the one with all threats is used to indicate the relevance of the management approaches in light of the identified threats.

The discussions focused on the PA management covered a number of issues relating to communities, natural resources management, and general environmental issues

(Table 2-1). The researcher and his assistants moderated these discussions. Further discussions concentrated on the lifestyles in the communities, and how people interacted with their environment. Ethnic composition, socio-economic services (such as schools), community management of their natural resources (such as water, trees, soils, pastures), and economic activities were also discussed. Environmental and natural resources issues were discussed, focusing on the environmental changes that had taken place over the last five-years, concerns communities had about these changes, and what communities were doing about these concerns as a coping strategy. Discussions also focused on wildlife issues, both outside and inside the respective PA. Participants were encouraged to use their intuition and local knowledge of the area, based on their experience, to discuss the future of the PA and wildlife in light of the socio-economic and political changes in their communities. Lastly, the groups specifically discussed the threats to the PA and assessed how effective the management had been in addressing the identified threats.

32

Document Review

Document review and analysis was carried out to gain an understanding of the past management challenges, successes, and failures at the 16 PAs. The Uganda Wildlife

Authority (UWA) documents from headquarter archives, as well as warden’s field reports from specific PAs, project evaluation reports, and routine reports were reviewed to get an understanding of the challenges for the PA management. Specific documents reviewed include all of the following sources available for each PA:

· Warden’s monthly reports from 1990s to 2001

· Warden’s quarterly reports from the 1990s to 2001

· Project reports from organizations working in collaboration with UWA in PAs

· UWA Annual reports from 1990 to 2000

Interviews of the District Leaders; Local Council Five (LCV)

In Uganda, the local government is organized along a five-tier system: village, parish, sub-county, county, and district level. At each level, there is a nine- person local committee headed by a chairperson. The CBC initiatives target all levels of the local councils, to enlist their support in PA management in the country. To evaluate the impacts of these initiatives, a semi-structured questionnaire was administered to district leaders, (local council five) to determine their understanding about and support to PAs in their respective districts (Appendix F). Responses were analyzed using a contingency chi- square with the SPSS computer software, and results from the district leadership where

CBC is implemented are compared with the responses from districts where CBC is not conducted.

33

Survey of Protected Area Managers

A questionnaire was designed to get information about the conservation status of the PAs as evaluated by the PA managers (Appendix A). The questions were formulated based on the possible indicators for a successful PA management. Responses were categorized into factors for successful management and percentages were used to compare CBC and non-CBC PAs.

Results

Threat Reduction Assessment Indices and Threats Percentage Occurrences

Tables 2-2 through 2-10 show threats to non-CBC PAs with respective TRA indices and Tables 2-11 through 2-17 show threats to CBC PAs, and the TRA indices.

Tables 2-18 and 2-19 show percentage occurrence of identified threats at CBC and non-

CBC PAs respectively. The average threat reduction assessment indices at CBC PAs ( x

= 49.0 ±12.0) were not significantly different from those at non-CBC PAs ( x = 37.96 ±

2 21.6) ( c15 = 16.0; p > 0.05) (P = 0.382). However, 71.0% of the CBC PAs had more than 50% of their threats addressed, compared to only 33% of non-CBC PAs.

In total, 20 threats were identified at all the 16 PAs. Local poaching occurred more than 80% at both CBC and non-CBC PAs. Poor community relations occurred more frequently at non-CBC (66.7%), than at CBC PAs (57.1%). Problem animals occurred more frequently at CBC PAs (85.7%), than at non-CBC PAs (33.3%), and unclear boundaries were more frequent at non-CBC (55.6%) than at CBC PAs (28.6%). Table 2-

18 shows the comparison of CBC and non-CBC threat reduction indices, Table 2-21 shows percentage occurrences of the identified threats at both CBC and non-CBC PAs,

Tables 2-22–2-24 show Wardens’ responses to the survey about the status and

34 management issues of their respective PAs, and Table 2-25 shows responses from the districts leaders. Results from group discussions at all the 16 PAs are presented in

Appendix B. These data indicate that communities are aware of environmental degradation going on in their areas. They are concerned about the increasing scarcity of natural resources such as firewood, medicinal plants and building materials, plus a general deterioration in their welfare. Coping mechanisms vary from place to place and for different problems. A common trend regarding wildlife among all the 16 sites is that big game wildlife species have limited opportunities to survive into the future outside

PAs, and even the possible opportunities will depend on the ability to address problem caused by wild animal such as crop raiding. The survival of PAs themselves will depend on a number of factors such as: alleviation of poverty in the rural areas, intensified education programs, and family planning measures among others.

Documented Illegal Activities

Appendix D presents documented illegal activities, and how the PA management is handling them. The common illegal activities include: local poaching, bush fires, snares, illegal grazing and encroachment. The common manner of handling these illegalities both at CBC and non-CBC is to arrest the suspect and take them to courts of laws, and there are few incidents when leaders of local people are involved in resolving such conflicts. These results support findings from the group discussions method that identified threats to the PAs, although more threats were identified than were documented. Figures 1 to 5 indicate the percentage occurrences of these threats at Queen

Elizabeth National Park, Murchison Falls National Park, Lake Mburo, Bwindi, and

Mgahinga National Parks over 10 years. It was not possible to get enough data from the

35 reports for the other eleven PAs. Either the respective PA management did not compile them, or due to filing problems, they could not be traced.

Responses from the District Leaders and Protected Areas Wardens

A contingency chi-square analysis of the responses from the district leaders with

CBC did not show any significant statistical differences to districts without CBC, with regard to political support to PAs, involvement of local administration in PA management and beneficial aspects of the PAs to local people (Table 2-25). Responding to queries about the benefits of PAs, 71% at CBC and 67% at non-CBC agreed that PAs provide environmental benefits, while 29% at CBC and 33% at non-CBC PAs disagreed.

About employment benefits, 57% at CBC and 100% at non-CBC agree that PA provides employment benefits and 43% at CBC disagree. Regarding what should be done to improve the interaction between the PAs and the communities, 14% at CBC and 67% at non-CBC, suggested improvement of communications for conservation awareness, and

14% at CBC and 33% at non-CBC suggested that the PAs should be more transparent.

Responses from the PA managers (Table 2-24) indicate that 86% of the CBC PAs have management plans while 14% have already embarked on the process to making the plans. In contrast, 33% of non-CBC PAs have management plans, 44% have no plans, while 22% are in the process of making plans. Only 22% of the non-CBC PAs have well- organized tourism program, 33% have poorly organized tourism program, and 44% have no tourism program developed. In contrast 86% of CBC PAs have well-organized tourism program and 14% have poorly developed programs.

36

Discussion

Effectiveness of Management in Mitigating Threats to Protected Areas

Environmental degradation and the precarious state of PAs in Africa have generated much debate among academicians, developers, and conservation practitioners.

While some scholars have argued that increasing human population is the major factor that threatens survival of PAs (Struhsaker 1998), others counter argue that it is the alienation of local rural people from nature (Pimbert and Pretty 1997; Schwartzman et al.

2000). Other threats to PAs have been documented as human activities such hunting and setting wire snares to trap animals (Gibson and Marks 1995; Cuarón 2000), charcoal production and unsustainable land use practices (e.g. Seddon et al. 2001). Macro economic policies and market failures, poverty, and unsustainable agriculture also have been documented as the main causes of environmental degradation and subsequent threat to PAs (Barbier and Burgess 2001).

Although the threats to PAs have been studied and documented, (Lacy 1987;

Orians 1993) measures taken to manage and conserve PAs and biodiversity pay very little attention to such threats. A total of 20 threats were identified as affecting the existence of the PAs in Uganda. Some of the threats were common ones, such as poaching of game, pitsawying, and denied access to resources, however, the data shows additional external threats such as highways through PAs, hydroelectric power stations, and kraal making activities in Karamoja region. Comparison of the TRA indices indicates that there is no statistically significant difference between CBC and non-CBC PAs. Both management approaches do not fully mitigate PAs threats. However, general trends seem to indicate that CBC PAs tend to have higher indices than non-CBC PAs. For example, as shown in

Table 2-18, 71.0% (five out of seven) CBC PAs, have indices above 50%, while only

37

33.0% (three out of nine) non-CBC PAs have indices greater than 50%. This suggests that CBC PAs may be more successful in mitigating threats than non-CBC PAs.

Differences may not be statistically significant because of the high variances, e.g. ranging from 28-58% in CBC PAs, and 2-71% in non-CBC PAs.

Results indicate that management approaches at both CBC PAs and non-CBC

PAs do not address all threats to the PAs. The average TRA-I for non-CBC is 30.03% when all the threats are considered. However, when those threats that the management is not able to address are excluded, the index average increases to 37.96%. Similarly, average TRA index for CBC PAs is 40.05% when all the threats are considered, and when the threats to which the management is not able to address are excluded the average

TRA index increases to 49.0%. It is important to note that both CBC and non-CBC PAs have average scores of less than 50%, implying that PA management at both CBC and non-CBC PAs only mitigates about a third of the PAs threats. Although both management approaches fall short of addressing all PA threats, trends in the data suggested that threats such as bush burning, pitsawying, encroachment and unclear boundaries had been better mitigated at CBC PAs than non-CBC PAs.

Tables 2-19 and 2-20 show the occurrence of the identified threats at both CBC and non-CBC PAs. With few exceptions, such as cattle kraal construction, highways, and corruption, threats are common at both CBC and non CBC PAs. The most common threat across all the PAs was local poaching of game, occurring in all the non-CBC PAs, and

86% of CBC PAs. Denied access to resources occurred 14.3% at CBC PAs, but was not mentioned at all in non-CBC PAs. At CBC PAs there are arrangements with communities to have controlled access to resources within the PAs. At non-CBC PAs, such

38 arrangements are lacking, but local people stealthily access resources, risking being detected and punished. The fact that denied access to resources came up as a threat from

CBC PAs could signal the unhappiness about the regulatory mechanism to access resources by the communities. On the other hand, at non-CBC PAs the illegal access detection chances could be so low that local communities do not feel that they are being denied access after all or it may not be an issue.

Corruption was mentioned at only 11.1% of non-CBC PAs, and 28.6% of CBC

PAs. The district leaders expressed similar sentiments, asserting that PA management needs to be transparent. The threat of interference from politicians seems to be larger at

CBC PAs, than non-CBC, potentially indicating increased political interests in PAs that generate revenue. This sentiment was corroborated by PA wardens’ surveys. The threat of encroachment was lower at CBC PAs (57%) than non-CBC (77.8%), but it was still common.

Poor relations between PAs and communities were cited as a threat at more than half of the non-CBC PAs (66.7%) and CBC PAs (57%). Lack of sufficient funds to invest in community development, and failure to provide compensation for damaged property were highlighted as the main sources of poor relations between the communities and PAs.

At CBC PAs where there are community projects with support from NGOs, poor relations were associated with conflicts with wildlife. Problem animal threats occur in

85.7% of CBC PAs, but only occur at 33.3% of non-CBC PAs. The CBC programs have promoted environmental awareness, but the challenge of sustaining livelihoods still dictate increased demands and expectations from communities. Communities still view

PAs as a source of food and land for cultivation, and the CBC programs have not

39 adequately addressed such expectations and demands from community members in

Uganda (Adams and Infield 2001).

Conservation Status of the Protected Areas

From the wardens’ responses, only 44% (two of nine) non-CBC PAs reported that they had a management plan, five out of nine (56%) reported that they had a management objective. Non-CBC PAs that reported they had management mission, also had a higher

TRA index. More than 80% of CBC PAs had management plans and 14% were in the process of making the plans, and all had management missions. Although boundaries of some CBC PAs were contested, they were all known and marked. In non-CBC PAs five out of nine (67%) reported that the boundaries were not known and were not demarcated.

The Status of natural resources in non-CBC PAs was reported to suffer from uncontrolled use by local communities. Only 29% (two out of seven) CBC PAs reported the status of natural resources to be fully protected.

Threat Reduction Assessment and Illegal Activities

Comparing TRA indices with actual documents of illegal activities substantiates the range of threats to the PAs. The review of PA documents found that there were recorded illegal activities such as local conversion of trees into timber and vegetation destruction at PAs, which reported full protection. In Kibale, eight types of illegal activities were recorded during the past 7 years, 1994-2000. The most common problem in 1994, 1995, 1998 and 2000 were wire snares set for bush meat. This is in agreement with what Koojo (2001) found while recording wire snare occurrences in Kibale National

Park. Cattle grazing was a major problem in 1996, and game poaching was recorded in

1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000.

40

In Queen Elizabeth National Park, most frequent problems were charcoal burning and vegetation destruction in 1996, and game poaching, prevalent in 1998. In Mgahinga

National Park, the most common illegal activities were wire snares and vegetation destruction, recorded in 1995, 1997 and 2000. In Murchison Falls National Park, game poaching was recorded in almost all years, with pitsawying and encroachment recorded in 1992, 1993 and 1997. In Lake Mburo, the most occurring illegal activities were vegetation destruction and game poaching.

The illegal activities that were documented in respective PAs were all identified as threats in the TRA process, except in Mgahinga where snaring was not mentioned.

However, group discussions identified even more threats, than recorded illegal activities.

The reason for this is that not all the illegal activities at a PA are detected. Even when they are detected, they may not be recorded or followed up. This is confirmed by the wardens’ responses indicating that at times illegal activities are not recorded nor followed up.

At non-CBC PAs, records of illegal activities were not available, or non-existent.

This highlights a weakness in record generation and keeping on the part of the non-CBC

PAs. All five PAs whose files were found are CBC PAs, and the 11 whose file could not be located are non-CBC. It should be noted that even in CBC PAs, not all the data for all the respective years could be found, indicating lack of organization in records generation, keeping and management. These findings further reinforce results from other methods that CBC PAs still face similar institutional problems as non-CBC PAs.

41

Although the district leaders reported that all PAs have political support from the district leadership, the Wardens feel that it is only central government that supports PA management and little support is offered from local government or local people.

These data show that the current PA management approaches, be it CBC or non-

CBC, do not fully address threats to the survival of PAs in Uganda. Part of this failure can be explained by examining institutional arrangements for managing PAs. Wildlife management in general and PAs’ management in particular have been perceived as an exclusive biological profession, a policy approach that was not understood by the local people (Agrawal and Sivaramakrishnan 2000). The institutional set up for managing PAs was therefore designed to exclude people, who were viewed as “the problem” (West and

Brechin 1991). However, people-related issues affect PA management and wildlife conservation in developing countries like Uganda, which have no institutional set up or mechanisms of addressing these threats (Hyden 1998).

Current protected area management cannot address land degradation outside the

PAs, or human population increase, yet, such issues pose threats to the survival of PAs as revealed by TRA technique. Increasing human population and lack of buffer zones have over-stretched the law enforcement mechanism that has remained the same since the western model of was introduced in Africa. This has rendered follow up of illegal activities by rangers ineffective. From all corners, PAs are being besieged, by settlement attempts and changing land use patterns. Current PA management approaches may not address a settlement issue next to a PA nor can it keep a 24-hour surveillance over the activities that are being carried out in such a settlement.

42

Linkages among People’s Aspirations, Threat Reduction and Survival of Protected Areas

During group discussions, participants were asked to reflect on environmental changes that had taken place over the past five years. On this issue, most discussions at both CBC and non-CBC PAs cited reduced or unpredictable rainfall patterns, lack of clean water, and decreased soil fertility as the main concerns. As to how the communities were responding to such concerns, the discussions revealed that both communities at non-

CBC as well as CBC PAs are expecting help from government and non-governmental organizations. A few discussions revealed that the communities had already taken initiatives such as de-silting water dams to address their concerns. In general however, there seems to be lack of community initiatives to address the identified concerns as a community. A number of factors could cause lack of such initiatives but ones that were gleaned from this research point to lack of traditional community institutions and decision-making authority due to multi-ethnic communities. Only seven PAs, out of 16:

Mt. Elgon, Pian Upe, Bokora, Matheniko, Kidepo, Bwindi and Mgahinga are surrounded by one or two dominant ethnic groups. Other PAs irrespective of whether they are CBC or non-CBC, are surrounded by more than three ethnic communities. This raises institutional concerns in the management of natural resources.

Most communities around PAs lack well-organized community structures that would enable the community to act in a cohesive manner. Government local councils are the only formal institutions that are politically instituted. Office bearers of these institutions are voted for, and to keep such offices, they have to ensure that they do not antagonize future voters (Hulme and Murphree 2001a). These strategic considerations in leadership can compromise the rationale of the community leadership in meeting natural resources management goals. Group discussants also indicated that community members

43 lacked power to implement the decisions they wanted to. In Bugungu, community members wanted to stop immigrants from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

However, central government officials thwarted their decision and illegal immigrants have continued to increase as illegal fishing increases. The ambivalent stand of different communities toward the concerns about the environment therefore, could be partly explained by such lack of cohesion, and leadership in the community as well as lack of empowerment to make decisions. A community that is characterized by lack of leadership and decision-making powers could take long to take on collective responsibility to support PA management, (Ostrom 1997; Baland and Platteau 1996).

Results from the group discussions also reveal that community concerns about environmental changes are more or less uniform at both CBC and non-CBC PAs, and are primarily based on personal interests, yet PA management is in public interest. Results indicate lack of strong community institutions that are able to articulate community interests and to negotiate for their roles and responsibilities based on such interests and needs. This lack of communication can lead to mistrust among different stakeholders. For example where natural resources were mentioned as a concern, such as decreasing wildlife populations, it was in relation to loss of game meat as a source of protein. In

Bwindi, where CBC programs were pioneered, people expressed a high degree of skepticism about NGOs involvement in the PA management. The group indicated that they fear a loss of community lands to the PA as wildlife population increases inside the

PA. The ‘mzungus’ (slang for ‘white’ people) have a plan to acquire more land for the

PA, through buying off poor local farmers and refusing to compensate for destroyed property.” There are concerns that the aid support being given for conservation from

44 international NGOs is a way of “bribing the government, so that the white people can take over the land and set it aside for conservation." Whereas conservation values are eco-centric, peoples’ values for managing natural resources are anthropocentric

(Struhsaker 1998). This finding negates one of the basic assumptions of the CBC approach, that if neighboring communities were granted access to resources, they would develop pro- environmental behaviors that support PAs’ management as well as improve their welfare (Western 1994). These findings indicate that both communities from CBC and non-CBC PAs were far more concerned about their welfare than the status of the PAs and natural resources.

In the design of CBC approach, it is often assumed that local communities would be able to buy into and accept the non-consumptive conservation values of natural resources and PA management that hinge on aesthetic, scientific, moral, and recreational values as promoted by western cultures. Findings from the group discussions indicate that community members are interested in utilitarian values of wildlife. It is often observed that communities at lower rungs of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow 1998), and are still struggling to meet their basic needs may not easily change their values from utilitarian to moral or recreational (Mordi 1991). The concerns expressed in the group discussions, imply interests of the communities, which are in conflict with PAs and conservation objectives. If CBC is embarked upon before harmonizing such conflicting values of different stakeholders, conflicts could intensify and result in raised expectations, mistrust and despair.

Discussions about the future of wildlife outside PAs revealed that big game species outside PA boundaries had little chance of survival. The main reason for this

45 assertion is that wildlife is destructive to people's property and threatens human life. In addition to this, the government does not provide any compensation for the damages due to wildlife. People have taken it upon themselves to ensure that wildlife outside the PAs is destroyed. This is being done through both destruction of wildlife habitats and active hunting of any game that is found on private lands. Although participants in the group discussions pointed out that problem animals such as bush pigs and baboons are still abundant outside PAs, the general belief among wildlife managers is that wildlife numbers have been drastically reduced. Records from aerial surveys of 1996 confirm this

(Lamprey and Michelmore 1996). In most discussions, participants kept reflecting on the fact that wildlife is no longer available outside PAs, except for baboons, vervet monkeys and hyenas, species that are commonly cited as problem animals. At Mt. Elgon, the group indicated that the only wild animal species whose population had decreased both within and outside the PA was the black and white colobus monkey. This species is highly valued for its skin, which is used in cultural ceremonies. These comments indicate that people harbor negative perceptions about wildlife, which they perceive as problem animals, but they cherish those that they derive consumptive values such as meat or skins for their utilization but not necessarily for their conservation.

Asked about the future of the PAs themselves, discussions again revealed that there are some PAs that may not continue to function as conservation areas with viable wildlife populations, such as Bokora and Matheniko. Other PAs were believed to have only a conditional future. A salient issue in these conditions is that of problem animals.

Discussions came up with different suggestions ranging from fencing off the PA and establishing a compensation scheme for those who lose property to wildlife, to reducing

46 numbers of “vermin” in the PAs. Some suggested that community sensitization programs around PAs on the importance of wildlife and PAs be increased. Other suggestions included increasing the amount of money for revenue sharing and giving such monies to individual landowners on whose land wildlife resided, rather than giving it to the community as a whole. Planting buffer crops such as tea that are unpalatable to wildlife, next to the PAs also was suggested during the discussions. In Lake Mburo, participants suggested that the PAs should be managed as a communal wildlife area entirely managed by local communities.

These findings indicate that the survival of both CBC and non-CBC PAs is still precarious, in light of increasing human populations, changing land use patterns and decreasing human welfare. At the time of gazetting PAs between the early 1930s and

1960s in the colonial era, there were fewer people and less pressure on land. PAs were planned to have buffer zones around them that mitigated negative human impacts on the

PAs and vice versa. Today, most of the PAs lack any buffer areas, and the “front line” of human activities is right to the border posts of PAs. Hence, the conflicts between wildlife and communities are becoming bigger issues today than they were before. Coupled with this reality of increasing conflicts are negative perceptions resulting from denied access to resources. As one participant observed in the CBC PA discussions, “ You stop our animals from going to the park, but when your animals come to our land, we are punished for “chasing” them away”. This finding is in agreement with assertions made by Hulme and Murphree (2001b) that although CBC approach is a step in the right direction, it has made a very limited improvement. Solutions to such kind of issues lie beyond current

47 approaches to PA management, and call for formulation of realistic policies that adequately address conservation challenges in a changing world.

Ambiguous resource tenure, which was expressed in terms of unclear boundaries, can affect PA management (Lynch and Alcon 1994). Uncertainty of boundary location creates a vacuum and high insecurity of resource tenure outside the PAs. Local people and PA managers alike keep guessing about whether or not a piece of land is within or outside the borders of a PA. On the part of community members, it takes one daring person to take a risk and find out if he/she will be punished for settling on a piece of land whose ownership is unclear. In the likely event that PA rangers do not apprehend him/her, other community members will follow suit. On the other hand, if a PA management decides that a piece of land is inside the borders, the bona fide occupants risk being evicted not withstanding the number of years of residence on the land. For such reasons, communities neighboring PAs lack the security to invest and properly manage the resource for long-term benefits. In Bwindi, the discussions revealed the fear of the people that the PA borders will be expanded in the future. Yet ownership is central to the determination of issues of access, distribution, and sharing of benefits from resource conservation.

Civil unrest also leads to internally displaced people who end up using resources without any secure resource tenure. Such displaced people lack alternative income, and they resort to activities such as charcoal burning, poaching and unsustainable agricultural practices as a means of securing their livelihood. As they expect to go back to their homes once peace is restored, they have no incentives to invest in the temporary land holding. They have no tenure rights to the land, and their main interests are to satisfy

48 their short-term needs without respect for the future. Issues pertaining to resource tenure have traditionally been perceived as non-related to wildlife and PA management. It is therefore not surprising that neither the CBC, nor the traditional top-down approaches, in the management of the PAs in Uganda, address such an issue, which continues to threaten the survival of PAs.

Linkages between Political Leadership and Protected Area Management

Responses from the district leaders (Table 2-25) showed no significant differences between districts with CBC and those without CBC PAs, and indicate that the status of the resources and the PAs are generally in a good condition. This is in contrast to the wardens’ responses, which indicated that over 60% of the non-CBC PA boundaries were not demarcated, and were feared to be encroached, while at CBC, 14% of the PAs had unknown boundaries with conflicts. Response frequency distributions for all districts showed a well-informed awareness and interest in PAs’ management at district levels.

For example, only 28.6% of the district leaders indicated that they did not know how illegal cases are handled in CBC PAs but at non-CBC 50% said that they did not know.

Over 80% at CBC and 67% at non-CBC PAs agreed that they get involved in resolving conflicts, while all the respondents agreed that PAs enjoy central government political support. When asked about their understanding of the wildlife legislation in the country, at CBC PAs, 29.0% said that their understanding was good, 43.0% said it was neither good nor bad, while only 29.0% said it was bad. At non-CBC PAs, in contrast, 83.3% rated their understanding as good, and 17% rate the understanding as neither good nor bad. Respondents from CBC PAs, 71.4% rated the PA-community interactions as good, and only 14.3% rated it as bad. At non-CBC PAs, 83.3% rated the interaction as good.

49

Whether such support and understanding promotes conservation or not can be gleaned from the results of the TRA technique that identified political interference as a threat at a quarter of both CBC (28.6%) and non-CBC (22.2%) PAs. Much as the district leadership may be knowledgeable about the PAs, if there is lack of effective environmental governance, the use of such knowledge may end up just as political rhetoric, without practical application (Okoth-Ogendo and Tumushabe 1999). Tumushabe

(1999) advocates for civil institutions to assist local people in taking on responsibilities of managing their environment. The civil institutions would help in the mobilization of local communities, protect them from political manipulation and promote good environmental governance.

Regarding the involvement of local people in PA management, 43% at CBC and

83% at non-CBC of district leaders agreed that local people were involved, and 57.1% at

CBC and 17% at non-CBC disagreed. About who was actually involved, 86% at CBC and 100% at non-CBC indicated that it was government officials who are involved. This indicates that at CBC PAs, district leaders feel the level of local involvement is not enough and they need to get more involved.

Of note, there is misunderstanding and lack of clear guidance as to what

“participation” means and how to “participate” in the PA management programs. During the group discussions, some participants equated local participation and awareness with access to community development funds from donor supported community programs. In one of the interviews with the district leaders, a sense of mistrust was detected between the PA management and the district administration. The districts leadership believes that

PAs have huge budgets, but they refuse to support district-based programs. This mistrust

50 is further revealed in the recommendations by the district administration on how to improve the PAs-community relations. One of the recommendations is the need for PAs’ management to be more transparent, and to implement its commitments. This finding agrees with Slocum and Thomas-Slayter (1995) who assert that what passes as community participation, could be lip service intended to maintain the system. Such relations create confusion in who should be responsible for what and at which level.

Songorwa et al. (2000) argue that for CBC to be effective, governments and wildlife institutions should relinquish some or even most of its powers to the local people. This would empower the local communities to make their decisions and enable governments to play a facilitation, coordination and educational role.

Results from the district leaders’ survey, on one hand, could signify how CBC has become political rhetoric, without addressing local people’s needs and concerns. On the other hand, the findings highlight expectations of local politicians from PA management.

One district leader pointed out that as a district, they will not allow the PA management to evict their people from the PA, and lamented that the district should be involved in the planning and budgeting for the PA. Also the results highlight a latent conflict and power struggle between the local political leaders and institutions managing PAs. This struggle could be a result of the policy gap for institutionalization of CBC programs leading to uncertainty of expectations from different stakeholders, and/or the unwillingness of the wildlife institutions to relinquish power to communities that are not well organized.

Limitations of the Study

In general, TRA is a useful tool for evaluating conservation interventions. It is easy to understand and use by those implementing management programs, and is sensitive to changes in the entire project area. However, it has specific weakness as an

51 evaluation tool. It does not directly measure the biodiversity conserved, instead it indirectly measures the threats met. There is lack of consistency and ambiguity, the results could be subjective, and the scores for management performance are not directly linked to a specific biodiversity (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001).

Specific limitations of this study included involvement of appropriate stakeholders. Biases could have occurred in the process of selecting community representatives to participate in this evaluation exercise. Such participants may potentially be ignorant about local people’s situations, although the community leadership selected them. Even if knowledgeable, they may decide to give information that they think will please the groups facilitator or other members of the group.

It was difficult to control for the flow of information between some group discussions among sites. The communities from CBC PAs at times share information with communities from non-CBC PAs. It is therefore possible that information about what was discussed at CBC PAs could have been known at the next PA before the research team arrived. This could lead participants to say what the previous group had stated, and bias the results. The interviews with the district leaders could have suffered from “expectation biases”. Some district leaders may have felt that this information could be used to bring more projects to their districts, so they would give answers that were intended to show how supportive they were toward PA and wildlife management.

The sample size of CBC and non-CBC PAs was small and the variances in the responses large. This could explain why the results could not show statistical significance.

52

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

In conclusion, the research findings indicate that the current management approaches fall short of addressing PA threats. Nevertheless, a trend in the data suggested that threats such as bush burning, pitsawying, encroachment and unclear boundaries had been better mitigated at CBC PAs than non-CBC PAs, indicating a potentially more successful approach to conservation than the traditional top-down approach. It can therefore be concluded that CBC has marginally performed better, as an approach to PA management than the traditional top-down approach although it does not address all the threats to PAs. Since the current traditional top-down management and the CBC approaches, do not fully mitigate threats to PAs in Uganda, it is imperative that more pragmatic approaches that go beyond the PA boundaries and which address PA threats be pursued to address human welfare issues and conserve PAs into the future. The recommendations do not only target PA management, but are made in a broad sense to encompass other institutions, as the threats to PA have proven to be multi-dimensional in nature.

The results indicate that the management approaches mitigate less than 50% of the PA threats. There is a need to design CBC programs that target specific PA threats as identified by stakeholders. For example, CBC programs need to work with communities neighboring PAs, to foster land use practices that promote conservation of biodiversity outside PAs. The integrity of PAs will depend on conservation of natural resources such as soils, wetlands and vegetation, outside these areas. The current CBC design that puts emphasis on community infrastructure development such as schools and health centers may have little positive impact on mitigating PA threats. A community with schools and

53 other infrastructure built under the auspices of CBC, will continue to degrade PA resources, if residents cannot meet their basic needs.

Recommendations

Unmarked PA boundaries were identified as a threat to PAs, because they abet

PAs encroachment by local people who either feign or are ignorant about boundaries location. It is therefore important to ensure that all the boundaries around PAs are properly surveyed and marked. Land that is not under the PA management but is adjacent to the PAs should then be properly managed by ensuring that its ownership rights are defined and its use properly planned. This will also go a long way to minimize conflicts between PAs and communities, and avoid open access type of land tenure rights.

Formulate community policy guidelines that clearly define functions and roles of local political leaders in PA management. One of the factors for successful CBC implementation is the devolution of authority and responsibility (Veit et al. 1995). One of the findings of this research is that there are suspicions between district leadership and

PAs’ management. Such suspicions revolve around securing funds and unclear means and ways of getting involved in PAs’ management. A policy developed in a participatory manner with local people and district leaders, will help to build trust and understanding between the district leaders and the PAs managers. It will also provide guidelines and a common understanding about “what” participation is and “how” it should be implemented. This will also provide a basis for the government institutions responsible for PA management such as Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) in deciding whether or not to promote CBC approach in PA management. For CBC to succeed, local people should be given full responsibility to manage, and there should be a full commitment on the side of the government institutions to work toward such a status. Where such

54 commitment is not a possibility, efforts must be re-directed to strengthening law enforcement capacity of the PAs, with an emphasis on public relations.

The traditional top-down approach was designed to protect mostly wild animals from local hunters. The current threats to PAs have changed their dimensions, from being simply subsistence poaching to human survival and improving welfare of rural local people. These issues are exacerbated by global and macro-level development and economic policies. There is a need to involve different government departments, such as that of agriculture, and population. Government institutions need to be strengthened for them to play their role, such as research, monitoring and policy formulation.

Lack of manpower to manage PAs was one of the threats identified during the group discussions. The existing PAs’ management is over-stretched in relations to the implementation of PAs’ management activities. There are fewer rangers for an increasing human population, and this poses a threat as identified by these data. There is therefore a need to develop strong government institutions to take on the challenges of PA management. Capacity building for government institutions to manage natural resources takes a long time and resources. It entails identification of individuals with personal interest and commitment, short and long-term training, on-job training as well as developing appropriate policy and legislative instruments. It also entails hiring of an appropriate number of staffs and remunerating them appropriately and according to the tasks they perform.

Another large threat identified through this research is that of armed poaching, which often escalates into bloody conflicts. Protected areas in Uganda are negatively affected by uncontrolled possession and use of firearms. There are different armed groups

55 such as the local defense units, the national army, vigilantes as well as armed rebels who use PAs to launch their attack on government. This creates insecurity for the natural resources within the PAs, the staffs, and visitors alike. Such a threat needs concerted government efforts to ensure security for the survival of PAs. Also since local people do not flee from areas of conflicts like expatriate conservationists, the payoffs of training local people would be great, in times of escalating conflicts.

The district survey revealed that PAs are not adequately valued for environmental non-monetary benefits, as a service to improve human welfare. Over 30% of all the district leaders do not believe that PA provide environmental benefits, although over 80% concur that PAs provide educational values. There is therefore a need to expand the ongoing educational programs to target local politicians to promote intangible benefits of

PAs. It is also apparent that although PAs are well politically supported at the central government level, these data reveal that the support is weaker at the local political level.

A well designed, directed educational program would contribute to increasing appreciation of PAs by local politicians, and help to garner their political support.

Many conservation biologists have tended to view conservation and PA management, as a biological professional discipline. However, as Oneka (1996) argues, designing a PA management plan is like a jigsaw puzzle, whereby you have to consider different parameters that are related in different perspectives. Protected areas issues are multidisciplinary in nature, and they need pragmatic, integrated and coordinated approaches. The use of TRA methods and other techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of programs, will continue to be important in monitoring the progress and test new conservation initiatives in the future.

56

Table 2-1: Discussion guide for group discussions Discussion Issues/Topic Comments Introductions Self introductions led by facilitator to act as “ice-breaker.” Community issues Issues that could have an impact on the management of natural resources in their areas as well as the neighboring PAs such as community composition, population density and economic activities. Community skills for natural resources management explored Community economic Activities that could have impacts on natural resources and PA, such activities as charcoal burning etc. Environmental/natural Environmental changes that took place over the past five years, Resources issues concerns about these changes and what the communities were doing about these concerns Future of the PA and In light of the past experience and current social, economic and wildlife political changes, reflections on the future of the PA and wildlife. TRA Identify threats to PA through a brain storming exercise, rank these threats according to the area, intensity and urgency. Assess the effectiveness of the PA management in mitigating the threats over the past five years, by awarding scores out of 100. Later, compute the TRA-Indices Discussion evaluations At the end of the discussions, participants were asked to evaluate the content and quality of the discussions for the benefit of the facilitators in conducting other discussions at other PAs.

57

Table 2-2: Threats to Bokora wildlife reserve Threat Area Intensity Urgency Total Threat Raw TRA I Ranking met Score Insecurity* 5 5 5 15 0% 0 Poaching 5 3 4 12 0% 0 Demand for land for 5 3 4 12 0% 0 cultivation* Bush fires 5 4 4 13 0% 0 Illiteracy* 5 5 4 14 0% 0 Cattle rustling* 2 3 5 10 0% 0 Shortage of rangers 5 3 5 13 5% 0.65 TOTAL 32 26 31 89 0.65 0.73% TRA without * threats 38 1.71% Notes: * Indicates threats that the PA management has no mandate to handle. The PA management had not done anything to the insecurity threat, and hence it scored 0%. Insecurity calls for immediate government intervention to provide security by stopping cattle rustling. Illiteracy, cattle rustling and demand for land for cultivation are also threats beyond the mandate of the PA management, although they were identified by the participants as threats.

58

Table 2-3: Threats to Bugungu wildlife reserve Threat Area Intensity Urgency Total Threat TRA- I Met Poaching of game 4 1 3 8 80% Bush Burning 5 4 4 13 20% Deforestation 2 2 3 7 60% De-gazzeting * 1 5 5 11 0 Boundary Conflicts 1 1 1 3 70% Increased human population * 2 3 3 8 0% Increased demand for resources from the 3 2 3 8 80% reserve Negative attitudes toward the reserve 1 2 2 5 60% Bad relations between community and 2 2 2 6 50% PA management TOTAL 19 17 21 58 47.8% TRA without * threats 39 71.0% Notes: De-gazzeting was not scored because the benefiting community could not be objective in their ranking, and the PA management could not do anything about it, as it is the role of the central government. Poaching scored 80% because management had contained poaching, but according to participants, they are using brutal methods such as killing people to stop poaching. Increased demand on reserve resources scored 80%, for it was agreed that through education programs and ranger patrols, illegal access on PA natural resources had been greatly reduced. Increased human population 0% -this is not a mandate of PA management, so nothing is being done about it.

59

Table 2-4: Threats to Karuma wildlife reserve Threats Area Intensity Urgency Total Threat met TRA I War/ insecurity in the area* 3 4 5 12 0% Settlement and cultivation 4 4 5 13 40% Poaching 1 1 2 4 30% Local conversion of trees into 1 1 2 4 20% timber PA Staff corruption 1 2 3 6 40% Unclear boundaries 2 3 5 10 20% Ignorance about values of the 2 2 4 8 40% PA Poor PA-community relations 1 1 1 3 20% TOTAL 15 18 27 60 25.7% TRA without the * threats 48 32.0%

60

Table 2-5: Threats to Katonga wildlife reserve Threats Area Intensity Urgency Total Threat Met TRA I Misuse of political influence and abuse of 1 1 4 6 5% office Unclear boundaries 1 1 1 3 10% Lack of awareness on the values of the 5 5 5 15 50% reserve Encroachment 5 5 5 15 65% Tribal conflicts between Banyankore and 1 1 1 3 0% Batooro* Human population increase* 2 1 1 4 0% Bush burning 3 3 5 11 10% Poaching 3 5 5 13 80% Little manpower in the reserve 3 3 5 11 30% Totals 24 25 32 81 33.0% TRA without the * threats 74 36.0% Notes: · Lack of awareness scores 50 .The management has been serious on the encroachment and has done some sensitization campaign in some areas. They still lack manpower. They have established gates, which control people who come in the PA. · Encroachment scores 65. There are no new cases of encroachers, other than those who were there by 1995. Those who are caught are taken to court for prosecution. The management stays in the PA, but despite the gates, wrong people get in. The encroachers have not yet been evicted. · Poaching scores 80%- Management has tried hard to trap and arrest hunters all over the PA. Dogs and spears are not allowed in the PA.

61

Table 2-6: Threats to Kidepo valley national park Threat Area Intensity Urgency Total Threat TRA I Met Bush fire 5 4 5 14 50% Local poaching 4 3 5 12 80% Insecurity/armed poaching 5 3 5 13 10% Encroachment 3 2 5 10 80% Poor /inadequate management 3 3 5 11 40% Poor relations between PA and 2 3 5 10 50% community TOTALS 22 18 30 70 50.4% Notes: · Bush fire 50%, management tried to control internal fires but has failed to control external fires. The roads, which used to act as firebreaks, have overgrown. Also internal roads have over-grown and park management sensitization of the communities has not been so frequent. · Insecurity 10%, the management lacks adequate machinery/support weapons. They at times leave cattle rustlers to pass through the park. There is lack of communication between the communities and the park. · Poaching 80%, there are now serious patrols and have reduced poaching to low levels.

62

Table 2-7: Threats to Kigezi wildlife reserve Threats Area Intensity Urgency Total Threat TRA-I Met Poaching 2 2 5 9 50% Deforestation (charcoal and 3 3 3 9 40% timber) Insecurity – armed poaching* 5 5 5 15 0% Corruption among the PA 4 3 3 10 70% Uncontrolled bush fires 5 5 5 15 30% Poor PA / community relations 5 5 5 15 50% TOTALS 24 23 26 73 37.1% TRA without * threats 58 46.7% Notes: · Insecurity scores 0. The national army is handling, but not the PA management · Corruption scores 70%. Corrupt staffs are often expelled. The bosses are not corrupt, but the sub-ordinates are. However, in some cases, they release the culprits after receiving bribes · Bush burning scores 0. There are very few rangers to fight any fires, and even the few who are they are not hard working. They do not have any facilities to fight fires. Despite the sensitization carried out fires are still a big problem · Poor communication scores 50. There are some workshops and meetings, which are held regularly for the communities. They have few radios. But there are often delayed responses to the issues discussed in the meetings. There is a need for more radios, motorcycles and better roads

63

Table 2-8: Threats to Matheniko wildlife reserve Threats Area Intensity Urgency Total Threat TRA-I met Demand for land for cultivation* 4 1 2 7 0 Armed poaching 5 5 5 15 50 Existence of traditional shrines 5 3 5 13 0 within PA Non-involvement of locals in PA 5 3 5 13 0 management Increasing human population* 5 3 4 12 0 Demand for grazing land 5 4 3 12 0 De-vegetation for kraal and fence 5 5 5 15 0 making Bush burning 5 5 5 15 0 TOTALS 39 29 34 102 7.2% TRA-I without * threats 83 9.0% Notes: · Armed poaching scores 50%. They were serious before, but they then instantly stopped, giving reasons of lack of manpower. There used to be much trade in ostrich egg, but it has now reduced due to PA management involvement in controlling the trade. But reduction in ranger numbers has led to increased poaching. · Burning scores 0- they have not tried to address the issues at all same as vegetation destruction for kraal and fence construction. The PA management has no control over the warriors and yet the nature of the insecurity warrants that one has to build a strong fence for cattle protection against wild animal and cattle rustlers

64

Table 2-9: Threats to Pian Upe wildlife reserve Threat Area Intensit Urgency Total Threat TRA-I y met Hunting/poaching 2 5 4 11 55% Encroachment–PA boundaries 5 2 1 8 0 unknown Bush fires 5 5 2 12 30% Deforestation 4 4 4 12 50% Lack of awareness about PA 5 5 5 15 60% Insecurity* 5 5 5 15 0 Political changes* 3 4 5 12 0 TOTALS 24 28 25 77 26.8% TRA–I without the * threats 50 41.3% Notes: · Bush fires 30%, PA management arrests suspects who set fires, but they are not prosecuted · Illiteracy – lack of awareness of values of the PA 60%. Physical presence of the managers sends messages about the importance of the PA. Managers also mobilize people and carry out education programs. However, they have not yet reached all the communities around. · Insecurity, nothing is being done about this threat, for it is beyond the management of the PA. · Political changes, nothing is being done about this threat, because it is not the responsibility of the PA · Poaching 55 %, poaching has reduced a bit, but it is still taking place under cover · Deforestation 50%, the management is educating people about the dangers of deforestation, but they have not covered the entire community

65

Table 2-10: Threats to Semuliki wildlife reserve Threat Area Intensity Urgency Total Threat Met TRA-I Insecurity 3 3 5 11 50% Bush burning 3 3 5 11 65% Unclear boundaries 2 2 5 9 70% Petroleum prospecting* 3 2 4 9 0% Hunting 2 2 5 9 80% Deforestation 2 2 5 9 60% Encroachment 1 1 5 7 60% Political influence 1 1 5 7 50% Land slides 3 3 5 11 30% Diseases (anthrax) 1 1 5 7 10% Migration of animals* 1 1 1 3 0 Siltation* 1 1 1 3 0 Human population 3 3 3 9 0 increase* TOTALS 23 23 50 105 41.2% TRA index without * 81 53.4% threats Notes: · Insecurity 50%, PA staffs have trained rangers, to fight rebels, with the cooperation of UPDF. Rangers track down thieves who steal people’s cows. PA gives material support in fighting rebels such as information and maps etc · Bush Burning 65%, education and sensitization programs about fire have been carried out. Collaboration with local leaders has been intensified. Operations have been intensified in monitoring, prosecution of wrong doers, etc. The only problem is that the staffs are still very few. · Landslides 30%, mobilization for tree planting and environmental awareness has been carried out.

66

Table 2-11: Threats to Bwindi impenetrable national park Threats Area Intensity Urgency Total Threat TRA-I Met Bush burning 2 3 5 10 70% Poaching 1 1 2 4 40% Local conversion of trees into timber 1 2 3 6 60% Illegal use of resources (firewood, poles 1 1 1 3 50% bean stakes) Human population pressure * 5 5 5 15 0% Poor relations between PA (rangers) and 4 5 5 14 50% communities Corruption (bribing PA management for 3 4 4 11 40% Local conversion of trees into timber) Totals 12 16 20 63 39.8% TRA without * threats 48 52.3%

Notes: · Poor relations score 50%-there are programs for creation of institutions such as Community Protected Area Committees (CPAC). They have also allowed resources use such as herbs, seedlings and bee keeping. The communities benefit from presence of vehicles of the PA. However when communities are called upon to help, such as in fire fighting they are not rewarded. Some of the PA staffs are harsh to the community members. They delay in conflict solving between the PA and the communities. They do not involve local leaders in deciding on the penalties to give to wrongdoers · Corruption (Bribing) scores 40%-Corrupt staffs are only transferred. Some people are also suspended. Management has conducted sensitization programs on roles and responsibilities of community members in the management of the PA to discourage community members to bribe PA staffs. However, some staffs are still corrupt and even when they are reported they do not get punished. If the community reports a person to the PA, staffs takes no action, or when he is arrested by the community members and taken to the PA staffs, the culprit is released immediately. · Bush fires scores 70% -they have allowed sharing of resources, such as bee keeping. People know that they will lose their bees if they burn the forest. Projects like schools which people appreciated have helped to reduce the incidences of fires. Sensitizations of dangers of fires and their sources such as smoking have helped to reduce the incidents of bush fires. However, more sensitization is still needed, especially the fires that come from personal gardens. Also people should e rewarded every time they help to put out a bush fire. The management should help the people around the park to utilize their lands next to the park so that it can act as a firebreak.

67

Table 2-12: Threats to Kibale national park Threat Area Intensity Urgency Threat TRA-I Met Problem animals. 4 5 5 10% Poor relationships between the park and 5 5 5 60% neighboring communities. Illegal access to resources (poaching, pitsawying). 5 1 5 50% Failure to adopt extension techniques among 5 5 5 40% communities. Misuse of park resources by FACE employees. 1 1 5 10% Bush burning. 1 1 5 30% Insufficient monitoring due to little manpower of 5 5 5 30% the park. Lack of appreciation of park values by 1 5 5 40% communities. Human population increase*. 3 1 3 5% Poor harvesting mechanism in softwood. 1 5 5 20% TOTAL. 31 34 48 35.0% TRA without the * threats 38.0%

68

Table 2-13: Threats to Lake Mburo national park Threat Area Intensity Urgency Total Threat TRA-I met Lack of permanent water sources 3 3 5 11 0% outside the park*. Less community support to the 2 3 2 7 50% protected area (due to problem animals, restricted access to water and pasture). Political influence/interference. 1 1 1 3 60% Unclear boundaries. 1 2 1 4 90% Poaching. 2 2 2 6 50% Encroachment. 3 1 1 5 90% Bush burning. 2 1 1 4 40% Diseases. 1 1 1 3 5% TOTALS. 15 14 14 43 42.2% TRA–1 without * threats 57.8% Notes: · Less community support to the park scores 50- management has sensitized people on conservation issues. They have contributed toward community projects such as schools, roads and dispensaries. The PA management is friendly to the communities. But the projects are not continuous, and people still demand committees to bridge the PA management and the communities · Poaching scores 50-hunting has reduced, but they lack manpower to carry out constant monitoring. They lack a rear guard – the communities who are not reporting the hunting. They should be liaison offices around the PA where to report wrongdoers. · Encroachment scores 90%-there are good bye-laws that promoted collaboration with neighboring communities, when it comes to fining encroachers. The rangers have been strategically deployed around the PA in parts that are liable to encroachment. There is disciplined management otherwise they would have been bribed. However there are some illegal settlers who have not yet been removed. There should be continuous education programs about the dangers of encroachment.

69

Table 2-14: Threats to Mgahinga gorilla national park Threats Area Intensity Urgency Total Threat TRA-I met Poaching (killing of animals by 1 1 5 7 80% the Batwa). Bush burning (fires by the Batwa 3 5 5 13 75% as they collect honey). Human population pressure* 5 5 5 15 0% Insecurity*. 1 1 5 7 0% TOTALS 5 7 15 42 36.7% TRA–I without the * threat 27 56.9% Notes: · Poaching scores 80%-poaching has decreased in the past three years. There is effective enforcement and apprehending of culprits. However, a few Batwa still carry out poaching and are not apprehended. · Bush burning 75 %-there is sensitization of communities around the PA. When fire occurs, they are often mobilized to fight it. There is constant monitoring by staff and good relations

70

Table 2-15: Threats to Mt. Elgon national park Threat Area Intensity Urgency Total Threat Met TRA-I Increasing human 4 4 3 11 0% population.* Forest fires 2 2 3 7 60% Pitsawying. 3 3 3 9 70% Encroachment. 2 2 2 6 60% Charcoal burning. 1 2 2 5 70% Hunting. 5 2 2 9 90% Insecurity (cattle rustling). 2 2 2 6 50% Bad management practices. 1 2 2 5 40% Bad politics. 2 4 2 8 60% TOTALS. 22 23 21 75 47.3% TRA–I without * threat 64 55.4% Notes: · Population pressure, nothing is being done about this threat for the PA management is not the appropriate authority to handle such a threat. · Local conversion of trees into timber 70%- there are still a few people carrying out local conversion of trees into timber hideously · Bad politics 60%-people have understood, but there are still problems in Kapchorwa · Hunting 90%- hunting is only done for traditional reasons, there are no new cases of hunting that are being reported. · PA management and communities. However, PA management needs to be more active in stopping Batwa who set fires as they collect honey. Some fires are accidental.

71

Table 2-16: Threats to Murchison falls national park Threat Area Intensity Urgency Total Threat TRA-I met Hydro-electric power at 1 1 1 3 0 Karuma* Lack of Awareness 5 5 5 15 35% Less Park Manpower 3 3 2 8 50% Insecurity 3 2 5 10 0 Poaching 5 5 5 15 50% Problem Animals 2 2 2 6 30% Bush Fires 5 5 5 15 10% Diseases 2 1 2 5 0 Highway through the park* 1 1 1 3 0 Encroachment on park land 1 1 1 3 60% Increase in human 2 2 1 3 0 population.* TOTALS 28 28 30 86 24.8% Totals without * threats 77 27.7%

Notes: There was a big debate on the meaning and interpretation of “lack of awareness” among the group. Apparently, there was a faction whose communities had benefited from the buffer zone development project fund, a fund that is provided by a German bank-KFW through a bilateral grant between the Uganda and German governments. This faction was not supportive of the fact that lack of awareness was a threat. On the other hand, the faction that represented the communities that had not yet benefited from this fund strongly identified lack of awareness as a big threat. It was apparent that “lack of awareness” was a need to implement development projects in the communities and not education programs. · Lack of awareness 35%-because there has been some sensitization program in some districts · Poaching 50%- there has been some reduction in poaching activities. It has remained with the old people only · Bush fires 10%-there are no fire breaks, and both the rangers and poachers set fires themselves

72

Table 2-17: Threats to Queen Elizabeth national park Threat Area Intensity Urgency Total Threat Raw TRA-I met Score Poaching 1 2 5 9 50% 4.5 Bush fires 4 4 5 13 90% 11.7 Deforestation 1 1 5 7 40% 2.8 Encroachment 1 1 5 7 30% 2.1 Insecurity 1 2 5 8 40% 3.2 Corruption (park 1 3 5 9 50% 4.5 staffs) Poor park-community 5 4 5 14 55% 7.7 relations. TOTALS 14 17 35 67 36.5 54.5% Notes on the threat reduction by management approach · Bush burning 90%-burning has generally reduced in most areas of PA. There have been organized seminars on village levels to sensitize people against dangers of burning. But there are some areas, where these seminars have not reached. Also, fire set by poachers is still uncontrolled · Corruption 50%- number of charcoal burners has decreased, corrupt staffs have been dismissed, staff salaries have been increased, and there is strictness in prosecuting corrupt people · Poor relations 55%-management of park take law -breakers to LC and they decide the punishment together.

73

Table 2-18: Summarized TRA indices to all protected areas Name of PA TRA without * TRA-I with all threats threats Non-CBC PAs Bokora 1.71% 0.73% Bugungu 71.03% 47.8% Karuma 32.1% 25.7% Kidepo 50.4% 50.4% Katonga 36% 33.00% Matheniko 9.0% 7.40% Pian- Upe 41.3% 27.0% Kigezi 46.7% 37.1% Semuliki 53.4% 41.20% Mean TRA -I 37.96 ± 21.6% 30.03 ± 17.0 CBC PAs Queen Elizabeth 54.5% 54.5% Mgahinga 56.9% 36.7% Mt. Elgon 55.4% 47.33% Murchison Falls 27.72% 24.8% Bwindi 52.3% 39.8% Lake Mburo 57.8% 42.2% Kibale 38.0% 35% Mean TRA-I 49.0 ± 12.0 40.05 ± 9.4

Table 2-19: Summary of percentage occurrence of threats to non-CBC protected areas Threats Bokora Bugungu Kidepo Karuma Katonga Matheniko Pian- Kigezi Semuliki Occurrence upe Local poaching 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100% Armed poaching 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 89.0% Illiteracy 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.0% Pitsawying 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 22.2% Denied access to 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 22.0% shrine Encroachment 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 78.0% Poor 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.0% management

Land 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 56.0% 74 degradation Charcoal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 33.0% burning Human 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 67.0% population Bad 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 78.0% community/ PA relations 1 = Present, 0 = Absent

Table 2-19 Continued Threats Bokora Bugungu Kidepo Karuma Katonga Matheniko Pian- Kigezi Semuliki Occurrence upe Deforestation 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 22.0% Corruption 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11.0% Denied access 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lack of 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 22.0% manpower Problem animals 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 33.0% Uncle ar 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 56.0% boundaries Wildlife diseases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.0% Political 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 22.0% interference 1 = Present, 0 = Absent 75

Table 2-20: Summary of percentage occurrence of threats at CBC protected areas Threats Queen Mgahinga Mt. Elgon Murchison Bwindi L. Mburo Kibale Occurrence Local poaching 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 86.0% Armed conflicts 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 57.0% Illiteracy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pitsawying 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 43.0% Encroachment 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 57.0% Poor management 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 14.0% Land degradation 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 57.0% Charcoal burning 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14.0% Human population 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 86.0% Bad community/PA relations 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 57.0%

Deforestation 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 14.0% 76 Corruption 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 29.0% Denied access 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 14.0% High-ways 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 14.0% Lack of manpower 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 29.0% Problem animals 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 86.0% Unclear boundaries 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 29.0% Wildlife diseases 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 43.0% Political interference 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 29.0% 1 = Present, 0 = Absent

Table 2-21: Summary of occurrence of threats at both CBC and non-CBC protected areas Threats Occurrence at non-CBC PAs Occurrence at CBC PAs Local poaching 100% 86.0% Armed conflicts 89.0% 57.0% Illiteracy 11.0% 0 Pitsawying 22.0% 43.0% Denie d access to shrine 22.0% 0 Encroachment 78.0% 57.0% Poor management 11.0% 14.0% Land degradation 56.0% 57.0% Charcoal burning 33.0% 14.0% Human population 67.0% 86.0%

Bad community/PA relations 78.0% 57.0% 77 Deforestation 22.0% 14.0% Corruption 11.0% 29.0% Denied access 0 14.0% Highways 0 14.0% Lack of manpower 22.0% 29.0% Problem animals 33.0% 86.0% Unclear boundaries 56.0% 29.0% Wildlife diseases 11.0% 43.0% Political interference 22.0% 29.0%

Table 2-22: PA Managers’ responses about protected areas conservation status Non- Mgt Mgt. Ecological information Boundary Status Resource Status Income Source CBC PA object Plan Bokora No No None Not known, not demarcated, but Suffers from uncontrollable Govt. subvention it is feared that there is use by local communities encroachment Bugungu Yes In Little info on bird and Fully and carefully demarcated Suffers from commercial Govt. subvention process animal inventories involving local communities poaching of wild animals and and are not contested trees Kidepo Yes Yes Inventories of mammals, Known, not all are demarcated, Suffers from commercial Govt. subvention birds, and wildlife and there is no conflict. poaching of game population trends.

Karuma Yes In Inventories of mammals Well demarcated but being Suffers from uncontrolled use Govt. subvention 78 making and birds, vegt. Maps contested by local communities and incomes and wildlife population generated within. trends Kato No No Socio-economic data Known, not demarcated, there Suffers from uncontrolled use Govt. subvention is conflict, and it is feared that by local communities there is encroachment Math No No No Not known, not demarcated, but Suffers from uncontrolled use Government it is feared that there is by local communities subvention only encroachment Pian No Yes Mammal and bird Not known, not demarcated, but Suffers from uncontrolled use Government inventory, wildlife it is feared that there is by local communities subvention only population trends encroachment Kigezi Yes Yes Inventories of birds and Known, not demarcated and no Suffers from uncontrolled use Govt. mammals exist conflicts by neighboring communities subventions Semuliki Yes No Inventories of mammal, Not known, not demarcated, Suffers from uncontrolled use Government and socio-economic and feared that there is by local communities subvention only vegetation map encroachment

Table 2-22 Continued CBC PA Mgt Mgt. Ecological information Boundary Status Resource Status Income Source objective Plan Queen Yes Yes Inventories of mammals, Well demarcated but some are Suffers from Govt. subvention birds, vegetation maps, being contested commercial poaching aerial photos and socio- of animals and trees. economic data. Some are controllably used by communities Mgahinga Yes Has Inventories of mammals, Fully and carefully demarcated Fully protected from Govt. subvention birds, vegetation maps, involving local communities any exploitation and NGO support geological and soil maps, and are not contested wildlife population trends, and socio-economic data Mt. Elgon Yes Draft Bird inventory and Demarcated but contested Controlled under CM Govt. subvention, form Vegetation maps. arrangements in some donations and areas. Others generated income 79 uncontrollably used. Murchison Yes In the Inventories of mammals, Known, not demarcated, but To an extent suffers Govt. subvention making birds, vegetation maps and there are some conflicts from commercial and NGOs. socio-economic data poaching of wild animals and trees Bwindi Yes Has Inventories of mammals, Fully and carefully demarcated Fully protected from Govt. subvention, birds, vegetation maps and involving local people and are any exploitation NGOs and socio-economic data not contested generated revenue L. Mburo Yes Has Inventories of mammals, Well demarcated but are To an extent suffers Govt. subvention, birds, vegetation maps and contested from uncontrolled use and generated socio-economic data by local communities revenue Kibale Yes Has Inventories of mammals, Fully and well demarcated To an extent suffers Govt. subvention, birds, vegetation maps and involving local people and are from uncontrolled use NGOs and socio-economic data not contested by local communities generated revenue

Table 2-23: PA Managers’ responses about protected areas management issues Non- Conflict Research Tourism Political Support Involve Locals Benefits Locals CBC PA Mgt. /Management Organization. Bokora Reported, Has no research Non existent Central govt. is Involves at least Through illegal not supportive. No support government officials in access to natural recorded from local government decision making resources. and no and local communities follow up Bugungu Reported Has no research Poorly developed Local government Involves local people Permit system to recorded with very little support but not from and some government access resources in and infrastructure local people and officials in decision place. followed parliamentarians making up.

Kidepo Reported Has basic and Well organized with Yes from central and Involves some govt. Some benefits – 80 recorded applied research basic facilities in local govt. but partly officials employment and that may support place from local communities opportunities followed management and parliamentarians up. Karuma Reported, Has basic and Well organized with Yes from central and Involves at least some Employment recorded applied research basic facilities in local govt. but partly govt. officials opportunities, and and that may support place from local communities contributes to followed management and parliamentarians infrastructure up development. Katonga Reported, Has no research Poorly developed Lacks central govt. Does not involve local Some benefits – recorded with very low support. Has local govt. people at all, only some employment but not visitation and support of home district government officials opportunities followed insufficient facilities up

Table 2-23 Continued Non- Conflict Mgt. Research Tourism Political Support Involve Locals Benefits Locals CBC PA /Management Organization. Math Not reported, Has no Non-existent There is no political Does not involve Illegal accessing the not recorded research support. people at all resources and not followed up Pian Reported, Has integrated Non-existent Local govt. and local Involves some govt. Employment recorded and research that people with their officials benefits, and use of followed up supports parliamentarians resources from the management PA. Kigezi Reported, Has no Non-existent Central govt. Does not involve No benefits at all recorded and research people at all followed up Semuliki Reported, not Academic Poorly developed Support of central govt. Involves local people Employment recorded but research that with low visitation and local govt. but not at minimally opportunities and

followed up does not and insufficient all parliamentarians provides market for 81 support mgt. tourists facilities people’s produce

Table 2-23 Continued CBC PA Conflict Mgt. Research Tourism Political Support Involve Locals Benefits Locals /Management Organization. Queen Reported Only has basic Well developed Central government, Involves local people in Provides natural recorded and academic with basic and local govt. but little management activities, resources, followed up. research that facilities in place support from the local and at least some govt. employment does not support people and their officials in decision- opportunities and management. parliamentarians making. education programs. Mgahinga Reported, Has a well Well established Central govt. Local Involves local people in Real benefits, recorded and integrated basic with high govt. and local people management decisio n- revenue sharing, followed up and applied visitation, but are all supportive. making, as well as some roads water research that there are no government officials. development and supports facilities employment management benefits. Mt. Elgon Reported, not Only academic Poorly developed High central govt. Involves local people in Forest products and recorded but research – does with low visitation support, low local govt. management decision- environmental

followed up not support – insufficient and very low from local making, as well as some benefits. 82 management tourist facilities people and their government officials parliamentarians plus NGOs. Murchison Reported, Only has basic Well developed Support of central and Involves at least some Employment recorded and academic with basic local govt. but not from govt. officials in the opportunities and followed up research that facilities in place local people and their decision making environmental does not support parliamentarians benefits management Bwindi Reported Has a well Well established Central and local govt. Involves local people in Real benefits e.g. recorded and integrated basic with high as well as local people their management revenue sharing, and followed up and applied visitation, but no and their decision making infrastructure research that adequate facilities parliamentarians development. supports management

Table 2-23 Continued CBC PA Conflict Mgt. Research Tourism Political Support Involve Locals Benefits Locals /Management Organization. L. Mburo Reported Has basic Well established Central and local govt. Involves local people in Real benefits e.g. recorded and research that with high as well as local people their management revenue sharing, followed up does not visitation, but no and their decision making and infrastructure support adequate facilities parliamentarians development. management Kibale Reported Has a well Well established Central and local govt. Involves local people in Real benefits e.g. recorded and integrated basic with high as well as local people their management revenue sharing, followed up and applied visitation, but no and their decision making and infrastructure research that adequate facilities parliamentaria ns development. supports management 83

Table 2-24: Summary percentages of protected areas status as indicated by wardens Factor CBC (n=7) Non-CBC (n=9) Has management plan § Yes 86% 33.0% § No - 44.0% § In process 14% 22.0% Has management objectives § Yes 100% 56% § No - 44%

Boundary status § Demarcated but contested 43% 11.0% § Demarcated and not contested 43% 22.0%

§ Not demarcated and encroached 14% 67% 84 Resource status § Suffers from uncontrollable use by communities § Suffers from commercial poaching 43% 89% § Fully protected from exploitation 14% 11% § Controllably used by communities 29% - 14% - Conflict Management § Reported, not recorded not followed up - 11% § Reported recorded followed up 86% 56% § Reported recorded not followed up - 11% § Reported not recorded followed up 14% 11% § Not reported not recorded not followed up - 11%

Table 2-24 Continued Factor CBC (n=7) Non-CBC (n=9) Research programs § Has no research - 56% § Has basic research that supports management 43% 33% § Has academic research that does not support management 57% 11% Tourism program § Non-existent - 44.0% § Poorly developed 14% 33.0% § Well organized 86% 22.0% Political support § Central govt. support but not local govt. - 11.0% § Local govt. support but not central govt. - 11.0% § Local govt. support but not local people - 11.0% § Central and local govt. support but not local people 43% 33.0% § Total support 57% 22.0%

§ No political support - 11.0% 85 Involves local people § Involves at least govt. officials 14% 22.00% § Involves local and govt. officials 86% 11.0% § Involves govt. officials not local people 44.0% § Does not involve people at all 22.0% Benefits local people § Through illegal access to resources 14% 22.0% § Through legalized permit system 14% 11.0% § Employment and infrastructure development. 14% 55.0% § Revenue sharing 57% - § No benefits at all - 11.0%

86

Table 2-25: Comparison of district leaders’ percentage responses at CBC and non-CBC protected areas

PA Attribute CBC PAs Non-CBC c2 (n=7) PAs (n=6) PA status c2 = 2.739; P>0.05 § Good 57 0% 16.6% 1 § Neither bad nor good 14.2% 50.0% § Bad 29.0% 33.3% Resources status c2 = 1.264; P>0.05 § Good 100% 83.3% 1 § Bad 0 16.7% Handling illegal activities c2 = 3.477; P>0.05 § Brutally 14.3% 33.3% 3 § Through mobilization 28.6% - § With local councils 14.3% - § By rangers and wardens 14.3% 16.6% § I don’t know 28.6% 50.0% Do you get involved in conflict resolution? c2 = 0.66; P>0.05 § Yes 85.7% 66.6% 1 § No 14.3% 33.3% How is tourism organized in the PA? § I don’t know 14.2% - § By central government 28.5% 14.2% § By local people 42.8% 57.1% Do local councils get involved in tourism c2 = 0.066; p > 0.05 organization? 1 § Yes 57.1% 50.0% § No 42.8% 50.0% Does PA enjoy central govt. support? § Yes 100% 100% § No - - Does PA enjoy local govt. support? c2 = 1.264; P>0.05 § Yes 100% 83.3% 1 § No 0 16.7% Does PA enjoy support from local people? c2 =0.034; p >0.05 § Yes 71.4% 66.6% 1 § No 28.5% 33.3%

87

Table 2-25 Continued PA Attribute CBC PAs Non-CBC c2 PAs

PA does not have support at all c2 § Yes - - 1 § No 100% 100% PA involves people in management decision c2 = 2.236; p >0.05 making 43.0% 83.0% 1 § Yes 57.1% 17.0% § No PA involves some government officials § Yes 86% 100% § No - - PA does not involve people at all c2 = 2.236; p > 0.05 § Yes 86.0% 83.3% 1 § No - 16.6% PA provides revenue sharing benefits c2 = 0.124; p > 0.05 § Yes 57.1% 67.0% 1 § No 43.0% 33.3% PA provides environmental related benefits c2 = 0.034; p >0.05 § Yes 71% 67.0% 1 § No 29% 33.3% PA provides employment benefits c2 = 3.343; p > 0.05 § Yes 57.0% 100% 1 § No 43.0% - PA supports infrastructure development c2 = 0.034; p > 0.05 § Yes 71.0% 67.0% 1 § No 29.0% 33.0% PA provides educational values ÷2 = 0.014; p > 0.05 § Yes 86.0% 83.0% § No 14.0% 17.0% PA provides markets for agricultural c2 = 0.034; p > 0.05 produce 71.0% 67.0% 1 § Yes 29.0% 33.0% § No PA benefits bee keepers c2 = 2.667; p > 0.05 § Yes 57.1% 33.3% 1 § No - 33.3% Does PA provide access to natural c2 = 0.034; P>0.05 resources? 71.4% 66.7% 1 § Yes 28.6% 33.3% § No Rate your understanding about wildlife c2 = 4.234; p > 0.05 legislation 1 § Good 29.0% 83.3% § Neither good nor bad 43.0% 17.0% § Bad 29.0% -

88

Table 2-25 Continued PA Attribute CBC PAs Non-CBC c2 PAs

Rate your understanding about the existing c2 = 2.94; P>0.05 CBC programs 1 § Good 85.7% 50.0% § Neither good nor bad - 16.7% § Bad 14.3% 16.7%

89

Table 2-25 Continued PA Attribute CBC PAs Non-CBC c2 PAs

Rate interaction between PA and c2 = 0.929; P>0.05 communities 71.4% 83.3% 1 § Good 14.3% 16.7% § Neither good nor bad 14.3% § Bad Rate CBC effectiveness in achieving c2 = 0.269; P>0.05 conservation goals 1 § Good 85.7% 66.7% § Bad 14.3% - What recommendations would you suggest to improve the PA/community interactions: § Improve communication on conservation awareness 14.0% 67.0% § Increase levels of involvement in planning and policy making 14.0% § Monitor and access PA annual work plans and budgets 29.0% § PA should be more transparent 14.0% 33.0% § Implement agreed upon plans 14.0% § Include district leaders on the PA management team 14.0%

80

70

60

50

40 Threats 30 90

20

10

0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Snares Game Poachers Bush Fires Vegetation Destruction Encroachment

Fig. 1: Threats Occurrences in Mgahinga

100

90

80

70

60

50 Threats 91 40

30

20

10

0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Charcoal Burning Bush Fires Game Poaching Vegetation Destruction Cattle Grazing Illegal Fishing Fig. 2: Threats Occurrences at L. Mburo

18

16

14

12

10

Threats 8

6 92

4

2

0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Encroachment Game Poachers Bush Fires Vegetation Destruction Illegal Fishing Charcoal Burning Cattle Grazing Snares

Fig.3: Recorded Threats Occurrences at Kibale

250

200

150 Threats 100 93

50

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

PoCamp Snares Game Poach Bush Fires Pitsawying Veg.Dest Illegal Fishing Charcaol Burning Encroachment

Fig. 4: Threat Occurrences at Murchison

180

160

140

120

100

Threats 80

60 94

40

20

0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

PoCamp Snares Game Poaching Bush Fires Pitsawying Veg.Dest Encroachment Illegal Fishing Cattle Grazing Charcoal Burnining Encroachment

Fig. 5: Threats Occurrences at Queen

CHAPTER 3

DO COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION PROGRAMS POSITIVELY INFLUENCE ATTITUDES, BEHAVIORS AND INCREASE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PROTECTED AREAS? AN EMPRICAL STUDY OF COMMUNITIES NEIGHBORING PROTECTED AREAS IN UGANDA

Introduction

Since the 1980s, initiatives to involve local communities in protected areas management have received wide support as a way of enhancing management of protected areas (PAs) (McNeely 1993; Barrow 1997; Barrow and Murphree 2001). It is currently accepted that long-term survival of PAs will be jeopardized if needs and aspirations of local people are not addressed (McNeely 1993; West and Brechin 1991). The main goal of community-based conservation (CBC) approach is to accommodate local people’s needs and aspirations and to promote their active participation in PAs’ management programs, while at the same time improving their welfare (Western and Wright 1994;

Songorwa 1999).

To achieve this goal, different strategies are used. First, by promoting community participation in wildlife planning and management, it is hoped that communities will develop a “sense of ownership” for wildlife, hence take on management responsibilities.

Second, by ensuring that tangible benefits from wildlife accrue to the local communities who bear the costs of PAs, through crop-raiding wildlife and other lost economic opportunities, it is hoped that PAs will garner support from local communities. Third, by

95 96 promoting wildlife education and environmental awareness programs, it is hoped that local communities will gain more understanding about environmental problems, and develop positive attitudes to support initiatives to protect PAs. Community-based conservation has been championed as a better approach to address the conflicts between wildlife and communities to achieve (PA) management objectives than the traditional top-down management approach.

However, relatively little empirical data exists to indicate that CBC actually improves community attitudes and promotes pro-environmental behavior to achieve conservation goals. Recent scholarly critiques and findings in the field have also raised concerns about the effectiveness of CBC in achieving conservation goals (Kellert et al

2000; Barrett and Arcase 1995).

This study compares attitudes, knowledge, and behavior of community members at three community-based conservation protected areas (CBC PAs) with two non-CBC

PAs in Uganda. It also evaluates the perceived benefits and costs of these PAs to neighboring communities, and compares benefit to cost ratios of CBC PAs with non-

CBC PAs. It compares the socio-demographic factors with attitudes and knowledge and also looks at variations of attitudes and knowledge among the 16 PAs.

Like other countries in Africa, Uganda adopted CBC approaches in the management of some of its PAs since the late 1980s, mainly with international donor support and in response to deteriorating PA-people relations. Among other things, CBC approaches in Uganda have promoted dialogue with local communities about wildlife and

PA management. With support from international non-governmental organizations

(NGOs), such as International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), African

97

Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), park wardens for community conservation have been facilitated to visit communities and establish communication links between PAs and their neighboring communities. Village meetings are organized, where community and PA issues are exchanged and management concerns discussed. To ensure that communities develop the capacity to participate and take on responsibilities in PAs and natural resources management in their areas, community- protected areas institutions (CPI) have been promoted at CBC PAs. These institutions further promote dialogue between PAs and communities, to improve PA – community relations, and aspire to positively influence attitudes and promote pro-environmental behavior.

In Uganda, wildlife education and awareness programs are also promoted among neighboring communities through activities such as drama, seminars, workshops and employment of environmental extension agents. The target groups are both the youth and adult residents around PAs. Education messages revolve on the need to protect the environment and the role of the PA in environmental conservation.

To ensure that communities, which bear the costs of wildlife (e.g., through crop- raiding animals) benefit from PAs, activities such as revenue sharing are carried out in communities neighboring CBC-PAs. Twenty percent of gate collection revenues are spent on selected community projects within parishes that neighbor the PAs as legislated

(Uganda Wildlife Statute 1996). Local community councils who act on behalf of the communities participate in the projects’ selection and approval process (Mahooro per com 2000). Also, donor support helps to promote community development projects, such as construction of schools, dispensaries and boreholes. Controlled access to natural

98 resources in PAs is another major activity at CBC PAs. Through a negotiation process between PAs and neighboring communities, local people are afforded limited, but controlled, access rights to resources such as non-timber forest products and access to water and grazing resources.

In addition, CBC activities have afforded limited training opportunities to members of local communities neighboring PAs through such programs as study tours, seminars and workshops. Such activities are expected to have a ripple effect in increasing knowledge and improving local people’s attitudes about wildlife and PA management.

Other initiatives include promotion of nature-based tourism carried out by the community groups themselves and involving local communities in the planning process. The representation of local communities in the planning process is expected to promote understanding of PA management rationale, and to increase support for management initiatives.

Community-based initiatives have been popular with donor communities in

Africa, as well as international NGOs, and have been viewed as a best approach to conserve Africa’s wildlife and PAs. However, of interest to policy makers, scholars, and scientists, as well as donor communities, is whether CBC actually increases knowledge and understanding and leads to improved attitudes and behavior of local people toward

PAs (Robinson 1993; Kramer and Van Schaik 1997; Terborgh 1999; Terborgh 2000).

In communities neighboring PAs without CBC programs, the main management approaches are through law enforcement activities. Community development projects are lacking and education and awareness raising activities are limited or non-existent. There

99 are no negotiated access rights to these PAs, and law enforcement rangers carry out patrols to apprehend any lawbreakers within the PAs.

Hypotheses and Objectives of the Study

Hypotheses

The two hypotheses this study is testing are the following: (I) communities from

CBC PAs support management of the neighboring PAs more than communities from non-CBC PAs. The term “support” implies that members of the community will demonstrate, (a) greater knowledge and understanding about natural resources, (b) positive attitudes toward PAs, and (c) pro-environmental behavior; and (II) the benefit/cost ratio of the PAs to the neighboring communities will be higher at CBC PAs than at non-CBC PAs.

Objectives

This study addresses the following specific objectives, to:

· Evaluate and compare attitudes, knowledge and behaviors of neighboring

communities toward PAs, for communities where CBC programs have been

undertaken and those communities that have not been subjected to CBC

programs.

· Compare differences in attitudes, knowledge, and behavior of communities at

each of the five PAs.

· Analyze the association of socio-demographic variables to attitudes and

knowledge of community members neighboring the five PAs.

· Evaluate and compare perceptions about costs and benefits from PAs of

communities that have been subjected to CBC and those that have not.

100

· Generate guiding principles for effective PAs’ management and biodiversity

conservation in Uganda.

Methods

Study Sites and Respondents Selection

The study was conducted at five communities neighboring PAs in Uganda. Three of these areas from Kibale National Park, Lake Mburo National Park and the southern part of Mt. Elgon National Park had been subjected to CBC programs. The other two areas, from Semuliki Wildlife Reserve and the northern part of Mt. Elgon National Park, had not been exposed to CBC programs (Map 1).

Data were collected using a structured questionnaire survey (Appendix C). Sixty household respondents were randomly selected from parishes neighboring each of the

PAs. Respondents were household heads, or their spouses, if household heads were unavailable. First, using a 10% sampling intensity, the number of parishes from where to select respondents was determined at each of the five PAs. The number of parishes ranged from 16 at Lake Mburo to 37 at Mt. Elgon South. Second, using systematic random sampling, the parishes were identified, at respective PAs. This was important in ensuring equal chances of selection of households from both high and low activity conservation programs in parishes at the same PAs. Also, for communities without CBC, stratified random sampling ensured equal chances of selecting different land uses around the PAs (i.e. pastoralists and cultivators) that could depict different values and resource use conflicts. Third, in the selected parishes, names of the villages that neighbor the PA, and names of resident households within those villages were compiled with the help of local council two (LC II) chairpersons. Fourth, the number of respondents to be obtained

101 from each parish was determined by dividing sixty (desired number of respondents at

PA), by the number of selected parishes. Lastly, specific respondent households were randomly selected from the generated lists of the resident households in the villages immediately neighboring the PAs. In case the head or his/her spouse of the sampled household were not at home at the time of the visit, the household closest in vicinity would be interviewed.

Survey Design

The survey was divided into five main sections. Section one included 12 questions about attitudes to wildlife in general and the PAs in particular. Responses to these attitude questions were designed to be measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale, with a neutral central category (1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Disagree and 5 = Strongly disagree). Depending on how the statements/questions were stated to the respondent (Appendix C), at the analysis stage positive responses were re-coded to score higher values, while negative responses were re-coded to score lower values on the scale. Here, the term “positive” implies pro wildlife conservation and “negative” implies anti wildlife conservation values. For example to a statement “the PA should be abolished”, if a response was strongly agree, it scored a “1”, because abolition of PA is anti-wildlife conservation, while strongly disagree response scored a “5”. Likewise, a statement, “relations between our community and this PA are cordial”, a strongly agree response scored a “5” and strongly disagree scored a “1”. It should be understood that the higher the final scores, the more positive are the attitudes, and the lower the scores the more negatives are the attitudes. Open-ended questions were also included to get explanations to opinions given for the closed-ended questions.

102

The second section dealt with nine questions regarding knowledge about environmental issues. Unlike measurement of attitudes described above, the five- point scale was collapsed into “1” correct response and “0” wrong responses. Six questions,

(one with three sub-sections) with a maximum score of eight were used to measure the understanding of the respondents. Section three included eight questions to measure behavior of the respondents toward the PAs and wildlife in general. The fourth section included 11 questions about the socio-economic background of the respondent. General information about the farm and farm production process was also elicited.

The fifth section included 19 questions about what respondents perceived as costs and benefits of the PAs, both market and non-market based costs and benefits. Benefits accruing to the community, were measured by asking respondents to list and quantify the resources they get from the PA, and how much time they spend in getting these items.

The costs of collecting the resources from the PAs, computed from time spent at local wage rates, were used as the beneficial value of the resource. Where market price of a resource existed, such a price was used to assign the resource value depending on the amount of the resource respondents said they collect. Other non-market benefits of the

PAs, such as clean air and rainfall, were determined through a hypothetical willingness to pay technique. The respondents’ willingness to contribute labor to a “project” and PA management for their community needs were used to calculate the respondents’ value they attach to the PA (Kramer et al. 1995). The actual values were computed by multiplying the number of days an individual said he/she was willing to contribute by the prevailing wage rates in rural areas, estimated at 1.7 US dollars per day. Total benefits accruing to the community were computed by multiplying the average benefit to an

103 individual household by the total number of households in all the parishes neighboring the PAs.

Costs of the PAs were valued using a “willingness to pay” technique for the damages done to individual’s property by wildlife (Hanna and Munasinghe 1995). To get realistic values, respondents were asked to state their willingness to pay (WTP) compensation to their neighbors, if their livestock destroyed their neighbor’s garden of specified crops, instead of “willingness to accept compensation” if their property was damaged by wildlife from the PA.

Opportunity costs of the PAs were determined by asking respondents to state how much land they would need for their use, if they were given a choice of acquiring land.

Land rents per unit land from respective districts in which the PA is located were then used to calculate the opportunity costs of the PA to the local communities. Average opportunity cost per household was computed by dividing the total opportunity cost by the number of respondents. The over-all opportunity cost was then computed by multiplying the average opportunity cost per household by the total number of households in the parishes around each PA (Republic of Uganda, Statistics Department,

Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning: 1992a; 1992b; 1992c; 1992d; and 1992e).

The benefit/cost analysis was carried out and ratios from protected areas with CBC were compared with non-CBC PAs.

Administration of the Survey

A four-person team of qualified, trained, and supervised enumerators working on a full time basis while at the PAs, administered the questionnaire. Two pilot test surveys were conducted with 20 community members and 10 PA staffs in two locations. This tested the clarity of the questions; both in the way they were posed to the respondents,

104 and the way the respondents would understand them. Minor revisions were incorporated in the survey after piloting the questionnaire. Completed questionnaires were checked for errors and completeness, coded and later entered in a computer database. The data were checked for accuracy, and recoded to create a measuring scale for the three main attributes of attitudes, knowledge, and behavior. The Statistical Package for Social

Scientists (SPSS) software was used to analyze the data, in comparing attitudes, knowledge and behavior, between CBC and non-CBC PAs. Using non-parametric tests comparison of responses from CBC and non-CBC PAs, were carried out, as well as among all PAs. Also, socio-demographic data was analyzed with attitude and knowledge scores to test any association using analysis of variance and independent sample t-test.

The survey was approved by the University of Florida Institute of Research Bureau

(Approval Protocol #2000-361), the Uganda Research Council of Science and

Technology, and the Uganda Wildlife Authority.

Results

Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics

A total of 300 respondents (60 respondents from each community) were interviewed from the five communities (Table 3-1). All people who were asked to respond to the survey cooperated, except for some questions which were either not relevant to the respondent, or those they could not answer for various reasons.

Respondents are peasants by occupation (over 90% at CBC and over 80% at non-CBC).

There were no significant differences with respect to CBC and non-CBC, between the respondents’ age, sex and occupation. For example, 34.4% of the respondents at CBC

2 and 39.2 % at non-CBC were between 17-30, years ( c2 = 0.715, P = 0.0699), 24.4% at

105

2 CBC and 26.7% at non-CBC of the respondents were female ( c1 = 0.188 P = 0.665), and

2 95.6% at CBC and 88.3% at non-CBC were peasant farmers by occupation ( c2 = 4.019

P = 0.134). At CBC, 23.9 % had never been to school, compared to only 5.8 % at non-

CBC. Most respondents had attained primary education (62.2 % at CBC, and 70.0% at

2 non-CBC) ( c3 = 22.774; P< 0.05). Duration of residence was significantly different

2 between the CBC and non-CBC areas, c4 = 17.373; P = 0.02, with the majority of respondents, 53.3 % at CBC, and only 35% at non-CBC having resided in the communities for more than 21 years. The percentage of respondents who had stayed less than five years were significantly higher at non-CBC 18.3%, than at CBC, 3.8%.

Land holdings varied from being < 0.5 acres (11.1% at CBC and 27.5% at non-

2 CBC) to >5 acres (37.8% at CBC and 36.7% at non-CBC) ( c4 = 17.363; P = 0.002).

Thirty three percent at CBC, and only 24.2% at non-CBC said they own between 1-2 acres. Constraints to production also differed between the two sites. Lack of land was reported as the major constraint at both sites, but was more pronounced at non-CBC,

2 76.7% than at CBC, 58.9% ( c1 = 10.869, P = 0.001). Even respondents with more than 5 acres reported this constraint. Cattle keepers in Semuliki and Lake Mburo with larger areas of land may still desire more for land for their cattle. Shortage of cash and labor

2 were bigger constraints at non-CBC than CBC PAs ( c1 = 25.917; P < 0.001). Of interest to note, problem animals were not a constraint to farm production at non-CBC, but nearly

50% of the respondents at CBC cited wild animal problems as a constraint.

Sources of income were not significantly different between areas, with the majority of respondents, 83.3% at CBC and 85.8% at non-CBC citing farm produce as

106 the main source of income. Sale of labor, 31.1% at CBC and 19.2% at non-CBC is another major source of income as well as petty trade, 13.9% at CBC and 11.7% at non-

CBC respectively. Other than the on farm activities, most respondents (31.1% at CBC and 32.5% at non-CBC) sell their labor to other properties to earn a living, which indicated that sale of labor is another major household activity that competes for labor on the farm. A small percentage of the respondents said they work for the PAs, 2.8% at CBC and 3.3 at non-CBC.

Main source of information was not significantly different at either of the communities, but the largest proportion of respondents said that they get their information from radios, 45.6% at CBC, and 42.5% at non-CBC PAs. Regular meetings were also mentioned as an important source of information for respondents, 30% at CBC, and 51.7% at non-CBC. Newsletters were more of a source of information, 12.2% at

CBC PAs, than at non-CBC, which recorded none. Project/ PA staffs on duty are also a source of information to the local people, with 23.3% at CBC and 11.7% at non-CBC

PAs.

Attitudes toward Protected Areas and Conservation

Many writers have defined attitudes in different ways (Lewis 1938; Allport 1950 in Rokeach and Ajzen and Fishbein 1975). Fazio (1995) defines attitudes, as evaluations or feeling states about an “attitude” object by an individual. The object could include social or natural resources, issue(s), animals, physical objects, or people. The concept of attitude in this study follows the definition of Rokeach (1968) who defines attitudes as organization of beliefs about an object or situation that influences one’s response to that object. An individual’s general feelings or latent variables are hypothesized to be predecessors of intended behavior toward a given “thing”.

107

The results of the eight attitude questions generally show that attitudes at both

CBC and non-CBC PAs were tending more toward “5” the positive end of the Likert

2 scale, 3.3 at CBC PAs and 3.4 at non-CBC PAs ( c4 = 0.99577; P > 0.05) (Table 3-2).

However, there were variations in responses to specific questions. For example, non-CBC scored higher than CBC to the questions, “PA is just for foreigners” with 3.66±1.18, at

2 non-CBC and only 3.26± 1.20 at CBC ( c4 = 13.040; P = 0.011); “PA is more of a

2 liability than an asset” non-CBC scored 3.83 ±1.14 and CBC scored only 3.66 ± 1.15 ( c4

= 3.454; P = 0.485), “PA should be abolished” non-CBC scored 4.10 ± 1.06 whereas

2 CBC scored only 3.73± 1.18 ( c4 = 10.132; P = 0.038). Scores were higher for the CBC

PAs for the response to the questions, “relations between the PA and the communities are

2 cordial” CBC scored 3.34± 1.23 and non-CBC scored only 2.7± 1.29 ( c4 = 19.905; P =

0.002); “restricting community access to resources is a good idea” CBC scored a mean of

2 2.84±1.37 and non-CBC scored only 2.5±1.46 ( c4 = 16.98; P = 0.002).

Responses to the attitude questions about PA management also showed significant differences. At non-CBC PAs, respondents indicated that they had more responsibility for

2 PA management (4.01±0.79) than at CBC PAs (3.57 ±1.21) ( c4 = 31.669; p < 0.05).

Also, at non-CBC, respondents were more willing to take on management responsibilities

2 (3.20 ± 1.19) than at CBC PAs (2.51± 1.5) ( c4 = 35.167; p < 0.05). However, respondents at CBC were happier with the way PA was being managed (3.28 ± 1.14) than

2 at non-CBC PAs (2.83 ± 1.19) ( c4 = 18.404; p < 0.05).

108

Explanatory Responses to the Open-ended Questions

Responses to the open-ended questions also showed significant differences between the two communities (Table 3-3). Reasons for not abolishing the PA included climatic reasons, source of natural resources, provision of security, helping in control of soil erosion, preservation of nature, and contribution to community welfare by way of community projects. Insecurity due to rebel /guerrilla activities and harassment by rangers which threatens local people’s livelihood, were the main reasons why PAs should be abolished. At CBC PAs, 26.1% cited “contributes to our community welfare” as the main reason for not abolishing the PAs, while at non-CBC, the greatest proportion 41.7% cited source of natural resources as the main reason. At CBC, 15.0% said that the PA should be abolished due to insecurity and threatening livelihood of community members, but only 14.2% cited this reason at non-CBC PAs.

Reasons why the relations between the PA and the community were good included education and mobilization programs, assistance in problem animal control, economic incentives from the PAs, helping to protect the PA, allowing access to PA resources, and simply no conflict. The largest proportion of respondents at CBC (27.2%) indicated that the relations were good for there were no conflicts with PA management, while (18.3%) at non-CBC indicated that the relations were good because of education and mobilization programs. Reasons why the relations were bad included the following: denied access to resources and harassment, PA staffs being bad people and uncooperative, boundary encroachment, and problem animal-related conflicts. Denied access to resources was cited by 49.2% of the respondents at non-CBC, and only 29.4% at CBC as a reason for the bad relations.

109

Over 60% of the respondents from CBC and only 45% from non-CBC PAs said that the PA should be fenced off. At non-CBC PAs 63.3% said that they would like to see more education programs for the communities, but only 13.3% from CBC PAs want education programs. Of note 18.3% of respondents from CBC compared to 5.8% from non-CBC said that wildlife should be hunted until it is finished.

Responses to, “What changes would you wish to see being implemented in PA management,” indicate that 43.3% of the respondents from CBC and only 3.4% from non-CBC PAs would like to see problem animal issues being addressed. At CBC 13.9% and 35.0% at non-CBC stated that they would like to see training and employment of local people in the PA management. Only 2.2% from CBC PAs and 5.9% from non-CBC

PAs stated that they would like to see more contribution to community development.

Twenty-five percent of the respondents from CBC and 40.3% from non-CBC stated that they wanted to see more access and use of resources in the PAs. A tiny percentage (1.7% at CBC, and 3.3% at non-CBC) wanted to see compensation of their damaged property.

Responses to Knowledge Questions

The overall knowledge mean score between CBC (3.1678) and non-CBC (2.8661)

2 PAs did not show any significant differences between the two areas ( c7 = 5.442; P >

0.05) (Table 3-4). Nevertheless, examination of individual knowledge measuring statements indicates that there were variations in knowledge between the two communities. For example, there were significant differences in the following correct

2 responses: “PAs help to purify the air we breath”, 39% at CBC, and 58% at non-CBC, c1

= 10.13; P < 0.05, “Poor farming practices are a threat to the PA survival”, 39% at CBC

2 and only 18% at non-CBC, c1 = 15.25 P < 0.05, “gorilla is an endangered specie in

110

2 2 Uganda”, c1 = 9.59 P < 0.05, and “elephant is endangered specie in Uganda” c1 =

4.830; P < 0.05. On PAs helping to control soil erosion, 58.3% of respondents from CBC and 49.0% from non-CBC answered correctly, and 43% from CBC and 38% from non-

CBC correctly answered that PAs influence climatic conditions.

As to who the head of a protected area is 45.0% at CBC and 54.0% at non-CBC

2 mentioned correctly a warden ( c1 = 0.184; P>0.05). Regarding changes in wildlife populations, 42.0% at CBC and 11.7% at non-CBC, said that wildlife had increased all

2 over the region ( c1 = 11.148; P = 0.001), 33.6% at CBC and 40.0% at non-CBC said it

2 had increased in PAs only ( c1 = 42.745; P = 0.000), 17.8% at CBC and 23.3% at non-

2 CBC said that it had decreased on the outside ( c1 = 50.649; P < 0.001), while 6.1% at

2 CBC and 27.5% at non-CBC said that it had decreased all over the region ( c1 = 100.383;

P < 0.001).

Responses to reasons for changes in wildlife population showed that the majority

66.7% at both CBC and non-CBC attributed the changes in wildlife populations in the region to strict law enforcement, 18.3% at CBC and 35% at non-CBC to climatic reasons,

9.4% at CBC and 25.8% at non-CBC to uncontrolled access to resources, 6.1% at CBC and 1.7% at non-CBC to conflicting relations and 9.4% at CBC and 11.7% at non-CBC to increased human populations. The mean score on a scale of 1 (very unhappy) to 5 (Very happy) at CBC was higher for responses to how respondents felt about the changes in

2 wildlife populations, with 3.25±1.28 at CBC and 2.85 ±1.03 at non-CBC PAs ( c4 =

45.201; P < 0.05).

111

Responses to Behavior Questions

Table 3-5 shows the responses to behavior related questions. An overwhelming majority (74.4 % at CBC PAs and 75.0% at non-CBC) of respondents both at CBC and

2 non-CBC PA agreed that wildlife caused them problems ( c1 = 0.012; P > 0.05). The biggest problem, 72.8% at CBC and 73.3% was destruction of property such as crops,

2 livestock and fences ( c1 = 0.038; P = 0.846). Twenty-nine percent of the respondents at

2 CBC and 39.2% at non-CBC said they report wildlife problems to the PA authorities ( c1

= 2.835; P = 0.092), while 53.9% at CBC and only 36.7% at non-CBC said that they

2 guard their property ( c1 = 10.043; P = 0.002).

The majority at CBC, 81.1%, said that they did not have any problems with PA officials, while only 18.9% said that they had problems. At non-CBC PAs, almost equal percentages, 54.2% said they had problems with PA officials and 45.8% denied that they

2 had problems with PA officials ( c1 = 40.527, P < 0.001). The responses to what communities are doing to avoid conflicts between their communities and the PAs varied.

Only 11.1% at CBC, and 11.7% at non-CBC said they had to ensure that they do not get

2 in trouble by avoiding any arrests ( c1 = 0.022; P=0.882), only 2.8% at CBC and 3.3% at non-CBC, said that they had started their own tree nurseries to ensure provision of

2 resources they need from the PAs ( c1 = 0.076; P=0.782). In response to the question

“what prompted you to take such measures” 15.0% at CBC and 41.7% at non-CBC said

2 that they feared the law ( c1 = 26.550; P < 0.001).

The majority of respondents from CBC, 52.8%, denied ever going to the PA,

2 while the majority from non-CBC, 71.7%, agreed that they go into the PA ( c1 = 17.553,

112

P < 0.001). Fear of being arrested by rangers was given as the main reason, 21.1% at

2 CBC and 18.3% at non-CBC, of not going into the PA ( c5 = 14.578, P = 0.012). Twenty percent at CBC, and only 2.5% at non-CBC said that the reason for not going to the PA was because they were not interested in going. Those who said they go to the PAs, cited the main purposes of going as getting building materials, 16.7% at CBC and 44.2% at

2 non-CBC ( c1 = 27.208; P < 0.001), getting firewood, 22.8% at CBC and 50.8% at non-

2 CBC ( c1 = 24.606; P = 0.000), livestock grazing and watering, 5.6% at CBC and 24.2%

2 at non-CBC PAs ( c1 = 22.05; P < 0.001).

Responses to Costs and Benefits Questions

Employment in the PAs as a benefit to communities was minimal; the

2 overwhelming majority 93.9% at CBC and 97.5 at non-CBC ( c1 = 0.818 P = 0.366) said

PAs did not employ them (Table 3-6). A negligible percentage of respondents said they

2 benefited from the tourism industry of the PA, 1.1% at CBC and 0.8% at non-CBC ( c1 =

1.55; P >0.05). In response to the question about the changes in vegetation, the majority

78.9% at CBC stated that the vegetation was increasing in and around the PA, while at

2 non-CBC, 33.3% stated that the vegetation was getting poorer ( c4 =83.810 P = 000).

There was more support, 99.2% for the “PA survival project” at non-CBC than there was

2 at CBC 87.2%, ( c1 = 11.922, P = 0.001). Regarding the number of days respondents were willing to volunteer, 35% at CBC were willing to put in 5 to 9 days per month,

2 while at non-CBC, 37.5% were willing to invest 10-14 days per month ( c4 = 24.935, P <

0.001). Also, there was more willingness at non-CBC to put more days of labor into the management of the PA, 32.5% were willing to put in 10-14 days per month, than at CBC

113

2 PAs where 32.2% was willing to put in 5-9 days of labor per month ( c4 = 23.352; P =

0.05).

Regarding the time spent on collecting resources from the PAs, responses indicate that non-CBC households benefit much more ($740) than those at CBC ($ 24) per annum

(Table 3-7). Non-market benefits are also higher at non-CBC, estimated at $9,442 per household per annum, while at CBC it is estimated to be only $144 per household per annum (the high figure at non-CBC PA could be due to strategic responses from the respondents, exaggerating the figures to create an impression that they are heavily dependant on the PAs). The CBC figures are more realistic Average cost of crop damage is estimated at $11.4 per acre per annum. The perceived cost of crop damage for actual crop holding per household per annum increases to $78 at CBC and to $278 at non-CBC

PAs. The overall perceived crop damage at CBC PAs (considering all the households in parishes neighboring the PAs) is estimated at $ 1.2 million while at non-CBC, it is estimated at $ 1.5 million. Based on personal experience of occurrences of crop raiding by wildlife, and crop raiding studies carried around Kibale national park (Naughton-

Treves 1998), it can be estimated that there is a 10% probability of crop damage. The crop damage cost is estimated at $ 106,000 for CBC and at $ 155,000 for non-CBC PAs.

Also, considering that only 10% of the residents could lose their crops to wildlife

(Naughton-Treves 1998), the cost of damage drops down to $10,600 for CBC and

$15,000 for non-CBC PAs per annum. The benefit: cost ratio is higher at non-CBC, 0.03 than at CBC, 0.0008, taking into consideration the land opportunity costs. Without the opportunity costs, the ratio increases to 2.5 at CBC and 39 at non-CBC PAs (Table 3-13).

114

These results generally reject the hypothesis that where CBC programs are being undertaken communities would be more knowledgeable, with more positive attitudes and more pro-environmental behaviors. To the contrary, the results indicate that where CBC activities were not being undertaken, community members were more knowledgeable, had more positive attitudes and more pro-environmental behavior than those community members from where CBC activities were being implemented.

Comparison among Protected Areas

Table 3-14 shows analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparisons of attitude scores among the five PAs. Table 3-15 shows frequencies to all responses for each PA. On attitude questions, “PA is more of a liability,” “PA is just for foreigners,” there were no significant differences and all the five PAs scored above neutral. Responses to the “PA should be abolished”, Semuliki scored higher than others with a mean of 4.27. On access to resources, Mt. Elgon south and north scored higher, and Semuliki scored least

(f=16.149; P = 0.000). Responses from both Mt. Elgon North and South to, “management of this PA is my responsibility as well as government’s” were higher and Kibale was lowest (f = 5.845; P = 0.000). Mt. Elgon North was unhappy with the manner in which the PA was being managed, and communities felt they could manage better if given full responsibility. Kibale was contented with the way the PA was being managed and they did not feel they could manage better. Both Mt. Elgon North and South were more knowledgeable about the role of the PA in controlling soil erosion, and the impact of poor farming practices on the survival of the PAs.

More than 10% of respondents at Kibale, Elgon South, Elgon North and Semuliki said that the PA should be abolished for it is a threat to human welfare. Additionally,

3.3% at Kibale said the PA should be abolished because it is a safe haven for rebels.

115

Responses about the need to restrict access to resources by communities indicate that

23.3% from Mt. Elgon South and 28.3% from Mt. Elgon North strongly agreed.

Regarding the relations between the PAs and the communities, 16.7% from Mt. Elgon

North and 26.7% from Mt. Elgon South strongly disagreed that the relations were cordial.

Main reasons given for these bad relations were denied access, again with Mt. Elgon

South and North with the highest percentages of 46.7% and 55.9%. Responses to what respondents wanted to see being done to wildlife, Elgon South 31.7%, Elgon North

50.0% and Semuliki 76.7% said they would like to have education programs, while

Kibale 73.3%, Mburo 68.3%, Elgon South 40% and Semuliki 68.3% said the PAs should be fenced. For the changes that respondents wanted, Elgon North, 35%, and Semuliki

35% wanted to see more involvement of the local people in the PA management through training and employment of the local people, whereas, Kibale 73.3%, and Mburo 53.3% said they wanted to see the issue of problem animals being addressed. As to who the head of a PA was, Elgon South 61.7% and Elgon North 48.3% said it was a ranger.

More than 50% respondents at all five PAs agreed that they have wildlife related problems, and more than 50% at all PAs said the problem was destruction of property. As to what respondents do to address the problem, 66.7% in Semuliki said that they report to the PA officials. Forty percent at Kibale, 78.3% at Mburo, 56.7% at Mt. Elgon South, and

65% at Elgon North said that they guard their property. Responses to whether or not communities have problems with PA officials, indicate that 100% of respondents at

Kibale answered that they do not have problems, but 46.7% at Elgon South, 50% Elgon

North, and 58.3% at Semuliki agreed that they get problems. To avoid problems with the

PA management, 31.7% at Elgon South, and 20% at Elgon North said that they have to

116 ensure that they are not caught because they fear the law. Regarding entering the PA,

31.7% from Kibale, 36.7% from Mburo, 73.3% from Elgon South, 75% from Elgon

North and 68.3% from Semuliki agreed that they went into the PA. The main reason of going into the PA, 30% from Elgon South, 43.3% from Elgon North and 45% from

Semuliki cited building materials, while more than 40% at Elgon South, Elgon North and

Semuliki cited firewood, and 18.3% at Elgon North and 30% at Semuliki cited grazing.

Comparison of levels of education, occupation, gender and respondents’ age with knowledge and attitude did not show any significant differences. However, attitude responses varied by whether or not respondents have problems with the PA officials, but did not vary with whether or not respondents reported problems from wild animals (t = -

3.49, P = 0.001).

Discussion

Comparison of Attitudes, Knowledge and Behavior of Community Members between CBC and Non-CBC Protected Areas

Overall attitudes, knowledge and behavior were not significantly different between CBC and non-CBC PAs, indicating that respondents at both areas were equally positive toward PAs. Results from the explanations for the opinions provide information about expressed attitudes and are discussed below.

Conflicts between Conservation and Peoples’ Needs

The mean score response as to whether the PA should be abolished was 3.73 at

CBC and 4.10 at non-CBC indicating that respondents largely favored the existence of

PAs. The main reasons given for this opinion were because PAs are a source of natural, resources, influence climatic factors, and contribute to community welfare. It is important to note that although it was expected that respondents from CBC would justify the

117 existence of the PA as a conservation areas, this was never mentioned as a justification.

Provision of natural resources, contribution to community welfare and influence on local climatic conditions are therefore the values communities attach to PAs that justify the existence of the PAs. These values equally influence community members at both CBC and non-CBC PAs. There seems to be lack of conservation values that have been developed under community-based conservation at CBC PAs that promote conservation as a value attached to PAs. Community-based conservation activities need to produce sufficient and appropriate values to stakeholders to create incentives for them to engage in PA protective activities if they are to succeed. In turn, communities must be willing to engage in the program and they must be enabled and helped to develop the capacity to effectively manage. This could have been lacking at CBC PAs in Uganda, leading to disenchantment on the part of the community members at CBC PAs. This is further corroborated by research findings in Selous, Tanzania, which found that local communities were not interested in joining a conservation program, but simply joined because the project promised to give them meat and introduced income generating activities, where community members were to contribute only half of the investment

(Songorwa 1999).

The socio-demographic data indicate that communities neighboring PAs are typical peasant farmers. They live a subsistence lifestyle on marginal lands and entirely depend on land resources mainly through crop cultivation and raising of livestock as dominant activities (Ellis 1993). They are also characterized by having small, but diversified farms, and are themselves differentiated along family, clan, and or ethnicity lines. Diversification of the farms and the people are considered as a coping mechanism

118 in such a harsh socio-economic and political environment among the poor and marginalized. Under such rural settings, different underlying interests, values affect linkages between people’s livelihoods and PA management, which in turn affect the community members’ attitudes and behavior, which could account for the observed patterns of the results between CBC and non-CBC PAs. Access to resources is one of these key factors that could greatly influence PA–community relations because natural resources form the bulk of local people’s basic needs for their livelihood. Due to their location and lifestyle, rural people neighboring PAs closely interact with wildlife and

PAs. However, such interaction is, in most cases conflictive, due to competition between people’s and conservation needs.

Although CBC approaches have created an environment for dialogue between

PAs and neighboring people, there are still underlying issues to address as far as conservation goals and people’s needs are concerned. One respondent from a non-CBC

PA observed that the term reserve meant that the government is reserving these resources for its people, so that in future, once all the natural resources outside PAs are exhausted, the government will use the PAs to meet the needs of its people. Similarly, at CBC PAs the justification for the existence of the PAs is related to the community welfare and not conservation goals. Current CBC activities are not directly linked to PAs’ management and conservation goals. Salafsky and Wollenberg (2000) argue that it is only when a

CBC activity is highly linked to biodiversity conservation, that intervention success can be achieved. For example, in Asian countries they conclude that non-timber forest products harvesting activities have low linkages and are thus difficult to use as a conservation strategy. It is the linked activities that can enhance biodiversity values to the

119 local people, thus promoting pro-environmental attitudes. Current CBC activities in

Uganda may not be directly linked to conservation goals of PAs. For example, access to a resource in the PA by community members may not lead to achieving conservation objectives. In contrast, activities such as eco-tourism that are more strongly linked to conservation have impacted few community members.

Linkage between Community Needs and Protected Areas Values

Protected areas provide benefits to different stakeholders at different levels

(Mungantana 1999). Community-based conservation programs promote PA values at a community level. However, some of the direct costs of a PAs, such as crop raiding, are mostly felt at a household or individual level, and it is such costs that make a strong linkage between conservation, human welfare and individual behavior. Community-based conservation promotes community level benefits, but such benefits do not link PA values to individual behavior. This poor linkage of community benefits does not take cognizance of distribution of costs, and could also explain the unexpected less positive attitudes at

CBC in comparison to the non-CBC PAs.

Association between Socio-demographic Variables with Attitudes and Knowledge

Often, education, gender, occupation, and age affect attitudes of people toward wildlife and PAs (Mordi 1991; Mehta and Heinen 2001). These variables were not associated with many significant differences in attitudes and knowledge in this study, such as between male and female, or education levels. The only differences were found in the association between attitudes and respondents’ occupation, and between knowledge and the respondents’ age groups (Table 3-16). Also, there were no differences between the mean attitudes for respondents who cited problems related to wildlife and those who did not. In contrast, there were differences between the means of those respondents who

120 said that they have problems with PA officials and those who said that they do not. This finding is important because it indicates that rural people have deeper concerns against

PAs. Kellert et al. (2000) in their study of five case studies from Nepal, Kenya, Alaska, and Washington found that one of the weaknesses of CBC programs especially in the developing countries was failure to empower local people and their institutions. The feelings of marginalization on the part of the communities may be manifested through complaints about problem animals as a way of soliciting sympathy from the wildlife government institutions.

Access to Resources

In response regarding the community-PA relations, CBC scored a mean of 3.34 and non-CBC scored a mean of 2.7. Denied access and harassment by PA officials were given as the reasons for this opinion at non-CBC PAs. At both non- CBC and CBC PAs people’s attitudes are influenced by what values individual members of the community derive from the PA resources or PA related programs, and how the PA negatively impacts their welfare. At non-CBC PAs more respondents agreed that they access resources from the PA, than at CBC PAs. This could be due to the level of surveillance through the CBC activities in the communities. Benefits from CBC programs not withstanding, results indicate that communities from CBC PA do not personally benefit from the PAs as much as those communities from non-CBC PAs. Denied access to resources, which is closely linked with harassment by the PA staffs, was given as one of the negative reasons why community-PA relations were poor.

Importance of Communication and Dialogue in Influencing Attitudes

Community-based conservation activities, have promoted dialogue with communities, which has been appreciated by most PA staffs. In addition CBC programs

121 promoted regulated access to PA resources for some communities. The communication avenues between the PA managers and the local communities is a step toward positively changing community attitudes who have always felt isolated and neglected in the PA management programs (Abbot et al 2001; Mutebi per.com 2000). The general shift among PA management to interact and dialogue with local communities and access to resource at both CBC and non-CBC could account for the general positive attitudes to PA management for both CBC and non-CBC PAs.

Problem Animals

More respondents at CBC PAs, than at non-CBC PAs indicated that they wanted to see PA management address the problem animal issue, and also wanted the PAs fenced to resolve the wildlife people conflicts. Respondents were more concerned about problem animals than at non-CBC PAs. This would be expected because problem animals inflict damages to property and cause loss of income and food security (Naughton-Treves

1998). Other research findings also indicate that crop raids lead to negative attitudes. For example, in Royal Badia National Park, Nepal, Studsrød and Per Wegge (1995) found that a community that was experiencing more elephant raids was more negative to the national park than other communities that were not experiencing a similar crop-raiding problem. However, comparison of mean attitudes for respondents who said they face problems related to wildlife were not significantly different from the mean attitudes of the respondents who indicated they did not have such problems. Interestingly though, the mean attitudes for respondent who said they have problems with PA officials, showed significant differences from those who said they did not. The negative attitudes then could be a manifestation of unsatisfied needs of access to resources. This could be explained by the fact that at CBC PAs, communities are expected to comply as a

122 reciprocation of CBC activities, whereas at non-CBC, communities take chances of not being arrested and access the resources. Community-based conservation benefits accrue to the whole community, while costs due to problem animals are born by an individual.

Although at non-CBC PAs there are no community projects, people benefit individually when they access the resources from the PAs.

Comparison of Attitudes, Knowledge and Behavior among all Protected Areas

Results indicate that attitudes, knowledge and behavior vary across the different

PAs. Scores to the attitude questions generally indicate that respondents are generally positive about the PAs, but restriction of access to resources scores below three on a five- point scale, except for Mt. Elgon North and South. Relations with the PA management are worse in Mt. Elgon, which could be due to the fact that at the time of the survey, there were conflicts due to contested boundaries of the PA. Interestingly though, both Mt.

Elgon responses indicate that people feel that management of the PA is their responsibility as well as government’s. They also feel that they can better manage the PA if they were given the responsibility. The comparison of the different PAs explains the results from the comparison of CBC and non-CBC PAs. Community-based conservation programs have raised local peoples’ expectations and are failing to deliver. Kellert et al.

(2000) also found such concerns in Kimana Community Wildlife Sanctuary in southern

Kenya.

Influence of Community-Based Conservation, on Attitudes and Behavior

Community-based conservation activities are geared toward increased awareness, promotion of positive attitudes, and hence positive behavior. This study indicates that rural people are more interested in natural resource utilization than its conservation, as has been found in other regions (Songorwa et al 2000). Mehta and Heinen (2001) found

123 that in Nepal CBC programs only change people’s attitude if local people derive tangible benefits from the programs, but could not link the change of attitudes to pro- environmental behavior that could lead to biodiversity conservation goals. In Bamenda highlands Cameroon, Abbot et al. (2001) found that CBC development activities improved neighboring people’s attitudes and behavior in the medium term (12 years), but could not determine whether the positive attitudes led to conservation of the forest. One farmer who lived near the forest was quoted as saying that his attitude toward the forest had changed because he could pay school fees for his children, and his wives’ earnings had increased. Also, in Lake Mburo, Uganda, Infield and Namara (2001) found that CBC activities improved attitudes of the communities who were benefiting from the program in comparison to those communities that were not participating. Although the attitudes can be influenced by the incentives from CBC programs, the underlying personal interests that are linked to the survival needs still play a big part in influencing behavior.

Benefits and Costs Analysis between CBC and Non-CBC Communities

Protected areas generate costs and benefits to different stakeholders and at different levels. Some of the benefits at a local level are consumptive market goods, such as medicinal plants, bush meat, firewood, building materials such as grass and timber and other non-timber forest products. Employment opportunities and tourism programs that can benefit communities neighboring PA are also considered as consumptive market goods. Another category of benefits is the non-market and non-consumptive goods, such as prevention of landslides, climate amelioration functions and services as well as religious sites. At the national and international levels PAs have other benefits such as the option values, that refer to the possibility that people who don’t use a resource today but may want to maintain their option of using it in future (Arrow and Fisher 1974), bequest

124 value, which is the value an individual assigns to a resource for the benefit of the future generation (Bateman and Turner 1993), and existence value, which is the value individuals assign to the existence of a given PA (Pearce and Moran 1994).

Protected areas also have costs at local and national levels. At a local level, costs include loss of property such as crops, livestock and at times human life due to wildlife from PAs. There are also the opportunity costs, the value forgone by the communities due to the existence of the PAs. At national level there are costs due to management requirements, capital developments as well as opportunity costs. Non-market, indirect benefits were captured by asking respondents how many working days they would be willing to invest in the PA management for their own welfare, and to manage a PA rehabilitation project.

The analysis compares perceptions of the communities neighboring the five PAs study sites, about benefits in comparison to the costs they incur due to the existence of the PAs. It is anticipated that in order to sustain the PAs well into the future, benefits to neighboring communities should be more than the cost incurred from the PAs and people should appreciate and realize these benefits. The benefit-cost analysis information helps to develop policy instruments that would ensure sustainable management of the PAs.

Valuation of the costs and benefits is based on the underlying assumption that the degree of satisfaction by individuals can be measured in terms of prices they pay through time spent to collect the items from the PAs. Conversely, PA costs are determined in terms of the monetary equivalent an individual is willing to pay his/ her neighbor as compensation for losses caused by his livestock to the neighbor’s garden.

125

Results show that communities at non-CBC benefit 30 times more, as expressed through their responses, from the PAs than at CBC PAs through access to PA resources.

Chances for detecting illegal activities are higher at CBC PAs than at non-CBC PAs. Due to CBC activities, PA staffs’ presence is more felt in the communities, but community members do not access PA resources, they do not personally benefit. The respondents did not mention the community development projects that are carried out under the CBC programs as a benefit. Tourism and employment opportunities for the local people are quite negligible. The benefit/cost ratio is higher at non-CBC PAs (0.03) with the opportunity cost of land and 0.0008 at CBC PAs. Computing the benefit/cost ratio without the opportunity cost of land makes the ratio greater than one, (2.5) at CBC and

(39.0) at non-CBC indicating that PAs are beneficial to the communities. Given that local people have no legitimate ownership claims over PAs lands, and benefits of exploitation, if given, would not be perpetual, B: C ratio without land opportunity cost is more meaningful. The hypothesis that PAs where CBC activities are being undertaken will have a higher B: C ratio is rejected (Table 3-13).

Extrapolating the results to all the parishes neighboring the five PAs indicates that overall costs of the PAs are much higher than the overall benefits at CBC and non-CBC

PAs. These results are in agreement with Hackel’s (1999) assertion that CBC programs do not increase benefits of PAs to local people, neither do they reduce costs of PAs to local neighboring people. Overall costs are computed on the basis that every farmer is growing all the listed crops and all of it is destroyed. In reality, however, not all the farmers grow all the crops, and not all the crops get destroyed by wildlife. When we consider that that there is a 10% chance of having 10% of all the gardens in the

126 neighboring parishes raided, the costs of PA reduces to $10,600 per year at CBC and $

15,500 at non-CBC PAs.

Guiding Principles for Effective Protected Areas Management in Uganda

Rural communities neighboring protected areas share their land with wildlife and to a certain extent, their livelihoods depend on natural resources in such PAs. The need to secure a living by accessing resources in the PA is a major cause of conflicts between PA management and these communities. Such conflicts will increase and threaten PAs more as human population increases, and resources upon which people depend outside the PAs become more scarce. Positively influencing neighboring community members’ behavior toward the environment, natural resources and PAs is therefore a worthwhile undertaking. Furthermore, due to their strategic location, it may be very difficult to achieve conservation objectives without their support. The challenge for conservationists therefore is to find appropriate interventions, which ensure conservation goals and improved human welfare. Interventions should achieve conservation objectives in the short term and maintain them in the long-term. Interventions should be enforceable and address problems caused by wild animal to the rural people neighboring PAs. There should be clear linkages between livelihood security and ecosystem health, to act as incentives for people to engage in CBC programs. There are more chances of success if community institutions are well organized and properly defined to take on management responsibilities.

In evaluating the effectiveness of CBC programs in changing people’s attitudes, knowledge and behavior, and improving community welfare, the following themes have emerged as appropriate to guide future conservation initiatives:

127

Local people’s expectations are often ignored in designing PAs’ management interventions. For example, a large percentage (60.6% at CBC and 45.0% at non-CBC) of the respondents indicated that they wanted to see the PAs fenced in response to what they wanted to see being done to wildlife. Furthermore, a large percentage (43.3% at CBC and only 3.3% at non-CBC) indicated that they wanted to see problem animal issues addressed as a way of changes in PA management. The underlying reason for these responses is that local people are more concerned about the security of their gardens than wildlife, understandably, for that is where they derive their livelihood. Yet, there are no provisions to cater for such concerns in the two management approaches evaluated. The community-based conservation approach could be more relevant to local people if it could address such concerns, and build on such linkages to promote support of the local people for the protected areas.

Often, intentions of CBC activities are not well understood by local communities, leading to raised expectations, which can create negative attitudes in the long run if they are not fulfilled. Songorwa et al. (2001) and Kellert et al. (2000) argue that CBC programs can fail if they are viewed as externally conceived, and the government’s institutions and bureaucracy fail to give them genuine support they deserve. This can lead to disgruntled and disappointed communities with negative attitudes. Some respondents from Lake Mburo complained about donor support, which comes unreliably, when it is supposed to help them find alternatives to watering sources other than accessing the park with their livestock looking for water. For CBC programs to be translated into improved attitudes and pro-, there is a need to ensure that community members properly understand the project, and the project is designed and implemented to

128 their expectations. This can be achieved through increasing the time of project identification and implementation, to increase members’ participation, and to design it according to peoples’ needs.

Accessing resources to the PAs is much more beneficial on an individual basis, than getting community-based benefits. Costs to PA are felt at a household level, yet the

CBC benefits are targeted at a community level. There is a need to design policy interventions that focus on activities that address individual values, which have linkages with people’s livelihoods. Such activities or conservation themes would be meaningful and valuable to the people on an individual basis, and they will serve as incentives to promote pro-environmental behavior. Community- based activities that lack strong linkages with people’s livelihood may promote positive attitudes in the short-term, but whether or not this will translate into pro-environment behavior in the long run may be highly unlikely.

At present there are no policy provisions to resolve conflicts related to problem animals. The underlying assumption of the 1996 Uganda Wildlife Statute was that through the provision of wildlife use rights, communities would appreciate the values of wildlife and become more tolerant to wildlife damages to small-scale farmers. It is also becoming clearer that not addressing the problem animal issue will not only continue to have adverse impacts on wildlife population through illegal killings, but it is also socially unjust. Wildlife benefits accrue to the public, and it is not fair for the few individuals living next to a PA to carry an extra cost, while the benefits distribution remains the same. Two possible feasible solutions would be to put in place a compensatory fund, or fence the PAs that have high levels of crop raiders. A conservative estimates for

129 compensating 10% of all the households in all the parishes of Kibale and Lake Mburo

National Park, at an estimated 10% chance of losing all their crops is $10,500 per year.

Actual figures for those who actually lose their crops could be much lower.

There is a need to strengthen PAs’ management to ensure that there is effective surveillance and high levels of detecting illegal activities. Findings in this research indicate that law enforcement is a factor that influences people’s behavior. If there are high chances of being detected, members will choose to obey rather than violate the laws.

In addition the research findings indicate that more than 30% respondents at both CBC and non-CBC PAs, recognize the head of a PA as a ranger. The reasons why local people do not recognize a warden as a head of a PA could be due to the fact that community members usually see rangers executing PA activities such as patrols, but they never see wardens. This identifies a need for more senior ranks of the PA managers i.e. wardens, to get more involved in PA activities, that affect local people’s livelihoods on a daily basis, for wardens can better explain and communicate PAs objectives to the local people.

There is a need to design and implement education programs that are relevant to conservation problems and effective in influencing people’s attitudes and behavior. At non-CBC, respondents indicated that they would like to see more education programs implemented. Neighboring communities still feel that the PAs are a liability. Education programs should address such a concern, and promote education programs that emphasize conservation is non-consumptive values of the PAs to the community.

Education programs also promote dialogue between PA managers and the communities, which is essential in ensuring cordial relations. Results of this study indicate that the

130 popular sources of information are common radios. These should be targeted as a media of information dissemination.

There is a need to address the unemployment concern in rural areas. Among the values of PAs that have been popularized is that it provides employment benefits. Yet this study has shown that only 3.3% of respondents at CBC and 1.7% at non-CBC are employed by the PAs. Redundant labor in the rural areas, can also significantly contribute to the PA resources. Eco-tourism activities promoted under the CBC programs have not derived benefits to the local people, because of insecurity in the country, that has negatively affected the tourism industry.

This study has been carried out after more than ten years of CBC activities in

Uganda. Results indicate that CBC as an approach to PAs’ management has not performed as expected. This does not mean that the CBC approach should be abandoned.

First, the results are influenced by the prevailing social and economic conditions at the time of conducting this research. Such conditions could improve for the better in the future, to enable CBC to perform and achieve the desired results. Second, shifts of attitudes and behavior among people can take a relatively long time, and the time span of

10 years, could still be too early to detect widespread changes in the population.

However, the results highlight a possibility that even a highly popularized management program such as CBC could fail to achieve the expected goals. This can be disastrous, if such a failure is not detected in time. This calls for setting up a monitoring program to enable administrators to get appropriate data on the performance of the management approach in the future. There is a need to repeat such a study at appropriate time intervals (e.g., five years) to ensure that the CBC activities are achieving the desired

131 conservation goals, and if not, to enable the policy making process to take appropriate measures in time. The periodic evaluation should be institutionalized, and well integrated with different stakeholders to ensure long term monitoring objectives for all.

Limitations of the Study

Survey research has a number of limitations. First, one time surveys are not appropriate tools for measuring causality, because multiple variables can confound results. Second, they do not give an opportunity for a respondent to explain his/her story, thus they do not provide in-depth explanations for responses. Respondents give answers only to the posed question and ignore explanatory factors. Third, the way the questions are put to the respondents in the survey can be threatening or embarrassing for the respondent. Hence he/she may decide to give a false answer, or refuse to answer the question all together. Fourth, they are subject to errors at any time of the survey process.

Hence, careful planning at all stages of the survey is vital in order to avoid errors.

Surveys are also costly and require dedicated expertise.

Respondents to this questionnaire appeared to exaggerate the costs that they were willing to pay for the damages caused by their livestock to their neighbors, considering the market value of the agricultural produce. Also, the amount of land individuals stated that they would acquire from the PA if given a chance was exaggerated, thus inflating the opportunity costs of the PAs. This was especially true for Semuliki and Lake Mburo where there are pastoral communities, who need large chunks of land for their livestock production. It was also difficult for respondents to give accurate information about the acreage of the crops that they grew. This is because they carry out intercropping and they harvest at different seasons during the year. The majority of the respondents to the questionnaire were men, yet it is women who often go to the fields to collect resources

132 from the PAs. The data could have been biased toward men’s views that may not accurately reflect the population.

Respondents, especially from CBC PAs, could have developed research fatigue, for many researchers have visited them. This can lead to giving answers that they may not have thought about, or outright lies. At one interview, I witnessed a respondent who stated that he does not go to the PA, and on my way out of the village I met him coming from the PA. This indicates that administering questionnaires in rural communities poses a risk of recording answers respondents think that a researcher wants to hear.

It was difficult to control for the effects of CBC activities. Communities from both CBC and non- CBC PAs do not live exclusively, but they interact. Also, there have been programs, such as education programs run by the Wildlife Clubs of Uganda, which cut across all the communities. This could have influenced the knowledge levels of communities at non-CBC PAs. For example at Mt. Elgon National Park, there was a CBC program for the whole park although it was not active in the northern sector. However, there could have been education programs that were undertaken in that sector in the past, which could also influence the behavior and knowledge about the PA.

Biases could also have resulted from the administrators of the questionnaire. The research assistants who worked in the western part of the country were different from those who worked in the eastern region due to language limitations. Interviews were carried out during the second half of the day, and this could have favored the people who work in the morning, and disfavored those who work in the afternoon.

There were internally displaced people who were living with resident families in

Semuliki wildlife reserve. This could have resulted in reporting more members in a

133 household than usual, and affected responses to some of the questions related to land and natural resources use. Also, at the time of the survey, the PA management was evicting communities, which had encroached on the PA land, and this could negatively influence the attitudes of the respondents.

134

Table 3-1: Comparison of socio-demographic background between CBC and non-CBC protected areas Variables Responses at CBC Responses at Non- c2 Values P-value in percentages CBC in percentages Respondent’s age 2 0.0699 c3 = 0.715 17–30 years 34.4 (n = 62) 39.2 (n = 47) 31-50 years 50.0 (n = 90) 45.8 (n = 55) More than 50 15.6 (n = 28) 15.0 (n = 18) Respondent’s sex 2 0.665 c1 = 0.188 Female 24.4 (n = 44) 26.7 (n = 32) Male 75.6 (n=136) 73.3 (n = 88) Respondents occupation 2 0.134 c2 = 4.019 Peasant 95.6 (n=172 88.3 (n =106) Protected area worker 0.6 (n=1) 0.8 (n =1) Civil servant 2.2 (n=4) 6.7 (n =8) Respondent’s household composition Female Below 10 years 121 97 2 0.069 c7 = 13.131 11-20 years 85 78 2 0.010 c9 = 21.761 21-30 years 103 68 2 000 c6 = 32.770 31-50 years 49 32 2 000 c3 = 25.456 Over 51 years 17 15 2 0.007 c4 = 14.177 Male Below 10 years 122 102 2 0.221 c9 = 11.869 11-20 years 92 58 2 0.059 c9 = 16.397 21-30 years 58 49 2 0.657 c7 = 5.025 31-50 years 39 21 2 0.090 c4 = 8.052 Over 51 years 10 12 2 0.525 c3 = 2.238

135

Table 3-1 Continued Variables Responses at Responses at Non-CBC c2 -Values P-value CBC in in percentages percentages Household land c2 = 17.363 0.002 holding 4 Less than 0.5 acres 11.1 (n=20) 27.5 (n=33) 1.0-2.0 acres 33.3 (n=60) 24.2 (n=29) 2.0-3.0 acres 11.1 (n=20) 4.2 (n=5) 3.0-4.0 acres 6.1 (n=11) 7.5 (n=9) Over 5.0 acres 37.8 (n=68) 36.7 (n=44) Constraints to farm production Lack of land 58.9 (n=106) 76.7 (n=92) 2 0.001 c1 = 10.869 Shortage of labor 27.2 (n=49) 40.0 (n=48) 2 0.018 c1 = 5.621 Insecure land tenure - 2.5 (n=3) 2 0.033 c1 = 4.545 Shortage of cash 45.0 (n=81) 74.2 (n=89) 2 000 c1 = 25.917 Infertile soils 33.3 (n=60) 32.5 (n=39) 2 0.960 c1 = 0.003 Problem animals 49.4 (n=89) - 2 0.058 c1 = 3.591 Other 8.9 (n=16) 22.5 (n=27) 2 0.001 c1 = 10.863 Respondents sources of income Farm produce 83.3 (n=150) 85.8 (n=103) 2 0.712 c1 = 0.137 Sale of labor 31.1 (n=56) 19.2 (n=23) 2 0.18 c1 = 5.561 Remittances 0.6 (n=1) - 2 0.413 c1 = 0.669 Petty trade 13.9 (n=25) 11.7 (n=14) 2 0.575 c1 = 0.314 Other 3.9 (n =7) 6.7 (n =8) 2 0.279 c1 = 1.170 The busiest seasons on the farm Planting 37.2 (n = 67) 27.5 (n=33) 2 0.089 c1 = 2.899 Weeding 67.8 (n=122) 55 (n =67) 2 0.030 c1 = 4.691 Harvesting 12.8 (n=23) 19.2 (n =23) 2 0.132 c1 = 2.264 Other 3.9 (n=7) 26.7 (n =32) - - Where else do you work if not on farm Work in the PA 2.8 (n = 5) 3.3 (n =4) 2 0.782 c1 = 0.076 Sale out labor to 31.1(n = 56) 32.5 (n=39) c2 = 0.049 0.825 private property 1 Carry out petty trade 12.2 (n = 22) 13.3 (n=16) c2 = 0.08 0.777 in trading center 1 Engage in charcoal 2.2 (n = 4) 8.3 (n=10) c2 = 6.044 0.014 burning 1 Others 55.6 (n =100) 44 (n=53) 2 0.84 c1 = 2.986

136

Table 3-1 Continued Variables Responses at Responses at Non-CBC c2 -Values P-value CBC in in percentages percentages Respondent’s level of c2 = 22.774 P < education 3 0.05 None 23.9 (n = 43) 5.8 (n=7) Primary (1-7 years) 62.2 (n =112) 70.0 (n=84) Secondary (8 –11 years) 11.7 (n = 21) 24.2 (n=29) Advanced (12-14 years) 1.1 (n = 2) - Main sources of information Radio 45.6 (n = 82) 42.5 (n =51) 2 0.602 c1 = 0.272 Newsletter 12.2 (n = 22) - 2 000 c1 = 15.827 Friends 15.6 (n = 28) 20.0 (n =24) 2 0.330 c1 = 0.949 Regular meetings 30 (n = 54) 51.7 (n =62) 2 000 c1 = 13.984 PA/project staffs on 23.3 (n = 42) 11.7 (n =14) c2 = 6.455 0.011 duty 1 Other 10.0 (n =18) 24.2 (n =29) 2 0.001 c1 = 10.658 Duration of residence 2 P = .02 c4 = 17.373 Less than 5 years 7.8 (n =14) 18.3 (n =22) 5-9 years 14.4 (n = 26) 15.0 (n =18) 10-14 years 7.2 (n =13) 15.8 (n =19) 15-20 years 16.1 (n = 29) 13.3 (n =16) More than 21 years 53.3 (n = 96) 35.0 (n = 42)

Table 3-2: Comparison of responses to attitude questions between CBC and non-CBC protected areas Variables Responses at CBC in percentages Responses at Non-CBC in percentages c2 -Values P-Value PA more of a liability Mean = 3.66 (SD = 1.15; n = 180) Mean = 3.83 (SD = 1.14; n =120) 2 P >0.05 c4 = 3.454 Strongly agree 6.1 6.7 Agree 16.1 10.0 Neutral 3.9 4.2 Disagree 53.9 52.5 Strongly disagree 20.0 26.7 PA Just for foreigners Mean = 3.26 (SD =1.20; n= 179) Mean = 3.66 (SD =1.18; n = 120) 2 P < 0.05 c4 = 13.040 Strongly agree 10.0 8.3 Agree 21.1 10.0 Neutral 12.2 12.5

Disagree 45.6 45.8 137 Strongly disagree 10.6 23.3 PA Should be abolished Mean = 3.73 (SD =1.18; n=180) Mean = 4.10 (SD =1.06; n =120) 2 P < 0.05 c4 = 10.132 Strongly agree 7.2 4.2 Agree 11.7 7.5 Neutral 7.8 4.2 Disagree 47.8 42.5 Strongly disagree 25.6 41.7

Table 3-2 Continued Variables Responses at CBC in percentages Responses at Non-CBC in percentages c2 -Values P-Value Restricting community access is a Mean = 2.84 (SD=1.37; n= 180 Mean = 2.50 (SD =1.46; n =118) c2 = 16.98 P< 0.05 good idea 4 Strongly agree 14.4 15.0 Agree 27.2 15.0 Neutral 2.8 6.7 Disagree 39.4 30.0 Strongly disagree 16.1 31.7 Relations between PA and Mean = 3.34 (SD =1.23; n =180) Mean = 2.7 (SD =1.29; n = 118) c2 = 19.905 0.001 community is cordial 4 Strongly agree 15.0 10.0 Agree 44.4 25.0 Neutral 9.4 7.5 Disagree 22.2 40.0 Strongly disagree 8.9 15.8 138 Management of this PA is my Mean = 3.57 (SD=1.21; n =180) Mean = 4.01 (SD = 0.79; n = 119) c2 = 31.669 P<0.05 responsibility as well as the 4 government’s Strongly agree 22.8 20.0 Agree 43.3 70.8 Neutral 7.8 - Disagree 20.0 6.7 Strongly disagree 6.1 1.7

Table 3-2 Continued Variables Responses at CBC in percentages Responses at Non-CBC in percentages c2 -Values P-Value How do you feel about the way this Mean = 3.28 (SD =1.14; n =180) Mean= 2.83 (SD =1.190; n =120 c2 = 18.404 P <0.05 PA is being managed 4 Very happy 7.8 8.3 Happy 52.2 29.2 Neutral 8.3 9.2 Unhappy 23.9 44.2 Very unhappy 7.8 9.2 Our Community can better manage Mean= 2.51 (SD = 1.5; n =177) Mean = 3.20 (SD = 1.3; n =113) c2 = 35.167 P < 0.05 this PA if given full 4 responsibility Strongly agree 14.4 14.2 Agree 21.1 37.5 Neutral 3.3 4.2 Disagree 20.6 30.0 Strongly disagree 38.9 8.3 139 Over all Mean attitude score 3.27375 3.41625 2 P>0.05 c4 = 0.99577

Table 3-3: Explanations for expressed opinions in the attitude questions Variables Responses at CBC in Responses at Non-CBC in c2 -Values P-Value percentages percentages What are the reasons for your opinion about abolishing N= 178 N= 120 c2 = 19.8 P < 0.05 the PA 7 Positive reasons Climatic reasons 18.9 20.0 Source of natural resources 21.1 41.7 Security reasons (provides security) 1.1 - Controls soils erosion 0.6 - For Beauty and nature preservation 16.1 11.7 It contributes to our community welfare 26.1 12.5 Negative reasons It is a source of insecurity and it threatens our livelihood 15.0 14.2 140 What are the reasons for your opinion about the N = 179 N = 119 c2 = 32.122 P < 0.05 relationship between the PA and your community 9 Negative reasons They deny access and harass us 29.4 49.2 Just bad people and uncooperative 5.6 3.3 Due to encroachment conflicts 0.6 2.5 Due to problem animals related problems 4.4 5.0 Positive reasons Educate and mobilize our community 12.8 18.3 Help to control problem animals 1.7 - Due to economic incentives from the PAs 4.4 3.3 They help to protect our PA, which is great. 2.8 1.7 Just no conflict for I never see them 27.2 5.8 They allow us access to PA resources 10.6 10.0

Table 3-3 Continued Variables Responses at CBC in Responses at Non-CBC in c2 -Values P-Value percentages percentages What would you like to see being done about the wildlife N = 180 N = 120 situation this PA Negative Take it away 3.3 (n = 6) 4.2 (n = 5) 2 P > 0.05 c1 = 0.142 Hunt it all till it is finished 18.3 (n = 33) 5.8 (n =7) 2 P > 0.001 c1 = 9.736 Fence the PA 60.6 (n =109) 45.0 (n = 54) 2 P > 0.001 c1 = 9.307 Bring more animals 4.4 (n = 8) 5.0 (n = 6) 2 P > 0.05 c1 = 0.45 Positive Educate our communities about the values of wildlife 13.3 (n=24) 63.3 (n =76) 2 P < 0.01 c1 = 88.455 Generate revenue for our own use 2.8 (n = 5) 8.3 (n = 10) 2 P > 0.05 c1 = 4.678 Give it to us to manage for our benefit 5.0 (n = 9) 15.0 (n = 18) 2 P < 0.01

c1 = 8.791 141 Other 18.9 (n = 34) 20.8 (n = 25) 2 P > 0.05 c1 = 0.172 What changes would you wish to see being implemented N = 180 N = 120 c2 = 71.266 P < 0.05 as far as management of this PA is concerned? 9 Train, employ and involve us in the management 13.9 35.0 Contribute to community development 2.2 5.8 Address problem animal issues 43.3 3.3 Ensure security around the PAs 0.6 - Allow access and use of resources 25.6 40.0 Compensate damaged property by wildlife 1.7 3.3 Enforce wildlife laws to protect our PA 3.3 7.5 Mark all the PA boundaries 2.2 2.5 Stop planting more trees 0.6 - Plant more trees 5.6 1.7

Table 3-4: Comparison of responses to knowledge questions between CBC and non-CBC protected areas Variables Responses at CBC in Responses at Non-CBC in Mann- P-Value percentages (n= 180) percentages (n=120) Whitney U PA influences our local climatic factors such as rain U = 10260 P > 0.05 Correct 43.0% 38.0% Incorrect 57.0% 62.0% PAs help in regulating soil erosion U = 9810 P > 0.05 Correct 58.3% 49.0% Incorrect 42.0% 51.0% PAs help to purify the air we breath U = 8790 P < 0.05 Correct 39.0% 58.0% Incorrect 61.0% 42.0% Poor Farming practices are a threat to PAs surviva l U = 8435 P < 0.01 Correct 39.0% 18.0% 142 Incorrect 61.0% 82.0% Elephant is endangered specie in Uganda U = 8921 P < 0.05 Correct 42.0% 56.0% Incorrect 54.0% 43.0% is an endangered specie in Uganda U = 10110 P > 0.05 Correct 9.0% 16.0% Incorrect 91.0% 84.0% Gorilla is an endangered specie in Uganda U = 9840 P < 0.05 Correct 3.0% 12.0% Incorrect 97.0% 88.0% The head of a protected area is a warden U = 8267.5 P > 0.668 Correct 45.0% 54.0% Incorrect 38.0% 41.0% Total knowledge score (N = 254, mean = 3.043 ± 1.8) U = 7171.5 P > 0.05

Table 3-4 Continued Variables Responses at CBC in Responses at Non-CBC in c2 -value P-Value percentages percentages Over the past five years, would you say that wildlife has generally Increased in numbers all over the region 42 (n= 77) 11.7 (n=14) 2 0.001 c1 = 11.148 Increased especially in PAs 33.6 (n=64) 40.0 (n =48) 42.745 0.000 Decreased all over the region 6.1 (n=11) 27.5 (n=33) 100.383 0.000 Decreased only on the outside 17.8 (n=32) 23.3 (n=28) 50.649 0.000 Remained the same in all the areas 1.7 (n=3) 1.7 (2) 44.77 0.000 I don’t know 2.2 (n=4) 0.8 (n=1) 21.593 0.000 If wildlife population has changed over the past five or more years, what do you think are the causes of these changes? Climatic changes 18.3 (n =33) 35 (n = 42) 2 0.003 c1 = 9.088 God’s plans 6.1 (n =11) 2.5 (n = 3) 2.110 0.146 143 Uncontrolled access to the resources 9.4 (n =17 25.8 (n = 31) 14.389 000 Strict law enforcement 66.7 (n =120) 66.7 (n = 80) 000 1.00 Good relations between PA and the community 7.2 (n =13) 9.2 (n =11) 0.397 0.5 Habitat destruction 11.1 (n =20) 9.2 (n =11) 0.294 0.588 Increased human population 9.4 (n =17) 11.7 (n = 14) 2 0.536 c1 = 0.384 Poor farming practices 3.3 (n =6) 5.8 (n =7) 2 0.297 c1 = 1.085 Involving community members in PA management 7.8 (n =14) 9.2 (n =11) 2 0.664 c1 = 0.188 Rampant poverty in the community 4.4 (n =8) 35.8 n = (43) 2 000 c1 = 50.853 Bad government rules 3.9 (n =7) 4.2 (n = 5) 2 0.707 c1 = 0.142 Corrupt government officials - 10.8 (n = 13) 2 000 c1 = 20.163 Conflicting relations between PA and the community 6.1 (n=11) 1.7 (n = 2) 2 0.063 c1 = 3.449

Table 3-4 Continued Variables Responses at CBC in Responses at Non-CBC in c2 -value P-Value percentages percentages What words would you use to describe your feelings Mean =3.25 (SD =1.28 Mean =2.85 (SD= 1.03n=118) c2 = 45.201 P<0.05 about the changes discussed above, in population n= 175) 4 trends of wildlife in this PA? Very happy 13.3 6.7 Happy 43.3 20.0 Neutral 7.2 30.0 Unhappy 21.7 35.8 Very unhappy 11.7 5.8 144

Table 3-5: Comparison of responses to behavior questions between CBC and non-CBC protected areas Variables Responses at CBC in Responses at Non-CBC in c2 -value P-Value percentages percentages Does wildlife cause you any problems? N = 180 N = 120 2 P>0.05 c1 = 0.012 Yes 74.4 75.0 No 25.6 25.0 If yes what types of problems Destroy my property (crop, fences, livestock) 72.8 (n = 131) 73.3 (n=88) 2 0.846 c1 = 0.038 Transmits diseases to my livestock 3.9 (n = 7) 0.8 (n=1) 2 0.108 c1 2.590 Transmits disease to my people 5.6 (n = 10) 3.3 (n=4) 2 0.371 c1 0.799 Compete for resources (grass, land, and water) 2.8 (n = 5) - 2 0.066 c1 3.390 2

Others 1.1 (n = 2) 4.2 (n=5) 0.086 145 c1 2.950 What do you do to address such problems Report to the PA authorities 29.4 (n = 53) 39.2 (n=47) 2 0.092 c1 2.835 Guard my property 53.9 (n = 97) 36.7 (n=44) 2 0.002 c1 10.043 Bait/trap and kill the offending wildlife 5.6 (n = 10) 7.5 (n=9) 2 0.498 c1 0.459 Invite hunters to help - - - - Other 5.6 (n = 10) 3.3 (n=4) 2 0.371 c1 0.799

Table 3-5 Continued Variables Responses at CBC in Responses at Non-CBC in c2 -value P-Value percentages percentages Do you get problems with PA officials (rangers and c2 = 40.527 P<0.05 wardens)? 1 § Yes 18.9 54.2 § No 81.1 45.8 If yes what kind of problems? 2 c1 = 2.069 § Was arrested due to poaching of game 0.6 (n = 1) 2.5 (n=3) 0.150 c2 = 16.896 § Was arrested due to illegal activities 10.6 (n = 19) 29.2 (n=35) 1 0.000 2 § Others 8.3 (n = 15) 23.3 (n = 28) c1 = 13.193 0.000 What measures have you taken to avoid such problems? § I have to ensure that I am not caught 2 c1 = 0.022 § I have started my own tree nursery 11.1 (n = 20) 11.7 (n = 14) 2 0.882 § Others 2.8 (n = 5) 3.3 (n = 4) c1 = 0.076 0.782 2 6.1 (n =11) 36.7 (n = 44) c1 = 44.898 0.000 146

Table 3-5 Continued Variables Responses at CBC in Responses at Non-CBC in c2 -value P-value Percentage s. percentages What prompted you to take such measures § Fear of the 15.0 (n = 27) 41.7 (n = 50) 2 000 c1 = 26.550 § Satisfy project people 1.1 (n = 2) 1.7 (n = 2) 2 0.681 § Cultural reasons - - c1 = 0.169 - § Economic rewards 1.7 (n = 3) 0.8 (n = 1) - 0.543 § Just wanted to 0.6 (n = 1) 4.2 (n = 5) 2 0.29 c1 = 0.371 § Others - - - 2 = 4.756- c1 Do you ever go into the PA 2 P < 0.05 c1 = 17.553 § Yes 47.2 (n = 85) 71.7 (n = 86) § No 52.8 (n = 95) 28.3 (n= 34) If no, why don’t you ever go there? P < 0.05 c2 = 14.578 § I fear to be arrested by rangers 21.1 (n = 38) 18.3 (n =22) 5

§ I fear wild animals 3.3 (n = 6) 0.8 (n =1) 147 § I have no interests 20.0 (n = 36) 2.5 (n =3) § I have no time to go there 2.8 (n =5) 0.8 (n =1) § The PA is too far away 1.1 (n = 2) 1.7 (n =2) § Others 2.8 (n = 5) -

If yes, what do you go do there? § Health related reasons 13.3 (n = 24) 15.0 (n =18) c2 = 0.159 0.690 § 1 I go to get bush meat 1.1 (n= 2) 3.3 (n = 4) 1.814 0.178 § I go to get building materials 16.7 (n =30) 44.2 (n = 53) 27.208 000 § I go to get firewood 22.8 (n = 41) 50.8 (n = 61) 24.606 000 § For livestock grazing and watering 5.6 (n =10) 24.2 (n = 29) 22.050 000 § I go to get water for domestic use 8.3 (n = 15) 10.8 (n =13) 0.485 0.488 § I go there to worship my gods 12.8 (n = 23) 10.8 (n = 13) 0.258 0.612 § Others 0.6 (n = 1) - 2 0.413 c1 = 0.669

Table 3-6: Comparison of responses to costs and benefits questions between CBC and non-CBC protected areas Variables Responses at CBC in Responses at Non-CBC in c2 -value P-Value percentages percentages

Are you currently gainfully working for this PA? 2 P> 0.05 c1 = 0.818 Yes 3.3 (n = 6) 1.7 (n =2) No 93.9 (n =169) 97.5 (n =117) If yes what is your wage rate? - - Monthly 2.2 (n =4) - Daily - 0.8 (n =1) Piece- meal 0.6 (n =1) Do you benefit from the tourism industry of this P> 0.05 c2 = 1.556 PA? 1 Yes 1.1 (n =2) 0.8 (n =1) No 2.2 (n =4) - 148 If yes how? Run a curio shop - - - - Act as a tour guide/porter 0.6 (n =1) 0.8 (n = 1) 2 0.772 c1 = 0.084 Run a tourist restaurant/lodge - - - - Others 0.6 (n = 1) - 2 0.413 c1 = 0.669

Table 3-6 Continued Variables Responses at CBC in Responses at Non-CBC in c2 -value P-Value percentages percentages What would you say is your income range from 0.223 c2 = 3.00 your business per month? 3 Less than $ 20 - 0.8 (n = 1) Between $ 20 and100 0.6 (n = 1) - Between $ 100and 200 0.6 (n = 1) - Over $ 200 - Over the past five years, how would you describe P< 0.05 c2 = 83.810 natural vegetation changes in and around of 4 this PA Getting more scarce 7.2 (n =13) 29.2 (n = 35) Not changing 6.1 (n = 11) 7.5 (n = 9) Increasing 78.9 (n =142) 29.2 (n = 35) Getting poorer 6.1 (n = 11) 33.3 (n = 40)

I don’t know 1.7 (n = 3) 0.8 (n = 1) 149

Table 3-6 Continued Variables Responses at CBC in Responses at Non-CBC in c2 -value P-Value percentages percentages Do you think that a “PA survival” project is a P < 0.05 c2 = 11.922 good idea? 1 Yes 87.2 (n =157) 99.2 (n = 119) No 11.1 (n = 20) 0.8 (n = 1) If yes, how many of your working days would P< 0.05 c2 = 24.935 you be willing to volunteer 4 None 17.8 (n =32) 5.8 (n = 7) 1-4 days 35.0 (n =63) 25.8 (n = 31) 5–9 days 17.2 (n = 31) 37.5 (n = 45) 10–14 days 11.1 (n = 20) 13.3 (n =16) More than 15 days 7.2 (n = 13) 15.0 (n = 18) If no, why would you not be willing I like the idea, but lack time 1.7 (n = 3) - 2 P > 0.05 c1 = 2.02 I have other pressing needs 150 My efforts would not make any difference The government would not appreciate I would not personally benefit 7.2 (n = 13) 2 P < 0.05 c1 = 9.05 Other 2.8 (n = 5) 0.8 (n = 1) 2 P > 0.05 c1 = 1.389 Suppose you are asked to manage this PA to meet c2 = 23.352 P< 0.05 your community needs without degrading the 4 natural resources base. Would you be willing to put in: Zero days - - 1–4 days 19.4 (n = 35) 3.3 (n = 4) 5–9 days 32.2 (n = 58) 27.5 (n = 33) 10–14 days 22.8 (n = 41) 32.5 (n = 39) More than 15 days 15.0 (n =27) 20.0 (n = 24)

151

Table 3-7: Protected areas benefits computed from time spent on resources collection Valued Goods CBC PAs Non-CBC PAs Total benefits Average benefit Total benefit / Average benefit /month /month /household month (shs) /months / household (Shs) (shs) Cost of firewood 118,000.0 655.56 5,292,000.0 44,100 Cost of hand craft - - 484,800.0 4,040 materials Cost of water for 96,500.0 536.0 84,080.0 700. 0 livestock Cost of bush meat - - 1,704,000.0 14,200 Cost of Medicinal 213,600 1,186.0 120,600.0 670 plants Cost of building 188,500.0 1047.2 7,827,000.0 43,483.0 materials Grazing - - 421,800.0 2,343.0 Domestic Water 400.0 2.0 46400.0 257.0 Total in shillings 3,427.00 109,793.0 Cost /month /hh $ 2.0 61.68 Ttl costs/hh/yr $ $ 24 $740.16 Overall benefits at 24 X 16,147 = 740.16 X 5,567 = PA level 387,528 4,120,470.72

Table 3-8: Non-market protected area benefits estimated from respondents’ willingness to contribute labor Contingent valuation CBC Average Non-CBC Average PAs benefit/hh/yr benefit/hh/yr Valuation of PA for $ 830.9 $4.62 X 12= $ 91,800 $765 X 12 = 9180 environmental servic es 55.44 Valuation of PA management $ 1,339.9 $7.44X 12 = $ 2,632.6 $21.9X 12 = 262.8 for community needs 89.28 Total non-market benefits 144.72 9,442.8 /hh/yr Total benefits/hh/yr 168.72 10,182.92 Overall non-market benefits 168.72 X 16,147 10182.92 X 5,567 = 2,724,321.84 = 56,688,315.64

152

Table 3-9: Protected areas costs valued through WTP to compensate damaged crops Valued Goods CBC PAs Non-CBC PAs Shillings Ave cost /hh/yr Shillings Ave cost /hh/yr One acre of cassava 11,710,000.0 65,055. 60 17,971,200.00 149,760.00 One acre of Beans 16,157,001.3 89,761.00 17,702,500.00 147,520.80 One acre of Peas 1,080,000.0 6,000.00 2018000.00 16,816.70 One acre of Ground 16,094,000.0 89,411.00 9563500.00 79,695.80 nuts One acre of Potatoes 11,451,000.0 63,616.67 13399000.00 111,658.30 One acre of sorghum 3,890,000.0 21,611.00 11784000.00 98,200.0 One acre of 266,000.0 14,77.80 1230500.00 10,254.20 pumpkins One acre of Bananas 19,713,003.0 109,516.60 25702600.00 214,188.30 Maize 10,770,000.5 59,833.30 121659010.00 1,013,825.10 Average cost per crop $11.4 per year per hh in $

153

Table 3-10: Overall cost as computed from damaged property at CBC protected areas Cost of Average no of At 10% If 10% of Cost/crop crop/hh/yr hh in Overall chance of hh are holding/season $ neighboring cost/crop/yr crop raided CBC PAs in $ parishes at PA in $ raiding Cost of banana damage/holdin g /hh/year 61.5 123 16,147 1,986,081 198,608.0 19,861.0 Cost of cassava damage/holdin g /hh/year 36.5 73 1,178,731 117,873.0 11,787.0 Cost of potatoes damage/holdin g /hh/year 36.0 72 1,162,584 116,258.0 11,626.0 Cost of bean damage/holdin g /hh/year 50.0 100 1,614,700 161,470.0 16,147.0 Cost of peas damage/holdin g /hh/year 4.0 8 129,176 12,918.0 1,292.0 Cost of ground nuts damage/holdin g /hh/year 50.0 100 1,614,700 16,147.0 1,615.0 Cost of maize damage/holdin g /hh/year 34.0 72 1,162,584 116,258.0 11,626.0 Averages costs 39.0 78.0 1,264,079.0 105,648.0 10,565.0

154

Table 3-11: Overall cost computed from damaged property at non-CBC protected areas Dollars/crop Cost of Overall At 10% chance If 10% of hh holding/seas crop/hh/ Average cost/crop/yr at of crop raiding are raided At Non-CBC PA on yr $ no of hh PA $ Cost of banana damage/hold ing /hh/year 120.0 240.0 5,567 1,336,080.0 133,608.0 13,361.0 Cost of cassava damage/hold ing /hh/year 84.0 168.0 935,256.0 93,526.0 9,353.0 Cost of potatoes damage/hold ing /hh/year 63.0 126.0 701,442.0 70,144.0 7,014.0 Cost of bean damage/hold ing /hh/year 83.0 166.0 924,122.0 92,412.0 9,241.0 Cost of peas damage/hold ing /hh/year 9.4 19.0 104,660.0 10,466.0 1,047.0 Cost of ground nuts damage/hold 50,103.0 5,010.0 ing /hh/year 45.0 90.0 501,030.0 Cost of maize damage/hold ing/hh/year 570.0 1,140.0 6,346,380.0 634,638.0 63,464.0 Averages costs 139.0 278.0 1,549,853.0 154,985.0 15,499.0

155

Table 3-12: Land Opportunity Cost Land I would acquire CBC PAs Non-CBC PAs Opportunity cost of $ 251,179.7 $ 345,825.6 land Overall opportunity 251,179.7 X 16,147 = 345,825.6 X 5,567 = costs 4,055,798,616 1,925,211,115.0

Table 3-13: Benefit/Cost Ratio CBC Non-CBC Benefits 387,528 + 2,724,321.84 = 4,120,470.72 + 56,688,315.64 = 3,111,849.84 60,808,786.36 Costs 10,565.0 + 4,055,798,616 = 15,499 + 1,925,211,115.0 = 1,925,226,614 4,055,809,181 B/C ratio 3,111,849.84: 4,055,809,181 = 0.0008 60,808,786.36: 1,925,226,614= 0.03 B: C ratio without land opportunity = B: C ratio without land opportunity costs 2.5 =39.0

156

Table 3-14: Comparison among all the protected areas, using One-Way Analysis Of Variance ba means differences are significant at 0.05 levels-Scheffe Variable PAs Means df F-value P-value PA more of a liability than an asset 4 0.95 0.43 CBC PAS Lake Mburo 3.55±1.10 ’’ Kibale 3.68±1.07 ’’ Mt. Elgon South 3.73±1.29 Non-CBC PAs Mt. Elgon North 3.70±1.24 ’’ Semuliki 3.95±1.02 PA is just for foreigners 4 3.334 0.011 CBC PAS Lake Mburo 3.08±1.04 ’’ Kibale 3.17±1.52 ’’ Mt. Elgon South 3.57±1.39 Non-CBC PAs Mt. Elgon North 3.52±0.93 ’’ Semuliki 3.75±0.93 PA should be abolished 4 3.139 0.015 CBC PAs Lake Mburoa 3.72±1.06 ’’ Kibale a 3.88±1.15 ’’ Mt. Elgon 3.93±1.19 Northa Non-CBC PAs Mt. Elgon 3.58±1.31 Southb ’’ Semulikib 4.27±0.90

157

Table 3-14 Continued Variable PAs Means df F-value P-value To restrict access to resources in this 4 16.149 0.000 PA by community members is a good idea CBC-PAs Mburoa 2.62±1.23 ’’ Kibale b 2.87±1.36 ’’ Mt. Elgon 3.05±1.45 Southbc Non-CBC PAs Mt. Elgon 3.38±1.38 Northb ’’ Semulikid 1.60±0.88 The relationship between the 4 7.874 0.000 management of this PA and our community is cordial CBC-PAs Kibale a 3.82±0.85 ’’ Mburo a 3.15±1.13 ’’ Elgon Southb 3.07±1.5 Non-CBC PAs Elgon North a 2.67±1.54 ’’ Semulikib 2.78±0.99 Management of this PA is my 4 5.845 0.000 responsibility as well as government’s CBC PAs Kibale a 3.25±1.15 ’’ Mburoa 3.58±1.20 ’’ Elg on Southb 3.87±1.23 Non-CBC PAs Elgon Northb 4.03±1.02 ’’ Semulikib 4.00±0.45 How do you feel about the way this 4 4.082 0.003 PA is being managed CBC-PAs Kibale b 3.52±1.02 ’’ Mburoa 3.22±0.96 ’’ Elgon Southa 3.10±1.12 Non-CBC Elgon Northa 2.96±1.40 ’’ Semulikia 3.12±1.39

158

Table 3-14 Continued Variable PAs Means df F-value P-value Our community can manage this PA 4 28.649 0.000 better if given full responsibility CBC-PAs Kibale a 1.88±1.35 ’’ Mburoa 2.08±1.35 ’’ Elgon Southb 3.56±1.34 Non-CBC Semulikia 2.54±1.16 ’’ Elgon Northab 3.86±1.04 PAs influence our local climatic factors 4 11.385 0.000 CBC-PAs Kibale a 4.15±1.01 ’’ Mburoa 3.98±0.94 ’’ Elgon Southb 4.70±0.50 Non-CBC Semulikib 4.45±0.60 ’’ Elgon Northa 4.70±0.50 PAs help to regulate soil erosion CBC PAs Kibale a 3.70±0.91 ’’ Mburoa 3.50±0.91 ’’ Elgon Southa 4.27±1.00 Non-CBC PAs Semulikia 3.80±0.73 ’’ Elgon Northa 4.53±0.75 PAs help to purify the air we breath 4 17.404 0.000 CBC PAs Kibale a 3.97±0.71 ’’ Mburoa 3.78±0.82 ’’ Elgon Southab 4.42±0.87 Non-CBC PAs Semulikib 3.70±0.70 ’’ Elgon Northab 4.60±0.52 Poor farming practices threaten PA 4 36.749 0.000 survival CBC-PAs Kibalea 3.27±0.92 ’’ Mburob 3.53±1.08 ’’ Elgon Southa 4.30±1.11 Non-CBC PAs Semulikic 2.33±1.01 ’’ Elgon Northabc 4.33±1.11

159

Table 3-15: Frequency responses for respective protected areas Variables Kibale Mburo Elgon S Elgon N Semuliki Reasons for your choices above Climatic reasons 31.7 - 25.0 31.7 8.3 Source of natural resources 15.0 16.7 31.7 31.7 51.7 Soil erosion - - 1.7 Nature preservation 3.3 28.3 13.3 13.3 10.0 Community welfare 8.3 45.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 Security reasons 3.3 - Threatens livelihood 13.3 10.0 20.0 13.3 15.0 Reasons for your answer in six above Denied access 6.7 35.0 46.7 55.9 43.3 Education and mobilization 15.0 5.0 18.3 10.0 26.7 Help to protect PA 3.3 5.0 3.3 10.0 Allow access 13.3 3.3 15.3 10.0 Control problem animals 5.0 - - - - No conflicts 36.7 40.0 5.0 10.0 1.7 Problem animals 10.0 1.7 1.7 10.0 Economic incentives 10.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 5.0 Encroachment - - 5.0 Just bad people 3.3 10.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 What I would like to see being done to wildlife Take it away - 6.7 3.3 6.7 1.7 Hunt it till it is finished 15.0 31.7 8.3 3.3 8.3 Educate our communities 5.0 3.3 31.7 50.0 76.7 Generate revenue for our own use - 1.7 6.7 15.0 1.7 Give it to us to manage - - 15.0 25.0 5.0 Fence off the PA 73.3 68.3 40.0 21.7 68.3 Bring more animals 1.7 1.7 11.7 3.3 6.7 Others 38.3 11.7 6.7 5.0 36.7

160

Table 3-15 Continued Variables Kibale Mburo Elgon S Elgon N Semuliki Changes you want implemented Train employ and involve local people 8.3 10.0 23.3 35.0 35.0 Contribute to community development 3.3 1.7 1.7 3.3 8.3 Address problem animals 73.3 53.3 3.3 1.7 5.0 Ensure security around PAs 1.7 - - - - Allow access and use of resources 3.3 26.7 46.7 38.3 41.7 Enforce the laws 1.7 1.7 6.7 13.3 1.7 Compensate damaged property - - 3.3 1.7 5.0 Plant more trees 6.7 8.3 3.3 Mark PA boundaries - 1.7 5.0 1.7 3.3 Stop planting more trees - 1.7 - - Endangered species in Uganda Elephants 9.0 58.3 53.3 53.3 58.3 Uganda kob 14.0 11.7 18.3 16.7 31.7 Chimpanzee 3.3 21.7 3.3 1.7 30.0 Baboon - 5.0 13.3 6.7 23.7 Gorilla 3.3 5.0 - 1.7 21.7 Head of a PA is: Ranger 21.7 13.3 61.7 48.3 20.0 Warden 31.7 66.7 36.7 33.3 75.0 Director 5.0 1.7 - 3.3 - Chief 3.3 5.0 1.7 10.0 -

161

Table 3-15 Continued Variables Kibale Mburo Elgon S Elgon N Semuliki Wildlife over the region has: Increased all over the region 50.0 36.7 15.0 10.0 13.3 Increased only in the PAs 38.3 20.0 48.3 58.3 21.7 Decreased all over the region 6.7 1.7 10.0 13.3 41.7 Decreased only outside PAs 11.7 18.3 23.3 25.0 21.7 Remained the same all over 3.3 - 1.7 - 3.3 Don’t know - 1.7 5.0 - 1.7 Causes of these changes Involving communities in PA 3.3 10.0 10.0 15.3 3.3 management God’s plan 5.0 11.7 1.7 - 5.0 Good PA/community relations 3.3 3.3 15.0 11.7 6.7 Strict law enforcement 71.1 70.0 58.3 61.7 71.7 Climatic factors 6.7 16.7 31.7 31.7 38.3 Habitat destruction 6.7 11.7 15.0 15.0 3.3 Increasing human population 8.3 3.3 16.7 18.3 5.0 Poor farming practices 5.0 - 5.0 5.0 6.7 Uncontrolled access to resources 10.0 8.3 10.0 8.3 43.3 Rampart poverty in communities - 1.7 11.7 13.3 59.3 Bad government regulations 3.3 1.7 6.7 8.3 - Corrupt government officials - - - - 21.7 Conflicting PA/community relations 5.0 8.3 5.0 3.3 - Does wildlife cause you any problems Yes 51.7 98.3 73.3 80.0 70.0 No 48.3 1.7 26.7 20.0 30.0 If yes what problems: Property destruction 51.7 96.7 70.0 80.0 66.7 Transmit diseases to livestock - 6.7 5.0 1.7 - Transmit disease to people 1.7 3.3 11.7 6.7 - Compete for resources - 5.0 3.3 - - Other - 1.7 1.7 3.3 5.0

162

Table 3-15 Continued Variables Kibale Mburo Elgon S Elgon N Semuliki To address these problems… Report to PA authorities 20.0 45.0 23.3 11.7 66.7 Guard my property 40.0 78.3 56.7 65.0 8.3 Bait/trap offending animals 1.7 5.0 10.0 6.7 8.3 Invite hunters - - - - - Other 3.3 10.0 3.3 1.7 5.0 Do you get problems with PA officials Yes - 10 46.7 50 58.3 No 100 90 53.3 50 41.7 If yes what problems Was arrested poaching - - 1.7 5.0 - Was arrested due to illegal use of - 6.7 25.0 21.7 36.7 resources Other - 3.3 21.7 25.0 21.7 What measures have you taken to avoid such problems Ensure I am not caught - 1.7 31.7 20.0 3.3 Started my own tree nursery - 3.3 5.0 5.0 1.7 Other - 5.0 13.3 21.7 51.7

163

Table 3-15 Continued Variables Kibale Mburo Elgon S Elgon N Semuliki What prompted you to take such measures Fear of the law - 6.7 38.3 45.0 38.3 Satisfy project people - 1.7 1.7 3.3 - Cultural reasons - - - - - Just wanted - - 1.7 - 8.3 Economic rewards - 1.7 3.3 - 1.7 Other - - - - Constraints to farm production Lack of land 50.0 30.0 96.7 81.7 71.7 Shortage of labor 23.3 5.0 53.3 46.7 33.3 Shortage of cash 26.7 26.7 81.7 83.3 65.0 Insecure land tenure - - - 5.0 - Infertile soils 11.7 10.0 78.3 65.0 - Problem animals 30.0 85.0 33.3 26.7 50.0 Other 8.3 13.3 5.0 5.0 40.0 Sources of income for the household Farm produce 80.0 85.0 85.0 76.7 95.0 Sale of household labor 35.0 35.0 23.3 26.7 11.7 Remittances 1.7 - - - - Petty trade 23.3 10.0 8.3 16.7 6.7 Other 0 8.3 3.3 5.0 8.3 Where else do you work if not on farm Protected area 3.3 - 5.0 3.3 3.3 Other private property for pay 15.0 23.3 55.0 60.0 5.0 Go for town trading 11.7 10.0 15.0 13.3 13.3 Engage in charcoal burning 1.7 1.7 3.3 - 16.7 Other 73.3 68.3 25.0 21.7 66.7

164

Table 3-15 Continued Variables Kibale Mburo Elgon S Elgon N Semuliki What is the last year of education completed None 31.7 20.0 20.0 11.7 - Primary 61.7 65.0 60.0 70.0 70.0 O-level 6.7 11.7 16.7 18.3 30.0 A-level - - 3.3 - - What are your main sources of information Radio 55.0 48.3 33.3 28.3 56.7 Newsletters 10.0 13.3 13.3 - - Friends 16.7 15.0 15.0 21.7 18.3 Regular meetings 21.7 25.0 43.3 36.7 66.7 PA staffs on duty 36.7 13.3 20.0 21.7 1.7 Other 10.0 11.7 8.3 10.0 38.3 For how many years have you lived here Less than five 6.7 13.3 3.3 10.0 26.7 Between five and nine years 15.0 13.3 15.0 21.7 8.3 Between 10 and 14 years 3.3 11.7 6.7 10.0 21.7 Between 15 and 20 20.0 13.3 15.0 6.7 20.0 Over 21 55.0 45.0 60.0 50.0 20.0

165

Table 3-15 Continued Variables Kibale Mburo Elgon S Elgon N Semuliki Do you go into the PA Yes 31.7 36.7 73.3 75.0 68.3 No 68.3 63.3 26.7 25.0 31.7 If no why not Fear rangers 23.3 25.0 15.0 13.3 23.3 Fear animals 10.0 30.0 - 1.7 No interest 23.3 - 6.7 1.7 3.3 I have no time 3.3 3.3 1.7 - 1.7 It is too far 3.3 - - 1.7 1.7 Other 5.0 3.3 - - 10.0 If yes what do you go to do there Health related issues 18.3 6.7 15.0 16.7 13.3 Bush meat - - 3.3 1.7 5.0 Building materials 15.0 5.0 30.0 43.3 45.0 Firewood 20.0 6.7 41.7 51.7 50.0 Grazing 3.3 6.7 6.7 18.3 30.0 Water 1.7 10.0 13.3 6.7 15.0 Worship 3.3 16.7 18.3 20.0 1.7 Other - - 1.7 - - Are you working for PA Yes 3.3 1.7 5.4 98.3 3.3 No 95.0 98.3 88.3 96.7 If yes what is your wage rate Monthly 1.7 1.7 3.3 - - Daily 1.7 Piece-meal 1.7

166

Table 3-15 Continued Variables Kibale Mburo Elgon S Elgon N Semuliki Do you benefit from tourism No 3.3 1.7 3.3 - - Yes - 1.7 1.7 If yes in which way Run a curios - - - - - Act as a tourist guide - - 1.7 - 1.7 Run a tourist restaurant - - - - - Other - 1.7 - - - What is your income range - - More than $200 - 1.7 - Less than $ 200 1.7 Between $20 and 100 1.7 Describe vegetation changes that have taken place over the past five years Not changing 1.7 3.3 13.3 10.0 5.0 Getting more scarce - 13.3 8.3 15.0 43.3 Increasing 93.3 81.7 61.7 53.3 5.0 Getting poorer 1.7 1.7 15.0 20.0 46.7 I don’t know 3.3 - 1.7 1.7 - Is PA survival project a good idea Yes 93.3 76.7 91.7 98.3 100 No 6.7 20.0 6.3 1.7 -

167

Table 3-15 Continued Variables Kibale Mburo Elgon S Elgon N Semuliki If yes how many working days would you contribute None 20.0 23.3 10.0 10.0 1.7 Only one day 50.0 31.7 23.3 21.7 30.0 Five days 16.7 11.7 23.3 33.3 41.7 Ten days 1.7 11.7 20.0 16.7 10.0 Fifteen 5.0 1.7 15.0 15.0 15.3 If no why wouldn’t you volunteer I have no time 1.7 - 3.3 - - I have other needs - - - - - My efforts wont make a difference - - - - - Government wont appreciate - - - - - I would not personally benefit 5.0 13.3 3.3 - - Others - 8.3 - - - If you were asked to manage PA would you put in One day per month 23.3 26.7 8.3 5.0 1.7 Five days a month 40.0 30.0 26.7 23.3 31.7 Ten days a month 26.7 11.7 30.0 23.3 41.7 Fifteen days a month 3.3 16.7 3.3 20.0 13.3 More than 15 days a month 5.0 10.0 30.0 28.3 11.7

168

Table 3-16: Comparison of socio-demographic background with attitude and knowledge Variable Mean F- P- Mean F- P-value attitude value Value knowledge value Respondent’s sex 2.341 0.127 -2.809 0.005 Female (n = 74) 3.21 ± 0.49 3.80± 0.65 Male (n = 210) 3.32 ± 0.61 4.06± 0.71 Respondent’s level of 1.037 0.377 1.069 0.363 education None (n = 49) 3.24 ± 0.55 3.9 ± 0.77 Primary (n =187) 3.28 ± 0.59 4.0 ± 0.72 O-level (n = 44) 3.42 ± 0.58 3.9 ± 0.59 A- level (n = 2) 3.56 ± 0.97 4.7± 0.35 Respondent’s occupation 3.201 0.042* 2.39 0.093 Peasant (n = 284) 3.28±0.58 3.98±0.71 PA worker (n = 2) 4.00 ± 0.35 3.62±0.53 Civil worker (n = 12) 3.61 ± 0.63 4.41±0.49 Respondent’s age 1.573 0.209 4.497 0.012* Between 17 and 30 years (n 3.36 ± 0.55 4.15± 0.63 = 102) Between 31 and 50 years (n 3.28 ± 0.58 3.88± 0.73 = 139) Over 51 years (n = 43) 3.17 ± 0.66 4.00± 0.74 Does wildlife cause you any 1.39 0.238 problems Yes (n = 211) 3.26± 0.60 No (n = 73) 3.37± 0.52 Do you get problems with -3.49 0.001 PA officials Yes 3.12± 0.53 3.3±0.59

APPENDIX A WARDENS’ SURVEY

Please take some time and answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge about the PA you are managing PA

Management Related Threats to Protected Areas 1. Does PA have clearly defined management objective? 2. Does PA have a management plan? a) Has b) In the process of making one c) Already made but not yet commissioned, d) Does not have.

3. Does basic ecological information exit? a) Inventory of mammals b) Inventory of birds c) Vegetation maps d) Geological and soils maps e) Wildlife population trends f) Aerial photos g) Socio-economic data

4. Are boundaries well demarcated? a) Fully and carefully demarcated involving neighboring communities and are not contested b) Well demarcated but are being contested c) Known, not demarcated, and there are no conflict d) Not known, not demarcated but it is feared that there is encroachment

5. What is the status of the protected resources? a) Fully protected from any exploitation b) Controllably used by the local people under collaborative management arrangement. c) Suffers from commercial poaching of wild animals and trees d) Suffers from uncontrolled use by neighboring communities. e) Irreparably damaged by settlement or other (specify). f) Other-specify 6. Does the PA have secure sources of income? a) Government subvention b) Income generated within the protected area (tourism, rent, etc) c) Donations d) NGO support

169 170

7. How are illegal activities of this protected area handled? a) Reported, recorded and follow up b) Reported, not recorded but followed up c) Reported, not recorded no follow up d) Not reported, not recorded no follow up 8. Is research an important component of the PA management? a) Has a well-integrated basic and applied research that supports management? b) Only has basic academic research that does not support management c) Has no research d) Other-specify 9. How is tourism program organized at this PA? a) Well developed with basic facilities in place b) Well established with high visitation (how many per year) but there are no facilities c) Over whelming the capacity of the management to handle d) Poorly developed with very low visitation and insufficient tourist facilities e) Non- existent

10. What proportion (in percentage) of the budget do the following programs consume? a) Law enforcement b) Personnel c) Community programs d) Tourism programs e) Education and extension out reach f) Plants and equipment

11. Does the PA enjoy political support from a) Central government b) Local government within the district c) Local people around the protected area and their parliamentarians d) There is no political support whatsoever

12. Does this PA involve local people in its management activities? a) Involves local people in management decision making b) Involves at least some government officials in the decision making c) Does not involve people at all d) Other -specify

13. What benefits does this PA provide to local people a) Real benefits (specify) b) Some benefits (specify) c) No benefits at all d) Other-specify

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF GROUP DISCUSSIONS AT 16 PROTECTED AREAS

Introduction

There are growing concerns about the relationship between people and protected area management in a world of growing human population and growing demands for natural resources use. Efforts to conserve biodiversity in Protected areas (PAs) has been characterized by continued loss of wildlife and its habitats, encroachment and conflicting relations of the PA and dwindling wildlife populations Protected area management approaches advocated for are those that foster partnerships between people and PA management. Partnership that range from involving communities in PA management to direct benefits accruing to communities neighboring PAs through schemes such as revenue sharing. Over the past ten years this approach has been popularized and preferred over the traditional top-down approach in the management of PA in Uganda. It is argued that positive attitudes, awareness, knowledge/understanding and environmentally friendly behavior are critical for successful protected area management. These attributes are key ingredients in the community conservation approaches in the management of PA s under the Uganda Wildlife Authority. By the end of the 1980s some of the protected areas had embarked on community- based approach as a way of managing. This was with support from international NGO’s and donors. Yet some of the PA s continued with their traditional approach of law enforcement. The under-lying objectives of community-based approaches were to promote sustainable development of neighboring communities, and to conserve biodiversity of the protected areas. Main activities include environmental education related activities, protected area resources access, community development projects, general community awareness and mobilization. Group discussions were conducted at 16 protected areas in Uganda between June and December 2000 with four main objectives. First, to get an understanding of neighboring communities about environmental related problems and their concerns. Second, to explore the capability and ability of these communities to carry out corrective measures to address the identified environmental problems and concerns. Third, to identify threats to the PAs according to the local neighboring communities and to assess the effectiveness of PA management approaches in mitigating the identified threats. Lastly to get an idea on what costs neighboring communities to the PA incur and what benefits from the PA accrue to them. Results from eight of the PAs that practice community conservation programs are compared with eight PAs that emphasize traditional top-down approach of managing protected areas. First, a synopsis of respective protected areas is given, and TRA – Indices, are calculated and compared

171 172

Bokora Wildlife Reserve (Non–CBC)

Community issues. There are four sub-counties, which surround the PA-Iriri, Lopeei, Matanyi and Lokopo. Communities are composed of mainly indigenous Karimojong, as well as other tribes of Uganda such as Itesot, Acholi, Langi, Basoga, Bagisu, Banyankore and Somalis. The main language used is the Akarimojong and Swahili. Few people have attended school and majorities stay at home and derive their livelihood from land resources. Economic activities. Main economic activities include brewing of the local alcoholic drink known as kwete that is brewed from sorghum and also include the following: · Subsistence cultivation crops (sweet potatoes, sorghum, bull-rush millet, pumpkins, cassava, beans) · Livestock keeping (cattle, donkeys, sheep and goats, ostriches, camels, and tortoises) · Charcoal burning and sale of firewood and hand craft making as well as sell of labor · Selling of building materials, mainly grass, etc · Gathering of wild fruits such as callisa edulis, hunting and gathering of white ants · Cattle rustling from neighboring tribes · Bee keeping and wild bee hunting Special skills within the community. Special skills identified by the communities around Bokora identified the following skills in managing their resources: · They have special skills on how to shape horn patterns or prevention by burning with iron bars horn spots on the heads of their cattle. · They have skills in attracting bees to their hives, by mixing water, with wax, blood and milk and spraying on the beehives. · They perform special ceremonies before planting seasons, by mixing local brew with colored soils and spraying it on the hoes, before the hoes are used. A black goat is also killed to bring good luck for a rich harvest · Soils identification for brick making by determining speeds at which it is blown by wind. · Special skills in determining successes in cattle rustling and hunting expeditions. Environmental/natural resources issues. The group identified the following environmental changes over the past five years: · Water bodies such as dams and wells have dried over the past years. Rainfall has reduced (this is attributed to gods’ anger due to uncontrolled cattle raiding, irresponsible tree cutting, and destruction of human life). There has been a reduction in grass, trees and land exhaustion leading to poor yields due to increased demand on land resources. Medicinal plants have become scarce and rare. · Wild animals’ population has reduced within PA and livestock has reduced due to cattle rustling. · Human population especially women has increased

173

Concerns about the environmental changes. Due to these environmental changes, the group revealed the following as the main concerns: · Shortage of fuel wood leading to high prices of firewood as a source of energy · Increased malnutrition due to lack of animal products-milk and meat · Worries about impending shortage of water and rainfall · Concerns about reduced population of wildlife species. such as ostriches, squirrels, zebras, which has been a source of cultural artifacts, regalia and food. · Shortage of pasture grass leading to distant grazing · Construction of houses has become more expensive due to scarcity of building poles · Concerned that the soils are getting exhausted, due to over-cultivation and soil erosion · Ploughing is becoming difficult, because the strong bulls have been raided by cattle rustlers. What the communities are doing to cope with the situation. As a response to these concerns, local people around Bokora are doing the following: · Locally de-silting water ponds such as the one at Atapar. Communities have asked government to construct water dams and bore holes. · Through their local councils people have taken concern to educate people on the dangers of environmental degradation (pointed out that the government is not helping them) · Using local means to treat their domestic animals and visit witch doctors to foretell the situation. Local communities are sacrificing their animals to gods for rain as well as praying. · Elders are advising the youth to come to peace with their neighbors and stop raiding The future of Bokora wildlife reserve. Bokora currently has no future, but it could have a future if the following could be done: · Rangers are increased and provided with better arms · Government should put back ranger camps where they used to be, before they were destroyed · Bokora can have a future if rustling can stop, because most rustlers pass through the area or hide there. Boundaries should be clearly marked, for local people do not know where these boundaries are.

Bugungu Wildlife Reserve

Community issues. Communities around Bugungu Wildlife Reserve are mixed in terms of language, occupation and origins. The Bagungu are the indigenous tribe of the area, but other tribes such as Alurs, Kebo and Lendu from Zaire, Lugbra from Arua, Kakwa from southern Sudan, Banyoro, Batoro, Banyankore / Bakiiga, Acholi, Langi, Madi, Karimojong, Itesot, Bagisu from eastern Uganda, and Baganda from central Uganda, have joined. Civil strife within the region, which dates way back in the 60’s, was mentioned as one of the causes of this movement.

174

Although land is supposed to be communal, there are no community institutions to stop immigrants from settling on communal land. In reality there is open access to the land resources within the communities around PA. Most immigrants come to settle without consent or knowledge of the indigenous people. The indigenous Bagungu tried to protest to the government against new immigrants, but the government turned a deaf ear and the indigenous people gave up. There are two parishes that neighbor Bugungu Wildlife Reserve, Butiaba and Biiso parishes. Common language is Swahili. Average household size is about 10 people. There is disparity in education levels between the indigenous people who are more educated in comparison to the immigrants, who shun school and concentrate on economic activities to get rich quickly. Economic activities. The group identified the following activities as the main economic activities in the parishes around the reserve. Both women and men do fishing, from Lake Albert, which is the main source of income for the people of Butiaba whereas the people from Biiso earn their income from agricultural production. Fish mongering is an important activity and is carried out by both sexes. Subsistence agriculture with cassava, maize, beans, ground nuts, potatoes, cotton, bananas, tobacco, tomatoes, cabbages simsim, oranges and mangoes. Commonly sold produce includes tobacco, cotton, maize, cassava and cabbage. Livestock include cows, mostly for milk production, pigs, goats, sheep, poultry and rabbits. Very few families raise rabbits and sheep. Community special skills. The group identified the following acquired skills: · There has been training in energy saving technologies, but people have not changed their cooking practices. The people who were trained do not have kitchens from where to cook · Locally people conserve soil through fallow practices. Currently, agricultural extension agents help farmers in farming practices. · There are bore holes in the community which are maintained by trained pump attendants Environmental changes that have taken place in their communities. The following changes were mentioned as perceived environmental changes in the communities: · Wetlands and streams are becoming drier over the past years and fish catch is decreasing. There is a belief that lake levels are receding, although some argue that this is a seasonal phenomenon. · Rainfall has decreased and has becoming more erratic. This is attributed to decreasing forest cover. There are strong opinions in some communities that scarcity of rain is due to disrespect of local rainmakers by failing to give them chicken and goats for eating. · Big game such as elephants and buffaloes is becoming more scarce · There are now increased human/baboon conflicts. This is attributed to increase in baboon population, although it is not supported by any research facts · Increased deforestation on communal land, which has led to more soil exposition. Land is becoming less and less productive and grazing grasses and trees have become less abundant.

175

Community concerns about the above mentioned changes. Included reduced wood fuel for domestic cooking and building materials within the communities and the following: · Medicinal trees and shrubs are becoming less available · Little rain due to deforestation, overgrazing, and the resulting soil erosion and reduced soil fertility · Increased human/wildlife conflicts · There is over-fishing in the Lake due to illegal fishing gears and poaching of wild animals. It was noted by one participants that this was not their concern, but the concern of the PA management · Uncontrolled immigration into the communities was also cited as a big concern What the communities are doing to address the concerns. They have informed the government about the uncontrolled immigration into their communities but the government has not helped them. Also: · They have decide to begin killing wildlife that become problem for them in self- defense. During the reign of a one Dr. Linner Max, they were told that the park would compensate for any damages that were done by wild animals. This promise was broken and no compensation has ever been made. Also, vermin guards have been recruited and posted to each sub-county, but there are not working. There is no explanation why they were stopped from working. Some speculations are that they lack equipment such as guns. (Dr. Linner Max was an expatriate German warden) · The community leaders have also informed the government about illegal fishing that is taking place in the lake, and the government has taken no action. · There is tree planting on a very limited scale, and this is done to protect houses rather than to alleviate fuel wood problems. · Few individuals have established fishponds and the fisheries extensionists are trying to promote fish farming but it has not yet been adopted. · Although poaching of wild animals is still going on, it is on a reduced scale. The little poaching currently going on is due to poverty among community members · There is nothing being done about over-grazing due to cultural values. More cattle culturally means social respect and prosperity

The future of Bugungu wildlife reserve. It was generally agreed that the future PA was oblique unless the following was done urgently: · The issue of poverty among the communities needs to be addressed · Education programs should be intensified, and a concession on provision of meat should be considered for the local people. · There is a need for the people to change their cultural attitudes toward overstocking of livestock

176

Bwindi Impenetrable National Park

Community issues. Bwindi Impenetrable National Park is located in three main districts, of Rukungiri, Kabale and Kisoro. The PA has a long history of involving communities in management programs. With support from CARE Uganda, a project known as “Development Through Conservation” (DTC) has been implement around the PA. Main activities have focused on providing alternatives to neighboring communities, in order to take off pressure from the park resources. Negotiated arrangements with different community institutions and other interest groups, where communities have been given access rights to park resources have been instituted under the multiple use programs. Community awareness raising through seminars, posters, meetings and community mobilization has also been undertaken. Due to the presence of mountain gorillas in the park, tourism is an important activity in the PA, and hence revenue sharing programs are well developed at this PA. Majorities of the people are Bakiga and Bahororo. Other tribes include Bafumbira, Banyarwanda, Batwa, and Bahunde from Congo. Average family sizes quoted in the discussions were 7-10 people. Economic activities. Main economic activities include the following: · Growing of crops such as coffee, tea, bananas millet, maize, sweet and irish potatoes, yams, peas and beans cassava is also grown · Commercial tree growing for sale as fire wood to the tea factory · Pitsawying, brick making and quarrying – mining stones for building and minerals and wolfram · Livestock (goats, cows rabbits, piggery) · Retail trading, lodging and eating places and wage earners-working in the PA and tea estates · Brewing and operation of bars, as well as fish farming but on a small scale Special skills for natural resource management. There were no special Skills identified, other than the following: · Terracing land during cultivation, crop rotation and fallowing · Knowledge that burning releases minerals that are essential for growth of millet and using animal manure in soil fertility maintenance · Mulching skills for the growing of bananas and tomatoes · Crop spacing, general crop husbandry and agro-forestry practices – it was mentioned that these skills were acquired from the CARE DTC project. · Seed selection for sowing and pasture management · Bee keeping – identifying tree species for making hives. Also tree species which when smoked attract bees. Environmental issues. Bwindi is a local name, which means dark, muddy and impenetrable. The forest serves a water catchments function, and is a source of 5 major rivers that flow into Lake Edward. The park has rich, diverse and unique ecosystems currently confined within the boundaries of the park, but it used to extend way beyond.

177

· Changes in rainy and dry seasons-unpredictable seasons of the year and increased temperatures over the past years. · Reduced rainfall and water levels leading to dried swamps and scarcer water sources. · Reduced soil fertility and increased water siltation making water sources dirtier · Decrease indigenous tree species and increased exotic ones especially eucalyptus and vegetation changes from forests to grasslands · Increased human diseases such as river blindness, kwashiorkor, malaria and plant pests and increased human population · Big game has reduced, such as buffaloes and leopards especially outside the PA · Warming climate favors growth of some fruit trees such as avocados and mangos. Community concerns about these environmental changes. Difficulty in predicting seasons leads to crop failures, loss of produce and leads to inadequate food, food insecurity and poverty. · Fear of spread of desert-like condition due to prolonged drought · Land scarcity and emigration as population grows, leading to breaking of family ties · Shortage of water and other natural resources such as medicinal plants · Fear of decrease in fertility rates due to poor feeding for both young males and females · Loss of community lands to animals as wild animals increase inside the PA. It is feared that “mzungus” have a plan to expand the size of the PA, thereby displacing people. · There are concerns that the aid /support being given for conservation from international NGO’s is a way of bribing the government, so that the white people can take over the land and displace the locals. · It is believed that eucalyptus trees, which are common in the area dries soils. Strategies employed to address concerns about the changes. People neighboring the PA have started fleeing problem animals to other parts of the country · They are using animal and compost manure to restore soil fertility. · Communities are using family planning methods to address problems associated with big families to cater for. They are being assisted by CARE – Child reproductive health project (CREHP) · They are practicing agro-forestry practices to diversify their income sources, food sources, firewood and soil protection · They are beginning to fence off their land in order to keep away problem animals · They are beginning to use high yielding seed varieties which are being provided under the CARE- DTC projects to address shortages of food · They have formed cooperative societies in cropping so that they can ensure protection of gardens from wild animals on a cooperative basis · They have improvised efficient means of minimizing loss of foods through poor storage facilities.

178

· They have started growing drought resistant crops such as cassava and long keeping crops such as millet · They are beginning to use chemicals (fungicides) in order to kill pests and fungi to increase food production. · They are beginning to plant medicinal plants and papyrus around their homesteads · Lobbying for health centers and cooperation with NGO and government to set them up · Rearing domestic animals on small scale such as zero grazing to provide the needed proteins that would otherwise come from wild meat · Growing of specialized cash crops in order to increase their incomes and consolidating land to decrease land fragmentation Future of wildlife outside the protected area. There is little wildlife outside the PA. The less destructive wildlife may have a future, but the destructive ones do not have any future at all. They could have a future, if there is compensation for the loss made by animals, sensitization on the importance and value of conserving wildlife on their own lands and rewarding those who would conserve wildlife on their private land. If wildlife could attract tourists, and revenue from tourism is paid directly to the landowner, then wildlife could have a future. Future of Bwindi impenetrable national park. The future of Bwindi will depend on the following: · Sensitize communities around the PA on the importance of the PA · Guard against problem animals from the PA by fencing and compensate for losses made by problem animal from the PA. · Reduce numbers of vermin in the PA that destroy crops such as baboons and wild pigs · Share income with land owners in case a tourist visits a gorilla on an individual land outside the PA · Encourage planting of crops that are unpalatable to wildlife such as tea next to the PA · Regularize revenue sharing with the communities, and increase the share of the revenue shared. The core cells/households should directly benefit and not a percentage to go to the whole parish.

Karuma Wildlife (Non-CBC)

Community issues. Communities around Karuma Wildlife Reserve are mixed in terms of language, occupation and origin. There are about 23,000 indigenous people, these are the Chope people who were displace from the Chobe sector in MFNP. There are 70,000 displaced people who include the Alur, the Acholi and the Langi. Subsistence agriculture is the main economic activity followed by business (mostly small shops and produce trade). The communities are characterized by low income; low levels of education and on average there are seven people per household. Community skills of natural resource management. Knowledge about importance of wildlife, and tree planting skills that have been promoted by the and Economic Development (EPED) Project

179

· Use of firewood saving stoves · Use of compost manure and chicken droppings and crop rotation and fallowing to maintain soil fertility. · Capturing and rearing of wildlife such as monkeys, baboons etc and the apiculture skills · Maintenance of water points e.g. knowing when to clean wells, planting water plants so that water retention is increased. Environmental/natural resources issues. Fuel wood crisis (Firewood for cooking, curing tobacco, for sale etc). This has increased the pressure on the PA as far as wood products are concerned. · Lack of building poles, inadequate agricultural land that is increasingly becoming infertile. · Lack of water sources for both livestock and domestic consumption · People are only interested in using natural resources, and they are not interested in its conservation. Further discussions revealed that this was a result of lack of land tenure rights especially by the displaced people, who hope to go back to their original homes when security prevails in their home areas. · Displaced people have negative attitudes toward resource use, and they lack incentives to conserve. They do not feel that they should invest in the land, for they are only concerned about their survival. · Some traditional practices such as shifting cultivation are issues in environmental conservation, because of their destructive nature to the environment · Increasing numbers of problem animals outside PA leads to increase in conflicts with the PA management. If people kill wildlife, they may be arrested. If they do not kill it, wildlife will destroy their property. · Decreasing numbers of wildlife outside the PA, is an issue for the people who depend on wild meat as a protein source. It is now increasingly difficult to carry out successful hunts due to decreasing wildlife outside the PA. · Lack of coordination in addressing PA conflicts with the communities · The boundary of the reserve is not properly demarcated and is not marked · Government has failed to properly plan for land use development in rural areas. Communities are left to fend for themselves resulting in conflicting land use. Also, some of the conflicts are a result of conflicting government policies or unfulfilled promised government programs. These conflicts are not properly addressed and are left affecting local people. Copying strategies from the communities. Planting trees for charcoal making. It was admitted that the numbers of people who are planting such trees are about 5% of the population. However it was pointed out that those who try encounter numerous problems, such as: lack of secure land tenure, termites, lack of seedlings, funds and technical staff, expensive chemicals to kill termites and other diseases. · The local council is putting in place legislative measures to ensure that the people plant trees in their land.

180

· Constructing permanent housing using materials such as bricks, and iron sheets, to avoid constant need for building materials. · Land use intensification to help in the need for opening up more virgin land for cultivation · Livestock husbandry diversification, i.e. carrying out piggery, goats, rabbits, which will serve as a source of proteins in order to substitute hunting of wildlife · Interests in the development of fishing ponds are on the increase, but there is lack of technical expertise to assist the local people. · Apiary industry is on the increase among the local people. · People are requesting the government to give them part of the reserve, so that they have enough land for their agricultural needs. Discussions revealed that people feel that the conservation land is too big. It was also pointed out that the common reasoning from communities is that tourism is the main reason for conservation. Therefore, since there is no tourism in Karuma, land should be given to people to meet their own needs. Conservation and management of wildlife should only be practiced in Murchison Falls where tourism is. Future of wildlife outside the protected area. The future survival of wildlife outside Karuma is minimal because of the following: · Deforestation is causing prolonged drought · Increasing human population has increased demand for land, displacing wildlife further. · Hunting efforts are increasing with little catch or at times no catch at all, therefore wildlife seems not have any future outside the PA. · The future of wildlife is only possible inside the PA but not outside. · Charcoal burning and other causes of deforestation still have monetary values, which act as incentives for increased deforestation. · A pending / possible environmental crisis as a result of over use of resources, could act as an incentive to communities to appreciate values of natural resources and the need to conserve wildlife.

Katonga Wildlife Reserve (non–CBC)

Community issues. There are five sub-counties that surround Katonga. In Mpara sub-county there are different ethnic groups, but the majority are the Banyankole and Bakiga. Bwizi parish is also multi ethnic, with Bafumbira, Bagisu, Badam and Bacholi in addition. Family composition is estimated at an average of 7 people per family Education levels and infrastructure. The majority of the people are believed to have completed primary five level of education and there are four secondary schools that have been recently established. There are 32 primary schools in the five sub-counties Economic activities. Economic activities include brewing local waragi, subsistence cultivation by immigrants, cattle keeping common in parishes that border the PA, bee keeping, fish farming, hunting of pigs, cattle and retail trade. Special skills in the communities. The following skills were identified:

181

· Skills for managing soil fertility such as crop rotation and bush fallowing. Fallowing is mostly done by those with big pieces of land · They carry out selective breeding for the cows through castration techniques. There are very few people who are adopting cross breeding techniques · They have hunting skills such as making traps, burning some places so that animals can be attracted to the burnt grass, and being able to track animals. Environmental issues. Environmental changes over the past years · Prolonged droughts, decreased water sources and levels, increased bush burning and decrease in vegetation cover. · Degraded grazing for cattle (more and more un-platable grass is coming up in the pastureland. Such shrub species include Lantana camara, acacia, kyakuyambaki, emikwata-ngwe, emisheshe and Acanthus arboreus) · Decreased soil fertility and increased pressure on land as a result of increase in human population · Increase in diseases in human beings and livestock · Decrease in wildlife population in and outside the PA and increased wildlife habitat destruction Community concerns due to the changes. The following were highlighted: · Scarcity of pastures and water for livestock attributed to prolonged drought · Shortage of food due to drought · Shortage of land and increased land conflict attributed to increased human population · Loss of livestock due to diseases and lack of pastures · Poverty, due to decreased crop and animal production as a result of drought · Out- immigration of the local people from the village makes people miss their friends and relatives Community strategies to address the concerns. The following were the major concerns: · Pasture management by clearing the un-palatable grasses and shrubs and de-stocking of the livestock. · Planting of drought resistant crops such as cassava and millet · Fencing land to reduce land conflicts – land ownership used to be open access, now it is being managed under private ownership. · Bigger wells and water dams are being constructed to increase the volume of water stored · They are beginning to diversify their income sources through diversification of crops grown and livestock reared, and fish farming. Future of wildlife outside the reserve. Wildlife outside the PA is threatened in comparison to the past five years. This is due to increased human population, habitat destruction and hunting of game. However, the future of wildlife could depend on the following · Confining wildlife in PA or else they will be hunted out

182

· Crop raiding wildlife should be controlled through collaborative mechanisms between the PA management and the communities · Family planning as a means of controlling human population growth is essential · Grass root education of the communities and primary schools around PA to increase awareness on the values of the PA. Compensating for the lost opportunities for the resources in the PA, such as wild meat. · Stopping the encroachment of the PA. Encroachment is often due to failure of the people to realize the value of the PA, and they insist that the government should degazzet the PA to increase pasture for their cattle. Wildlife is of no benefit to the people who neighbor the PA. · Policies that ensure that communities around the PA benefit directly. Projects that promote the welfare of the people, e.g. dispensaries, water dams, otherwise, they see grazing as a direct benefit than wild animals. · Good and incorruptible leadership of the PA and good neighborliness between communities and PA especially in periods of disaster such drought.

Kibale National Park (CBC)

Population composition. Kibale National Park is surrounded by multi ethnic community composed of Batooro people as the majority and Bakiga as the second biggest ethnic group. The Kibale and Semuliki Conservation and Development Project (KSCDP) with technical support from the IUCN has supported the park to institute a CBC program to help conserve the park. The main goal of the project is to conserve the ecological process of Kibale National Park and promote sustainable use of natural resources both within and outside the PA. Main activities include support to the park to mark and maintain park boundaries, raise awareness through radio programs, drama groups and promote sustainable use of resources through promotion of efficient charcoal stoves, tree nurseries and sustainable agricultural practices. Revenue sharing programs have been instituted as well. Education. Majorities of people have finished primary seven and few have senior four level. There are 10 primary and two secondary schools, and one teacher-training institute. In Hakibale sub-county, there are eight primaries, one secondary and one technical school. The majority of the people have finished secondary school. Family size averages between 8-10 people per household Economic activities. Subsistence agriculture is the main activity around the park. Crops grown include; maize, millet, and tomatoes. Bananas, and groundnuts, beans, irish potatoes, and bananas for brewing, tea, coffee. Other activities include brick making, petty trade and sale of family labor especially in tea plantations. Women groups come together to work for developments. Campsites, livestock, savings and credits organizations, bee keeping (some of the bees are reared in the park) tourist campsites, charcoal burning and piggery are also practiced. Face foundation and tea states are the biggest employers of the communities. Community skills. The following were highlighted as the main economic activities around the PA.

183

· Weeds are made to rot instead of burning them in order to increase soil fertility. Composting techniques are also used to make manure for improving soil fertility. · Planting of agro-forestry trees among the gardens. (KSCDP project hires extension workers who train people in agricultural skills). · Planting of napia grass to control soil erosion, mulching and feeds for cattle. · Energy efficient saving stoves are used to reduce on the amount of firewood used · Bee keeping skills such as planting trees around beehives for pollination and poles, flowers and grasses in making beehives. Perceived environmental changes over the past decade. The following were highlighted: · Natural resources such as traditional medicines, thatching grasses and grazing pastures have decreased and mushrooms have become rare · Human population has increased · Natural forests have continued to shrink and exotic tree species have increased · Prolonged droughts are now more apparent and water sources have reduced as wetlands are drying up. · Vermin animals have increased, especially elephants, monkeys and wild pigs but edible animals have reduced outside the PA. · Crop diseases and pests such as banana weevils have increased and soil fertility has reduced. Concerns as a result of these changes. Concerns included: · Increased drought leading to famine, starvation and lack of water sources, as the remaining water sources are inside the PA · Increased vermin that leads to food insecurity, poverty and deteriorating livelihood security · More damage by termites is being experienced as the termites burrow for water through gardens. · Our future generations will not be able to see some of this wildlife we have at the moment, they will have to travel longer distances to areas, where these animals are, in order to see them. Strategies of the community in addressing these concerns. Strategies included: · Communities are planting trees and are now making charcoal from wood chips and peelings. This is being done on a small scale in one of the parishes of Rutete · They have started small cottage industries such as piggery for production of meat and income generation · They have started construction of energy saving stoves · Making contour bands on which they plant grasses for mulching and using animal manure as a gardening strategy to replenish soils. · Planting Mauritius thorns (ceasalipinia decaptala) a thorny shrub and digging trenches as a vermin control mechanism. · Planting crops that are unpalatable to vermin animals.

184

· Establishing laws that prohibit destruction of wetlands in order to increase water sources in communities. · Planting of plants from which materials for making crafts are got. This is mainly done on a small scale in Ruteete. Future of wildlife outside the protected areas. The group noted that the baboons and monkeys are common outside the PA in neighboring communities. These animals are not wanted outside the PA and it was strongly suggested that they should be sent back to the PA. Their survival outside the PA will depend on a number of factors: · Rate of habitat destruction as more and more forests are being converted into agricultural fields. · Ability by the government to compensate for the damage these animals cause to people’s property · Ability by government to put in place appropriate policies to ensure that wildlife habitats are conserved outside the PA. Such policies could include a rewarding mechanism for those people who can set aside some of their land for wildlife conservation. · Sharing benefits and resources, with communities in order to create a sense of co- ownership of PA. · Ability to chase problem animals back into the PA by increasing number of ranger camps around the PA. · The effectiveness of the current strategies in stopping problem animals From the discussions it was clear that local people do not want wild animals to be outside the PA.

Kidepo Valley National Park (non–CBC)

Community issues. There are four sub-counties, which border Kidepo. These are Karenga, Kapedo Karipata and Kathile. The communities living there are the Dodoth, Ike, Nabore, Nyanggai Mening Acholi, Jie and the Turkanas. The main ethnic group is the Karimojong and the major languages used Karimojong. Economic activities. Agriculture (Both livestock and crop husbandry), livestock includes cattle, donkeys, goats and sheep. There is also fish farming, which has just started in Karenga. Crops cultivated include maize, sorghum, beans tobacco, groundnuts, simsim and finger millet. Warriors carry out cattle rustling. Hunting is carried out on a subsistence level. Special skills from the communities. These included: · Cultural taboos, which prevent communities from destroying certain trees, such as those that are used as shrines. There are also beliefs by certain clans that if trees are cut, there will not be any rains. So vegetation and wildlife within such a worshiping area is not tampered with. Some clans such as Lokapel, Sangar, Lomacrioret, and Kameriong do not believe in such taboos. · There are restrictions in some of the clans about eating and or hunting some of the wildlife species such as snake.

185

Environment/natural resources issues. Issues included the following: · There has been massive deforestation due to increased demand for land for cultivation and settlement among the communities. Wetlands and streams are drying up · Wild animal population especially big game has drastically reduced due to hunting · There has been increased interference and erosion of cultural taboos by traitors in society who go to the shrines and cut sacred trees · Rainfall patterns have greatly changed. This has led to increased drought, famine and insecure livelihood in the communities · Soils have become impoverished and hence food production has greatly reduced Community’s concerns about these environmental changes. Concerns identified included: · Firewood has become scarcer. People now travel longer distances to collect firewood · Drought leads to crop failure, reduced grazing and water for both livestock and human consumption · There is a serious lack of building materials such as poles, rafters, reeds, fibers and grass · Increased soil erosion has created many gullies in the country side, which are dangerous to livestock and human beings · Due to hunting, there has been a total destruction of big game and now it is difficult to see any of these animals. · Uncontrolled immigration and internal seasonal movement of pastoralists has increased human and cattle population, which has led to over grazing. What the communities are doing to cope with the situation. The following were highlighted: · People are trying to plant more trees and reserve the natural forest such as in Karenga sub-county · People have informed the government about the Turkana immigrants who are entering their area · People have increased ridges (piled grass) and have began to dig drainage channels to stop soil erosion · Inter-cropping and crop rotation are some of the methods that have been introduced to increase food production · Communities have informed the relevant authorities about the problem animals that come out of the PA to destroy their crops · They are cooperating with the PA’s management in apprehending poachers who poach in the PA. · Communities have instituted a system to levy a fine to their members who are caught poaching. These poachers are charged and fined, by the community leaders. Fines range from 4 bulls and confiscation of guns, which are handed over to the PA to become a PA property.

186

The future of Kidepo valley national park. The future of Kidepo will depend on the following: · There should be improved relationship between PA management and neighboring communities · Government should increase logistical support to the PA in form of transport, staffs, communication, infrastructure, improved roads and airfield. · Training of the indigenous local people to manage some parts of the PA · Increase mutual co-operation between the PA management and security organs in addressing issues like cattle rustling, poaching and maintenance of good relations with neighboring communities at PA boarders. · Increased salaries and timely payments to the PA staff · More education and sensitization of local communities neighboring PA · Poverty in rural areas should be addressed to stop people from hunting. Tourist sites should be established and promoted in the neighboring communities

187

Kigezi Wildlife Reserve (non–CBC)

Community issues. Kigezi wildlife reserve is located in the sub-counties of Bwambara, Kanyabwanga and Kihihi. The main ethnic groups of the area are the Bahororo and the Bakiga. Other tribes include the Banyabutumbi, Banyarwanda, Bafumbira, Batwa and the Ba-congo. The average household size in the three sub- counties is seven. Education. There are 62 primary schools, five secondary schools (two with A- Level) and one Comparative Education school (COPE), which provides an equivalent of primary education on a shorter period to adults who may find it hard studying with the young ones. The majority of the people around PA have completed primary Seven. Economic activities. The main economic activity of the area is the growing of crops such as groundnuts, maize, soya beans, millet, sorghum, beans, sweet potatoes, rice, passion fruits and tobacco. The other economic activities include fishing and fish mongering, trading (retail shops, sale of agricultural produce, hotels and bars). Keeping of livestock (cows, goats, poultry and piggery), charcoal burning, brick making, brewing, tree planting, bee keeping and handcraft making. Community special skills. Special skills included: · Crop rotation skills, fallowing, shifting cultivation and agro-forestry techniques in order to maintain soil fertility and inter cropping skills to increase production · Tillage techniques that improve soil moisture such as burying grass and other debris during land preparation · Pasture management techniques such as paddocking · Skills in carrying out fishing, using fishing baskets · Bee keeping skills to know where to place hives and when Environmental issues. Environmental changes over the past five years that were mentioned included: · Prolonged droughts and when after a long time rains come they cause serious soil erosion · Decreasing water sources and increasing swamp drainage as a result of land reclamation from wet lands · Increased problem animals from the PA attributed to the insecurity in Congo (DRC) · Increased human population and decreased food production · Increased crop diseases such as banana weevils and coffee wilt and decreased soil fertility · Increasing deforestation attributed to tobacco curing and charcoal burning · Big game such as leopards, hyenas outside the PA has decreased but increased inside the PA

188

· Decreased indigenous tree and grass species such as spear grass (imperata cyclindrica). Other unpalatable invasive species such as lantana camara have taken over Community concerns due to the environmental changes. The following were highlighted: · Shortage of food due to drought, increased human population and insecurity · Poverty and its consequences, such as illiteracy causing emigration in search of more fertile lands · Shortage of natural resources such as firewood as a result of drying swamps leading to Shortage of water due to drought and drying of water sources resulting in spread of semi-desert like conditions. · Increased crop raiding and resultant conflicts between the PA and the communities as the wildlife increase in the PA. · Lack of building materials especially spear grass (imperata cylindrica) which has been replaced by Lantana camara Community strategies to cope up with the concerns. The following strategies were highlighted. · Communities have embarked on tree planting to replace the cut trees, in order to have enough for tobacco curing · Embraced and are practicing family planning techniques in order to check on human population increase · Have developed mechanism for live fencing to check on the marauding animals from the PA · Began construction of water springs and reserve tanks, in places such as Kihihi · Have began transporting animal manure to their gardens in order to enrich their soils · Began to grow commercial crops such as tobacco in order to curb poverty · Began planting of hybrid seeds especially maize and beans to check on food shortage · Some people in Kihihi have begun to plant swamp species such as papyrus on their own land. · They have begun using iron sheets due to lack of thatching materials. · A few people have began planting the indigenous markhamia spp for poles and timber · Communities are advocating for vermin guards and they are applying to local government to assist them · They are spraying crops such as beans and millet using chemical sprays such as di- ethene and ambush Future of wildlife outside protected area. The big game has decreased. However baboons, pigs, monkey and at times hyenas can be seen. But people do not want them on their land. They chase them back to the PA (implied is that they are hunted down). So wildlife has no future outside the PA. The future of wildlife inside the PA will depend on:

189

· Fencing all around the PA so that animals are restrained from going into communities · Sufficient and efficient PA management to monitor wildlife and chase them every time they get out. · Compensating the communities for their losses to wildlife · Increasing awareness/education on the values of wildlife and the dos and don’ts in the PA · Creating income-generating projects that can keep the communities busy and earn tangible benefits from the PA to feel a sense of ownership. · Revenue sharing from PA to communities and collaborative efforts to stop poaching of game · Employing the community members around as rangers to guard the PA and putting in place good and not corrupt management · Wise use of forest resources in PA – by use of nurseries for desired indigenous species for making hoe handles, walking sticks etc.

Lake Mburo National Park (CBC)

Community issues. There are five sub-counties around Lake Mburo National Park, namely Sanga, Kanyaryeru, Nyakashashara, Rubaya, and Rugaga. Population composition is mainly of the Banyankore, Bakiga and Bahororo. Other minor ethnic groups include Banyarwanda and Baganda. The African Wildlife Foundation has supported a community project aimed at improving relations between the PA and the neighboring communities. The project carried out a number of community development projects that included infrastructure development such as schools, dispensaries and roads. Minimum training of community members in tree nursery activities and working with community groups to improve their welfare through projects such as bee keeping, medicinal plants propagation have also been carried out. Education levels and infrastructure. There are 44 primary schools, six secondary schools. About 25% of the population can read and write. Average family size is about 6- 7 people. Economic activities. Subsistence agriculture is the main activity. Livestock (mostly cattle and goats, but there are also poultry and sheep on a small scale), fishing, petty trade, charcoal burning, brick making, apiary, hunting, brewing of local gin the waragi are also important activities. Community special skills. The following were identified: · Special skills for pasture management through rotational grazing and pasture improvement · Skills in controlling soil erosion through shifting of kraals. When there is much soil erosion in a given site, pastoralists shift and move to a new place. This is the reason why there are many kraals within · Skills in making own dams and water preservation · Skills in growing bananas through spacing, mulching and thinning · Hunting skills through trapping

190

Changes in the environment over the past five years. The following were identified: · Rainfall has generally reduced in most areas and there is prolonged drought-there are no more floods that used to take place in neighboring areas. Water sources are increasingly becoming scarce. However, in Bukanga, it is believed that rain has increased over the past years. Drought is not as prolonged as it used to be. · Vegetation cover has decreased except in the PA. Vegetation structure has changed from savanna grasslands to woodlands · Wild animals and fish have increased inside the PA but have decreased outside · Human population has increased by more than 50% in the last five years due to immigration · Air condition is deteriorating and is becoming dusty and dirtier Community concerns about the environmental concerns. Concerns included: · Famine and degraded pastures due to reduced rains, results in poverty due to decreased earnings from decreased agricultural production. · Life expectancy is going down due to denial of animal protein from PA. People who used to eat wild meat used to live longer. Due to lack of this protein, diseases are becoming more rampant · Unpredictability of the rains patterns, and hence it is hard to predict the planting seasons · Shortage of water due to drying out of streams and wells · Increased loss of soil fertility as a result of over utilization of the soils · It is expected that there will be increased conflicts between the PA and the communities, if the currents patterns of drought continue as the PA is the only permanent source of water. · Increased lack of pastures will affect the education quality of school going children as they have to graze cattle in distant places · Due to increased population pressure, there will be increased land scarcity · Extinction of some wild animals, especially those that are commonly hunted. Stray animals to the ranches are hunted. · As population increases due to immigration and modernization, the spirit of communal development will die out and individualism will instead be promoted.

191

Community strategies to cope with environmental changes above. Strategies included: · They are digging valley dams to store and conserve water and carrying out pasture management by removing the unpalatable grass and leaving shades · They are planting eucalyptus for fire wood and construction · They are diversifying their economic activities from predominantly cattle keeping to crop growing and business · De-stocking especially during the drought periods. · They have started rearing crossbreeds to intensify livestock production especially milk. · They are educating people about protecting the environment. At every local council there is a committee responsible for environmental education. Future of wildlife outside protected areas. Wildlife outside the PA has reduced, because of uncontrolled hunting, seeing no value in wild animals, in some areas there are no other alternatives for meat, so wild animals have to be hunted, and wild animals compete with domestic animals for pastures. Also, habitat destruction is another big cause to the reduced wild animals outside the PA. The few animals still remaining outside the PA can have a future, if people around are educated about their values and re- warding who ever keeps wildlife on their land. The future of wildlife within the protected area. The future of wildlife in the PA will depend on: · Educating communities around PA on a continuous basis and restricting access to the PA · Motivation of PA personnel in terms of salary, training and facilitation · Political stability in the country · Communities getting tangible benefit from the PA such as projects, schools, and revenue sharing. · Establishment of liaison offices, where to report illegal activities such as hunting. There is a need for committees to bridge the gap between the PA and the communities · Turning the PA into a communal wildlife reserve so that people can co-own it and manage it. · Reviving the honorary warden policies among community members and sustaining good relationship between communities and PA management · Having a strict law enforcement to those who do not obey the rules of the park · Allowing communities to utilize some of the resources in the PA, so that they can solve some of their immediate needs such as hunters who need wild meat · There should be a harmonized donor or UWA policy to communities on a continuous basis; the on and off donations irritate communities

192

· Land use planning around PA such as planting crops that are not eaten by wild animals will lessen conflicts of wildlife and hence contribute to the survival of the PA. Establish animal-proof fence so that animals in the PA do not stray to the communities.

Matheniko Wildlife Reserve (Non-CBC)

Community issues. Ethnic people living in communities around Matheniko include the Karimojong, Itesot, Bugusu, Turkana, Pokot, Sudanese, Jaluo, Kakwa, and Langi. Education level, infrastructure. There are high levels of illiteracy in the communities, the majority of the population with only primary level of education and below. Economic activities in the communities. The following activities were identified: · Livestock keeping (cattle, goats, sheep, camels and donkeys, piggery and poultry) and cattle rustling · Subsistence crop husbandry (sorghum, maize, cow-peas, pumpkins, sunflower, groundnuts, tobacco) · Charcoal burning, firewood selling and brick making · Seasonal gathering of food from the wild, apiary and hunting of wild game · Handcraft making (wood-curving, bow sticks, and arrows, pottery) · Brewing of local drinks, commonly known as kwete Community special skills. Special skills identified included: · Preservation of seeds using cow urine and smoking them on top of roofs of their huts · Preserving building poles by putting them under mud for two or more months. This makes them resistant to termites and weevils · Horn and wood curving to make artifacts to make meaningful designs such as curving a bull to indicate that one is brave and a hero. Branding of skins to identify with different clans · Soil conservation skills using logs, stones, grass heaps, tussock ridges made of grass Environmental issues. Environmental issues included: · Reduced tree cover in the countryside due to cutting of trees to make charcoal, fencing of the kraals and building manyattas. Increased drying of wetlands due to prolonged droughts. Increased loss of soil fertility due to over-grazing and over- cultivation in some parts · Human population increase that has led to increased demand on land resources · Degradation of cultural moral values such as taboos that used to restrict activities such as brick making has led to increased deforestation and de-vegetation of the landscape. · Immigration of different tribes has resulted in environmental changes such as increase land degradation.

193

· Reduced wild animal population such as giraffes, elands, zebras, kudu in the region due to hunting. · Increased problem animals such as hyenas, baboons, monkeys that have increased conflicts between human beings and PA management. · Increased deforestation especially along riversides, which used to be highly restricted and respected. Concerns about the changes above. Concerns included: · Reduced firewood for domestic use · Ignorance of the communities as they continue to cut down trees · Getting medicinal plants from the wild has become more difficult as the plants have become more and more scarce · Reduced pastures due to prolonged droughts and increased numbers of livestock · Brick making has led to increased drought. This is strongly believed among the communities. (It was mentioned that that week some brick makers were beaten and as a result there was strong rains). · Ignoring of cultural taboos and beliefs can lead to misfortunes and pestilence. For example a fortuneteller foretold that four elephants would come in the area and that people should not kill them. Unfortunately one was killed and this, it is believed, resulted in prolonged drought, mass cattle raiding and many people lost their lives. However, at a later date, a sacrifice was made and the following year and there was a bounty harvest, and enough rains. What the communities are doing about their concerns. Activities included: · Local councils are carrying out sensitization programs to local communities about the need to plant trees. · The World Food Program is paying people in food terms for those who dig holes and plant 15 neem trees along the roads. This tree planting programs is still on a very small scale, and its success cannot be predicted. · People of Ruper sub-county have conserved their natural vegetation around their kraals in a place called Kidepo, Longoroko and Nadunget. · Vegetation in traditional shrines and river sides are being protected by elders · The elders are promoting cultural values that have conservation themes such as protecting specific tree species used for cultural functions, improved harvest and soil fertility. Such trees are also planted around kraals and it is believed that such trees have protective qualities. Future of Matheniko wildlife reserve. The future of the PA is not good if the following is not done: · Immediate dialogue should be held on the issue of traditional shrines, which are found inside the PA. These shrines serve as places for making peace between different tribes and foretelling. · Alternative grazing areas should be identified, because the PA is the grazing area of the Matheniko pastoralists.

194

· Insecurity in the area, and reduced wild game should be urgently addressed, since these have led to the communities uncontrollably using the PA. · Provision of alternative sources of water outside the PA (the previous government established valley dams within the PA).

Mgahinga gorilla National Park (CBC)

Community issues. Mgahinga Gorilla National Park is located in Kisoro district to the south west of Uganda. It borders with Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The PA lies in two sub-counties of Muramba and Nyarusiza. The majority of the people are Bafumbira and Bakiga, with few Batwa. It was reported in the discussions that an average household is composed of 8 to 10 people in both sub-counties. Education levels and infrastructure. There are 16 primary schools around the PA and only one secondary school. The majority of the people were reported to have completed primary seven, and very few completed senior secondary schools. Economic activities. The main economic activities include: · Cultivation of crops such as irish potatoes, beans, sorghum, wheat and peas. · Trading in produces, retail shops, bars and eating kiosks · Casual labor, brewing of the local beers and spirits and bee keeping · Livestock (piggery, cattle, goats and poultry) but on a small scale Special skills in natural resources management. Skills discussed were: · Improving soil fertility using compost and animal droppings manure · Terracing, band stabilization and contour farming on the slopes of hilly mountains · Agro-forestry practices and crop rotation Environmental issues. Environmental changes over the past 5 to 10 years that were mentioned include: · Reduced soil fertility and increased human population · Reduced rainfall, prolonged drought, decrease in wetland cover and shrinking water sources · Changes in seasons for planting and crop husbandry · Increased vegetation cover in PA but decreased outside the PA. Wild animals has decreased outside the PA but increased inside the PA · Increased diseases and pests for crops and increasing temperatures (it is becoming hotter than it used to be) Concerns about the above environmental changes. The following were identified: · Shortage of water due to drought, drying of swamps and other water sources · Poverty due to decreased agricultural produce, restricted access to raw materials for crafts from the PA and famine due to decreased yields and prolonged droughts · Land scarcity due to increasing human population · Increasing diseases leading to death of domestic livestock

195

· Failure to predict seasons, for planting due to erratic and unpredictable seasonal changes · Increasing incidents of crop destruction as wild animals in the PA increase · Shortage of medicinal plants due to extinction of medicinal tree species outside PA · Scarce bean- stakes and building materials as bamboo are only found in PA Strategies to cope up with the concerns about the changes. Activities below were emphasized: · People have began to plant their own tree wood-lots for firewood and building materials since the sources they used to rely on are in the PA · Credit and saving groups have been institutionalized and they help in coping with poverty and famine by lending money to the needy to enable them to buy food · People have began to migrate in search of bigger and better land for agricultural production · Application of manure in the agricultural fields, also use of contour bands, and crop rotation. A few people have began using artificial fertilizers · Other few people have began planting their own medicinal plants around their homesteads and bamboo on their land. They are few because of land scarcity, if land was big enough, more people would have taken to planting bamboo. Others have planted black wattle trees for fibers and elephant grass for bean stakes that they used to get from bamboo in the PA. Future of wildlife outside protected areas. There is no more wildlife outside PA due to land scarcity, which led to the destruction of the habitats. All the wildlife outside the PA were hunted, and it is not peoples wish to have any wildlife outside PA. Future of Mgahinga gorilla national park. It was revealed through the discussions that the future of the park will depend on; · Provision of bamboo rhizomes on a continuous basis, and encouraging people to plant it outside the PA on individual plots · Fence the park so that the animals do not get out to community land · Compensate destroyed crops-this would improve the community attitudes toward the park. Also, this would compel wildlife managers to ensure that animals do not stray out of the park lest they continuously spend money on compensation. · Construct water sources outside PA to reduce pressure on the PA waters. · Increase labor through increased ranger out-posts in the PA to ensure effective monitoring and prevention of illegal activities in the PA · Increase revenue sharing percentage and allow resource sharing in PA

Mt. Elgon National Park-North (Non-CBC)

Community issues. Mount Elgon National Park is located to the eastern side of Uganda, in the border with Kenya. It is located in two districts of Kapchorwa to the north and Mbale to the south. Communities around Mount Elgon National Park are predominantly Bagisu and Sabiny. No other tribes were cited as residing around the park.

196

Average household composition cited ranged from 8 to 10 people in Bushiyi parish 6- 8 people per household in Sipi sub-county and 10 to 15 people in Bubenzia and Zesui parishes. The low number of household composition in Sipi sub-county of Kapchorwa was explained as the effect of religion (Catholic), which taught against polygamy when they were establishing themselves in Kapchorwa in the early 20’s. The big household sizes in the Bugisu parishes are attributed to the polygamy culture of the people. Education levels and facilities. It was reported during the discussions that the majority of the people in most of the parishes, are primary level school leavers. This was attributed to the less importance given to education, very few or no schools in the respective parishes and difficult access to the existing schools. Young children are discouraged from traveling long distance to schools, and the hilly terrain also makes access to schools very difficult. There are 26 primary schools in all the 52 parishes neighboring the national park, and only one secondary school. There are no tertiary or post secondary colleges. Economic activities. Major economic activities include subsistence farming (both cattle and crop husbandry), employment in the Park especially by the Forests for Absorption of Carbon-dioxide Emissions (FACE) project, petty trade (shops, stalls and cross-border trade), sell of forest products such as mushrooms, firewood, and bamboo. Also, bee keeping and apiary, sell of produce, especially maize and potatoes, brick – laying, beer brewing, pitsawying and sell of labor, are also very important. Others include sell of medicinal herbs and services, hiring out donkeys, charcoal burning, hunting especially of the black and white colobus monkey, eating places in the villages, construction activities such as establishment of workshops and contracting out building facilities. Special community skills in the management of natural resources. Skills included: · Tree planting skills that have been acquired over time through the Mount Elgon Conservation and Development Project (MECDP) and growing of agro-forestry trees such as castor –oil trees – this is a traditional skill. · Growing of fodder trees to feed on cattle such as kushiomo and growing of multi- purpose trees such purposes include demarcating boundaries, firewood supply and construction. · Leaving uncultivated pieces of land to stop soil erosion. · Selecting special firewood species such as Shiashirumari and use of energy saving stoves (Yuya stoves), which were introduced by MECDP. Environmental issues. Environmental changes over the past 5-10 years that were mentioned: · Changing rainfall patterns – heavy rains used to come in May and July, now it is less heavy and dry days have increased. Water levels in rivers have dropped · Soil fertility has decreased and as a result plants (crops) grow at a slow rate leading to poor crop yields. · Increased deforestation and landslides, soil erosion especially in Bushiya and Zesuyi in the east and Butinga in Bumbo. · Wild animals such as black and white colobus monkeys have reduced

197

· Temperatures up in the mountain have increased and mosquitoes are now found in higher altitudes of the mountain where they never used to be. · Grazing land has reduced due to increased cultivation and increased human population · Increased animal diseases Concerns about the environmental changes. Changes included: · Possible starvation and hunger due to decreased crop yield and unpredictable seasonal changes. · Increasing landlessness and increasing poverty due to reduced production · Increased risks of land slides and increased prevalence of diseases · Loss of natural species due to extinction · Lack of enough and clean water and increasing scarcity of fire wood for cooking purposes · Increasing need for use of fertilizers due to loss of soil fertility, which increases the costs of agricultural production. Strategies to cope up with the concerns. The following were identified: · Planting of trees on both sides of roads, to ensure availability of firewood and shelter (still being planned, nurseries already established) · Increased use of compost manure i.e. cow dung in agricultural production · Identified a strong need for extension agents · Some few people have started on zero grazing with the help of the MECDP · People have agreed to join hands with the Rural Water and Sanitation Project to provide clean water by contributing to the water development expenses · Providing farmers with advice on cultivation techniques · Making contour bands and planting trees alongside contours to check soil erosion · Growing of Napier grass for cattle fodder under zero grazing · Establishment of wood lots on individual private land for fire wood · Identified a need to collaborate with the PA management to stop hunting Future of Mount Elgon National Park. The group observed that the future of the PA would depend on: · Successful sensitization of people about the values of the PA and providing tangible benefits to the people · Enforcing appropriate laws to protect the PA and understanding the roles of the community and the PA management · Providing alternatives to forest resources to the people so as to reduce their pressure on the resources in the PA · Ensuring boundaries are clearly maintained and ensuring sustainable use of the trees

198

Murchison Falls National Park

Community issues. Communities represented included parishes of Ngwendo, Boro, Kulabora, Pabidi, Kal, Tadora, Parakeyo, Patila, Amaro, Latoro, Mukale, Atiak, Pe-omeru, Ywanga, Pangora, Kigwera, Kisyabi, Ganda, Oyoro, Atek, and Amwa. Population estimates of the surrounding sub-counties Sub-county Population Number of parishes Pakwach 160,000 6 Buliisa 3,700 3 Minakulu 436,000 6 Anaka 30,880 6 Purongo 14,413 5 Koch-Goma 19,280 6 Panyimuru 6,000 3 Education infrastructure and levels. These included: S/County Primary schools Secondary schools Tertiary/ Colleges Education levels Minakulu 14 1 1 Secondary level Purongo 3 - - Primary level Koch-Goma 9 1 - Primary level Pakwach 15 3 2 Secondary level Panyimuru 10 1 - Primary level Buliisa 14 1 - Primary level Anaka 7 1 1 Primary level Economic activities. Economic activities include: fishing, cattle subsistence agriculture, charcoal, brewing, bush meat, bicycle hire trans blacksmith, and petty trading. Natural resources management skills within communities. It was mentioned that traditional skills that were useful are no more any longer. Some few were mentioned which included: · Hunting skills of ensuring that only mature animals are hunted is no longer in place and today any wild animal is killed for meat. · Seed preservation skills using hot pepper is still being practiced in most farming communities · Ploughing using oxen is another skill that is still in place in most of these communities. · Cattle zero grazing skills have been acquired in the recent past. · Book keeping skills have been acquire through training by NGO’s Environment and natural resources issues The issues below were identified: · More wetlands are being cleared and there is increased deforestation – land is increasingly becoming bare · Decreased wild animal population and decreased fish catch · Increased soil erosion and changing rainfall patterns

199

Concerns about these environmental changes and scarcity of natural resources. These included: · Reduced wood fuel for cooking and increased scarcity of building materials · Decreased food production due to inadequate rainfall patterns · There was a concern expressed about loss of human life and the government has not compensated the people. Coping Mechanism. The following mechanism were mentioned as those which are being instituted by communities in addressing the above mentioned concerns and scarcity of natural resources · Tree planting initiatives have been started and there are campaigns to reduce on the livestock numbers. (This contradicts information from Karuma where there are strong traditions about the bigger number of cattle, which is a social status symbol). · Establishing of bye-laws by the local communities in order to control charcoal burning · Training by NGO’s on land management kills and use of crop rotation to increase land production · Community initiated awareness program have been started to address the issue of deforestation · Community leaders also report their concerns such as problem animals to the relevant government offices Future of wildlife in Murchison. The group expressed their concern that the future of wildlife will be oblique unless the following issues were addressed: · There is a strong need to have political support toward the efforts to a good future for wildlife. · Ensure that notorious poachers from communities who are known to be habitual poachers should be given employment opportunities. · Ensure that poverty levels among the poaching communities are reduced, for most of the poaching is done due to poverty. · Boundaries of the PA should be clearly demarcated · Community property that is destroyed by wildlife should be compensated for.

Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve (Non-CBC)

Community issues. There are 20 parishes in 15 sub-counties that surround Pian- Upe wildlife reserve. Different ethnic groups live in communities around the PA and they include Pokot, Bagisu, Sabiny, Baganda, Bagisu, Itesot, Karimojong, Kadam and Turkana. The commonly used languages are Swahili, Ngakarimojong and English. Educational infrastructure. There are 4 senior secondary schools, three of these are found in Teso district only one is found in the Karamoja district. The group estimated that 15% of the people finished their primary level education. Five percent was estimated to have finished secondary school and only 2 percent are estimated to have completed post secondary and the majorities have not been to school at all.

200

Economic activities. Economic activities include livestock rearing especially cattle, which are reared on a semi-pastoral basis. During the dry season there is extensive migration of cattle in search of water, and when rains come, cattle is brought back to the homesteads. Crop husbandry, petty trade, gold mining, hunting, fishing in the Grek river, harvesting mirrah in Mt. Kadam, bee keeping, charcoal burning, pitsawying in Mt. Kadam forest, firewood collection for sale, grass cutting for sale, bamboo harvesting from Mt. Kadam, quarrying for stones that are used for construction and brick making. Cattle rustlings were debate whether it is an economic activity since it was out-lawed. It was included for the fact that it is a people valued activity, which they carry out irrespective of the laws. Special community skills. Those identified included: · Nomenclature of the clan names that symbolizes wildlife, links people with wildlife and gives cultural values · Skills to hatch ostrich eggs and raise chicks and look after the adults. However the mortality rate is usually high. · Skills to trap bees and to site bee hives to ensure maximum chances of colonization · Processing honey into other products, such as wine and drugs. · Planting of trees such as eucalyptus in order to meet fire wood as well as building demands · How to make modernized bee hives Future of wildlife outside of the protected areas. It was observed that wildlife will survive outside the PA if: · Political and cultural will of the neighboring communities is ensured · Sensitization/education programs that are meaningful to people are carried out · Guns are taken away from the communities · The youth and notorious poachers are mobilized and persuaded to stop poaching (give them economic rewards).

Queen Elizabeth National Park

Community issues. Three districts, Kasese, Bushenyi and Rukungiri border Queen Elizabeth National Park. There is multi-ethnicity among the communities around the PA. Some tribes, which originate from Congo the Democratic Republic of Congo, such as the Bakingwe, are found in the Bwera sub-county. Education standards and infrastructure. In most sub-counties, education levels are below primary seven. There is a total of 108 primary schools, 23 secondary schools, one Teacher Training college and one Nursing Training college in all the sub-counties that border with the PA. Average household family size ranges from 5 to 10 people per household. Economic activities. There are different economic activities taking place in different sub-counties neighboring the PA. Main ones include subsistence agriculture, fishing, fish mongering, cattle keeping, brick making, petty trading, handcrafts, and tree nursery-beds. Other activities include lime mining (using firewood, limestone is burnt to produce lime), apiary or bee keeping, livestock (goats, sheep etc). Lumbering, salt

201 mining, salaried workers (youth work as Local Defense, Units LDU), hunting- this was reported in Munkunyu sub-county to the north of the park, and carpentry workshops for furniture are also important. Special skills among communities. People who live on the slopes of Mount Rwenzori have cultivation skills to control soil erosion, through establishment of windbreaks, inter-cropping, crop rotation, terracing and mulching. Also among the cattle keepers, people have developed special skills in pasture management by rotational grazing, and planting of exotic grass. Beekeepers have special skills in positioning beehives to ensure high success of bee colonization, and they also can tell from weather conditions a good swarming season. Fisher people have special skills in determining the success of the catch depending on the wind movements, moonlight, and knowing which areas should not be fished to enable fish breeding. Changes in the environment over the past five years. Changes identified included: · Habitat destruction and deforestation have increased due to bush fires, cultivation and over-grazing over the years. Wildlife has decreased in and outside PA · Decreased rainfall, prolonged drought periods, changing rainfall patterns and drying of streams, wetlands and other water sources · Decreased soil fertility, increased soil erosion and incidences of landslides in the hilly areas of the Rwenzori Mountains and deteriorating grazing pastures and air quality. · Increased human population and increased human diseases · Fish catch has decreased both in numbers, species and size of fish · Some insects such as bees have continued to decrease in numbers, and this is attributed to use of chemicals such as ambush in spraying cotton and tomatoes People’s concerns about the above changes. Concerns included: · Famine and lack of food due to decreased agricultural output will lead to poor health of people due to poor feeding as a result of decreased food production. Persistent poverty will lead to poor education and the quality of life will continue to deteriorate · Increased poverty due to decreased agricultural production and poor marketing avenues. Poor People who what to do, will resort to stealing and cause insecurity in communities · Increased diseases due to climatic changes and deteriorating quality of air and water · Concerns about the future generation failing to see wildlife species if they go extinct in and outside PA · Failing to predict weather and climatic changes, hence difficulty in determining cropping season · Shortage of firewood and natural based resources such as timber and medicinal plants due to increased deforestation. · Fear of natural calamities such as strong winds that could be destructive due to lack of trees as wind breaks · Decreased fish catch will deprive people of a natural protein source hence bring about malnutrition especially of young children

202

Strategies the communities are employing to address the identified concerns. Strategies included: · Planting trees such as eucalyptus to get firewood · Establishing no fishing zones in the lakes George and Edward by the lakes rehabilitation committees. · Prohibiting swamp reclamation by the local people who are trying to convert wetlands into agricultural fields · Carrying out terracing, contour farming, and mulching in order to stop soil erosion – such as in eastern escarpment of the rift valley · Emigration to other parts of the country, where land is still plenty to get adequate land · Practicing family planning in order to have manageable family sizes · Enacting bylaws to prohibit bush burning among community members · People are now diversifying their sources of income such as carrying out both cultivation and trading · Some local communities report encroachers and discourage hunting in order to preserve wildlife in PA. This has been brought about by CARE project in the neighboring communities · Some families are planting medicinal plants near their homesteads to make sure that they do not go extinct · Establishing income generating projects such as apiary, rabbit rearing to eradicate poverty · Using fuel-efficient stoves and improved fish smoking kilns to minimize fuel wood consumption. · Establishment of fish farming on individual basis, in order to reduce pressure on the lakes George and Edward · Applying to NGO for support in addressing environmental concerns · Establishment of credit and savings schemes among community members to eradicate poverty through self help community projects such as dispensaries, schools etc · Improved waste management and sanitation in order to fight diseases such as cholera Future of wildlife outside the protected areas. There is still wildlife outside the PA although it is in small numbers. Common animals outside include baboon, monkeys leopards, pigs, squirrels and edible rats. However, local people do not want these animals outside the PA so they do not have a future there. If these animals are to remain outside, the following should be done: · Education programs should be started to educate people about the values of these animals · The park should reward those land owners who have managed to keep these animals on their land · Compensate the people who incur loses due to this wildlife

203

Future of wildlife in the protected area. The future of wildlife in PA will depend on the following: · Effect the 20% gate collection revenue sharing · Peaceful means in PA boundary marking · Strengthen ranger outposts to ensure effective law enforcement · Stop wild animals from going out of PA otherwise they will be killed · Establish cordial relationship between PA and communities. At the moment PA management harasses people on unfair grounds treating them as wrongdoers for example people should be allowed to keep their goats at Kisenyi landing site · Involve communities in conflict resolutions · Establish a compensation scheme and effect timely compensation to community members who incur loses due to wildlife · Increasing educational awareness of community members on PA values · Hire incorruptible staff to check on poaching and illegal grazing · Establish a spying network in communities around PA to report law breakers · Allow sharing of resources in PA for example bush meat, stone, float etc · Establish landing sites for fisher people who get derailed by winds

Semuliki Wildlife Reserve (Non-CBC)

Community issues. Compositions of the community include the Bakonzho, Bamba, Batoro, Batuku, Bakiga, Bangitte, and Banyarwanda. There are different languages spoken around the reserve that include Rutoro, Lukonzho, Lukiga, Rwandese, Rwamba, and Lubwisi. Education. Majority of people finished primary 7. There are very few secondary schools in the area and there are many children per family, parents cannot afford school fees. The few schools that are there are too far away and transport costs are high. People are generally poor and cannot afford school fees. Other constraints to education are that the border trade lures young people to engage in trade at an early age at the expense of going to school. Also, due to lack of employment by those who are educated, parents do not see any good reason why they should send their children to school. Economic activities. The following activities were highlighted as the main economic activities. · Agriculture (rice, cassava, beans, coffee). They also have livestock on a small scale (cows, goats and poultry) · Cattle grazing are the main activity in Rwebisengo. A prolonged dry season and crop raiding animals from PA discourage crop husbandry in this area. · In Hakibale sub-county, they carry out subsistence cultivation of bananas, maize, groundnuts, irish potatoes, millet and beans. Potatoes, peas, sorghum, onions and coffee are also grown. Hunting is also another economic activity.

204

· Fishing and fishing related activities on Lake Albert are the main economic activities in Kanara sub-county. · Water transport on the lake is another activity plus other small-scale businesses Special skills in the community. Skills identified included: · Terracing is a skill to control soil erosion on steep slopes · Soil fertility improvement by burying grass in the soil to rot · Agro-forestry skills by planting trees such as castor oil trees to influence rain and provide shade. · Energy saving stoves have been adopted in Hakibale sub-county. These have been introduced under the KSCDP project, and have been widely adopted. · There used to be established no fishing areas in the lake that were for fish breeding, but today, fishing is done everywhere. Environmental issues. Over the past 10 years, the following changes have been experienced · Soils have continuously lost their fertility · Rain seasons have drastically changed and become more erratic and unreliable · Vegetation in PA used to be grassland, but now it is becoming a forest. This is attributed to decrease in big game such as buffaloes and elephants. Population of game drastically reduced in the 1979 war, which destroyed much game. · Wild animals outside the reserve have reduced such as buffaloes and elephants · Wild pigs, baboons, hippos and warthogs have increased outside PA around water points · Forests have shrunk due to charcoal burning and cultivation and wetlands have been drained · Grazing grass and water for livestock has become scarce due to prolonged drought · Numbers of cattle have increased, and so has tsetse flies, ticks, and livestock diseases. · Water sources are increasingly becoming silted How the communities have address the identified concerns. The following activities were mentioned: · Carried out fallowing during cultivation practices and bush burning is discouraged · Communities have started tree-planting campaign in order to address rainfall concerns. In Hakibale sub-county, bylaws have been established whereby each household is required to plant at least 20 trees per year. · People are advised not to feed baboons, so that they do not get used to eating human food. It is hoped that this will discourage baboons from crop raiding. · Community members are now beginning to report charcoal burners and encroachers on the forests to relevant authorities · There are initiatives to dig water dams and maintain them constantly

205

· There are increasing concerns about increasing numbers of cattle as this will lead to a shortage of pastures. Future of wildlife. It was observed that the future would depend on a number of things: · Future of wildlife will depend on constantly reminding people to stop killing wild animals · Increase number of rangers for efficient and constant patrols and chasing of animals from people’s gardens to PA. · Timely action by PA management in case of vermin through compensation · Increase number of ranger stations around PA for security purposes. · Animals that cause destruction to crops such as monkeys and baboons do not have a future outside PA. But those that do not cause damage do have a future, as people would like to preserve them as their own. · Create business opportunities for local people so that they are kept too busy to engage in hunting and other illegal activities. · Erect barriers to stop animals from destroying crops, such as trenches and thorny fences · Encourage community members to plant their own trees, so that trees from PA are not destroyed for building materials and firewood · Continue education programs about importance of PA · Demarcate and clearly mark PA boundaries where they are not very clear.

Conclusion

Across all the protected areas, communities expressed their concerns about the environmental. A main theme that clearly comes out of these discussions is that of lack of rainfall and drainage of wetlands and deforestation. Assisting local people to earn their living are among the common suggestions from these discussions. Problems related to wildlife were also strongly expressed, and seems to be attached to the future survival of wildlife in general. Education component is one of strong recommendations from the discussions and strengthening of the protected area management on the ground. Throughout the discussions there was no mention of indigenous skills or knowledge about the management of natural resources. Community-based conservation activities that were aiming at increasing food production such as those controlling soil erosion were more relevant to the people than infrastructure development.

APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

Introduction

The Program for Studies in Tropical Conservation (PSTC) at the University of Florida is conducting an independent research study around 16 of the 20 protected areas of Uganda. In order to understand opinions, and needs of residents, we are conducting face-to-face interviews at four of the research sites namely: L. Mburo, Kibale, Semuliki, and Mt. Elgon. Respondent households to this survey are randomly selected from the parishes around the respective protected area (PA), in order to get representative data from the communities. You have been randomly selected from this community to be a respondent. Privacy is a key principle of this survey, and for that reason you will not be asked for your names or any identifying information. There are no wrong or right answers, and most importantly candid and honest answers are the most useful. If you have any questions about this survey, please feel free to contact either of the following offices: the Research Coordinator UWA, or the Community Conservation Coordinator UWA.

Attitude questions (HII)

Please choose the most appropriate response according to your opinion: Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 1. This PA is more of a liability 1 2 3 4 5 than an asset 2. This PA is just for foreigners 1 2 3 4 5 3. This PA should be abolished 1 2 3 4 5 4. What are the reasons for your choice in 3 above? a) b) c) d) Strongly Agree Neutral Disagre Strongly Agree e Disagree 5. To restrict access to resources in this 1 2 3 4 5 PA by community members is a good idea 6. The relationship between the 1 2 3 4 5 management of this PA and our community is cordial

206 207

7. What are the reasons for your answer in 6 above? (probe) a) b) c) d).

8. What would you like to see being done about the wildlife situation in this PA (probe) a) Take the animals to the zoos b) Hunt it all until it is finished c) Educate neighboring communities about its use d) Generate revenue for our own use e) Give it to us to manage and use. f) Fence off the PA g) Bring more animals h) Others Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Disagre e 9. Management of this PA is my 1 2 3 4 5 responsibility as well as the government's

10. How do you feel about the way this protected area is being managed? (a) Very happy (b) Happy (c) Neutral (d) Unhappy (e) Very unhappy

11. What changes would you wish to see being implemented as far as management of this PA is concerned? (Probe) a) b) c) d) Strongly Agree Neutral Disagre Strongly Agree e Disagree 12. Our community can better manage 1 2 3 4 5 this PA, if we were given full responsibility to manage

208

Knowledge Questions (HII)

Please pick the best choice that represents your understanding Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly agree disagree 1. PAs influence our local climatic 1 2 3 4 5 factors such as rain 2. PAs help in regulating soil erosion. 1 2 3 4 5 3. PAs help to purify the air we breathe 1 2 3 4 5 4. Poor farming practices is a threats to 1 2 3 4 5 the survival of PAs

5. Please put a check in front of the animal species that you know is endangered or threatened in Uganda a) Elephant b) Uganda kob c) Chimpanzee d) Baboon e) Gorilla f) None of these

6. The head of a protected area is known as a) Ranger b) Warden c) Project manager d) Director e) Chief f) Don’t know

7. Over the past five years, would you say that wildlife (both plants and animals) in this region has generally a) Increased in numbers all over the region b) Increased in numbers only in protected areas c) Decreased in numbers all over the region d) Decreased in numbers only outside protected areas e) Remained the same all over the region f) I don’t know

8. If you have marked that wildlife population has changed over the past five or more years, what do you think are the two primary causes of these changes? Please mark two causes that you know are the causes (probe). a) Changes in climate b) God's plan c) Uncontrolled access to natural resources d) Strict law enforcement mechanism by rangers e) Good relations between PA management and neighboring communities f) Destruction of habitats by agriculture modernization g) Increased human population h) Poor farming practices i) Involving community members in the management of protected areas j) Rampant poverty and lack of food k) Bad government rules that excluded people from the wildlife l) Corrupt government officials m) Conflictive relations between neighboring community and PA management

209

Very Happy Neutral Unhappy Very happy unhappy 9. What words could you use to describe 1 2 3 4 5 your feelings about the changes discussed above, in population trends in wildlife in this PA?

Behavior questions (HII)

1. Does wildlife cause you any problems? __Yes, __ No [if no go to question 5]

2. If yes, what types of problems (probe) a) Destroy my property (crops, fences, livestock) b) Transmit diseases to my livestock c) Transmit diseases to my people d) Compete for resources (grass, land, and water) e) Others-specify

3. On a monthly basis, what do you estimate your loss to be due to wildlife,

Type of damage Amount of damage (acres/number of Approximate cost livestock) (Shs.) Livestock loss Crop damage Loss of grazing Other

4. What do you do to address such problems? a) Report to the PA authorities b) Guard my property (specify how) c) Bait / trap and kill the offending wildlife d) Invite hunters to remove the wildlife e) Others-specify 5. Do you get problems with PA officials (rangers / wardens) __ Yes / __ No (if No go to next section).

6. If yes, what kind of problems? (probe) a) Was arrested due to poaching of game b) Was arrested due to illegal use of resources (specify-which) c) Others (specify)

7. What measures have you taken to avoid such problems (probe) a) I have to ensure I am not caught b) I have started my own tree nursery c) Others-specify

210

8. What prompted you to take such measures above? (probe) a) Fear of the law b) e) Economic rewards c) Satisfy project people d) f) Others (specify) e) Cultural reasons f) Just wanted/ felt like doing it

Socio-demographic questions (HI, HII, HIII)

1. Respondents age, gender and occupation (Age __ Gender__ F / M Occupation ___)

2. What is the age and sex of all the people, who cook, eat and live in this household?

Sex Age <10 Age 11-20 Age 21-30 Age 41-50 >51 Female Male

3. How big is the size of the land that is under control of your household? a) < 0.5 acres b) b) 1.0- 2.0 acres c) c) 2.0-3.0 ha d) 2-3.0 acres e) e) >4 acres

4. What main crops do you grow and what is their acreage?

Crop Bananas Coffee Cassava Potatoes Beans Peas G. Others Nuts Acreage 5. Of the following, what would you consider as the four biggest constraints to your farm production? a) Insufficient land b) Shortage of labor c) Shortage of cash d) f) Insecure land tenure e) Infertile soils f) g) Others (specify) g) Crop/ livestock raiding wildlife 6. What are the main sources of cash income for your household? a) Sale of farm produce (specify which crops or animal products) b) Sale of household labor (specify where sold, and if male or female) c) Remittances from-a daughter/ son / relative-specify d) Petty trade (specify type of trade and who in the household does it) e) Others (specify)

211

7. When are the busiest month / season of the year on your farm? a) Planting season b) Weeding season c) Harvesting season d) Others-specify

8. When there is not much work on your farm, where else do you or your household members work? a) Work in the PA b) Work in other private property for pay c) Go to town to trade d) Engage in charcoal burning e) Others (specify)

9. What is the last year of education you have completed? a) None b) 1-7 = Primary level c) 8 – 11 = O. level d) 12-14 = A. level e) 15 + = Post secondary).

10. What are your main sources of information about conservation issues and protected area related news? a) Radio programs b) Project / protected area newsletter c) Friends from your community d) Regular meetings organized by the protected area staff e) Protected area staff on their routine duty in and around the park f) Other-specify

11. For how many years have you lived in this particular community? a)<5 b) 5-9 c) 10-14 d) 15-20 e) > 21

Costs and benefits

1. Do you ever go into the PA? ___ Yes /No (if no, go to # 2, if yes go to #3)

2. If NO why don't you ever go there? (then go to # 7) a) Fear of rangers b) Fear of animals c) No interest d) No time e) Too far f) Other-specify

212

3. If YES, what do you go to do there? a) Health related b) Bush meat c) Building materials d) Firewood e) Grazing f) Water g) Worship h) Others-specify

Market-based benefits (assumed)

4. Of the items you collect from the PA: how many working hours do you spend per trip, including time of travel to and from 5. How many trips do you do per week? 6. What amount of items do you collect per trip?

Item Hours / trip Trips / week Amount / trip Total / month Fire wood Building materials Handcraft materials Water for livestock Bush meat Medicinal plants Grazing Water for domestic use

7. Are you currently gainfully working for this PA? Yes / No (if No go to #12) 8. If Yes what is your wage rate? (monthly, daily, piece-meal) 9. Do you benefit from the tourism industry of this PA? Yes / No [if No go to # 12]

10. If Yes please specify in which way a) Run a curio shop b) Act as a tour guide / porter c) Run a tourist restaurant / lodge d) Others-specify

11. What would you say is your income range from your business per month? (a) < $ 20 (b) Between $ 20 and 100 (c) Between $ 100 and 200 (d) > $ 200

213

Market-based costs (assumed time)

12. How much would you be willing to pay to your neighbor in compensation, if your cattle completely destroyed one acre of his following crops:

Crop Cassava Beans Pea G/ Potatoes Sorghum Pumpkins Bananas Other s nuts

WTP (Shs).

Opportunity costs of the protected area

13. If you were allowed to acquire land in the PA, how much land would you ask for, that would meet your present household needs? 14. What would you use this land for? (Then land market prices in the area for a particular land use will be used to calculate the opportunity cost incurred by the respondent)

Contingent valuation of rainfall patterns and clean air

15. Over the past five years, how would you describe natural vegetation changes in and around of this PA? a) Getting more scarce b) Not changing c) Increasing d) Getting poorer e) Do not know

16. Assume that the government is concerned about the deteriorating quality of air and unpredicted rain patterns in this area. It is believed that the PA assists in purifying the air and influences rainfall patterns. The government is therefore proposing a project to ensure the survival of this PA. Do you think that this would be a good idea? (Yes / No / No opinion / DN) (if yes go to 17, if no go to 18)

17. If YES. Suppose that one of the constraints to the successful implementation of this project was lack of manpower. How many of your working days in a month, would you be willing to volunteer on the project:

a) None b) 1-4 days c) 5-9 days d) 10-14 days e) >15 days

18. If NO, why would you not be willing to volunteer your time? (Probe for explanations) a) I like the idea but I have no time. b) I have other pressing priority needs (ask what would be done then) c) My efforts alone would not make any difference at all (ask what would) d) Government would not appreciate me e) I would not personally benefit f) Other reasons (specify)

214

19. Suppose you are asked to manage this PA to meet your community needs without degrading the natural resource base. Would you be willing to put in a) None b) 1-4 days a month c) c) 5-9 days a month d) 10-14 days a month e) 15 days a month in the management of the protected areas?

APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTED ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES

D-1: Illegal activities in Pian-Upe wildlife reserve Year Type of illegal activities Action taken Comments 2000 Poaching of small game such Arrests of poachers, Spot Main problems highlighted included: Insufficient staffs, insecurity in the as dik dik, bush duikers, checking for game meat in area. Local communities cite problem animals as the biggest issue. 9 out oribis and ostrich eggs. the near-by markets, of the 10 sub-counties complained of crop destruction and one complained Opening more outposts of loss of livestock to wildlife. The boundaries of the reserve are not around the PA demarcated and are not known to the people as well as the reserve managers.

216

D-2: llegal activities in Bugungu wildlife reserve Year Type of illegal activities Action taken Comments 1997 Bush fires, Arrests were There is need to control crop-raiding animals, through joint efforts with Masindi Local Poaching of game made government. Illegal cutting of trees in the There is a need to demarcate the boundary of the reserve. reserve Encroachment

D-3: Illegal activities in Bokora wildlife reserve Year Type of illegal Action taken Comments activities 2000 Cattle grazing, Training of the rangers to curb Armed warriors are a real problem. Rare sighting were 3 ostriches, 1 leopard temporary settlement the poaching warriors. 100 and 6 ostrich eggs and poaching of patrols were carried out in ostriches -8 four regions of the PA.

D-4: Illegal activities in Katonga wildlife reserve Year Type of illegal activities Action taken Comments 2000 Encroachment and invasion by cattle Court prosecution, relocation, and Part of the land was originally ma ilo land for the Batooro 217 keepers, bush fires and poaching of establishment of gates to restrict tribes. Political influence has created more pressure on the game entry. PA. Grazers who are interested in good pastures, as well as poachers who want to lure wild game to the hunting areas set bush fires. Shortage of water and pastures promotes grazing in the PA. Problem animals are reported to be a big issue for the people.

D-5: Illegal activities in Mt. Elgon national park Year Type of illegal activities Action taken Comments 1997 Agricultural encroachment in 7 Arrests recorded. 80 cows were Grazing has decreased. Encroachment and felling of Bumosobo parish. Deforestation for confiscated and 2 taken by the park natural trees in search of agricultural land are serious and agriculture and settlement, illegal as a fine. occur in over 7 parishes around the park grazing in the park. Pitsawying and charcoal burning are minimal

D-6: Illegal activities in Matheniko wildlife reserve Year Type of illegal activities Action taken Comments 2000 Poaching- 1 greater kudu, 1 lesser Training of rangers to confront the Poachers are the warriors who are hard to control. 4 lesser kudu, 1 ostrich and 15 ostrich eggs poachers who are often armed. 8 kudus and 20 ostriches were rare observations. rangers in the two sections of the protected area carried out 30 patrols. Carrying out conservation education. 218

D-7: Illegal activities in Kidepo valley national park Year No. of poachers arrested Recorded illegal Activities Action taken Comment 2001 6 (All males) All convicted 2000 21 (All males) 20 poaching incidents (Poached: 1 6 snares seized, poachers Management established reed buck, 2 oribis, 3 cane rats, 1 arrested. Fire fighting with help observation points and foot duiker, and 7 hyraxes). of laborers and visitors. Arrested patrols to check on illegal people convicted. activities 1999 17 (10 males and 1 38 poaching incidents 10 poachers arrested, Illegal activities reduced, for there female) 5 Fires 6 were taken to court and were increased patrols. 2 Tree cutting and 2 trespasses released Observation points, ambushes and 8 poachers were seen. 9 escaped arrest. Rangers, park foot patrols were intensified. visitors and laborers fought fire.

1998 173 (167 males and 6 98 Poaching incidents, 28 poachers 48 poachers arrested, 6 handed Few patrols were conducted due 219 females), 72 escaped. seen, 13 Fires were recorded, 1 over to the UPDF, 2 convicted to little funds. No funds for the Trespassing by armed Sudanese, 2 and fined. PA to monitor activities of rebels. Incidents of tree felling, Several 42 escaped Fires were a common occurrence gunshots were heard in the park. in December. The elephant that was poached, ivory was never recovered. 1997 26 (All male aged 20 poachers sighted. 16 poaching Shoot out with armed poachers, One old male giraffe disappeared; between 25- 30) incidents recorded. 2 gunshots were grazers instructed to drive their either could have been poached or heard 600 pastoralists with over 3000 cattle back to their villages. Fire was eaten by lions. herds of cattle entered the park. was put off by the rangers 1996 39 (all male aged 30 – 66 incidents (poaching, bush fires, Chasing poachers up to Sudan. There is a need for binocular to 40). grazing and trespass by Sudanese). 2 Armed poachers arrested after enable PA management lay 44 escaped elephants, 2 Jackson’s heart-beasts, 2 fierce battle, convicted and ambushes for poachers. Poachers hyraxes, 1 African hare, 1 warthog, 2 imprisoned. 1 Sudanese was normally come in big groups of oribis and 1 duiker were recorded arrested and handed over to the more than 10 people. poached Sudanese authorities.

D-8: Illegal activities in Murchison Falls national park Year No. Arrested Incidents of recorded illegal Action Taken Comments activities 1995 39 poachers. Poaching – 69 incidents, 38 poachers were arrested and prosecuted. 13 Poaching increased during the 13 illegal Fishing-21 incidents. fishermen were arrested, educated and then month of December, a phenomena fishermen Vegetation destruction- 2, released. Destroyed 2 poachers’ camps. Held that is attributed to the Christmas Fetching water – 1. 10 hippos educational meetings with elders, in a bid to festivities. It was reported that were recorded poached. 5 deter poaching from outside the PA. Regular illegal activities had reduced, elephants poached for ivory. 1 flights were carried out and they reduced the mainly due to intensification of Uganda kob. number of poaching incidents. Illegal canoes the anti-poaching activities. were demolished and nets confiscated. Fishermen and encroachers that were arrested were handed

over to the Park Advisory Committee (PMAC) 220 community representative on the park management issues. The PMAC and the UPDF commanders also helped in the arresting of the poachers. 1996 51 fishermen, Poaching – 105, Fishing – 44, Arrests and prosecution in court. 14 poachers. Vegetation destruction- 7, 1 hippo was poached.

D-9: Murchison Falls Continued Year No. Arrested Incidents of recorded illegal Action Taken Comments activities 1997 12 poachers Poaching – 62 12 poacher were arrested others escaped. 6 In most cases poachers escaped 6 illegal Fishing – 27 fishermen arrested. 5 women arrested for cutting from being arrested. Women fishermen. Vegetation destruction – 1. grass. poachers were easily caught because they could not run very fast. This was the year in which the organization was being restructured so many rangers did not know their fate as to whether they would stay with jobs or go

on the streets. This could be one 221 of the explanations why there were not so many arrests. 1998 66 suspects Poaching – 43, Fishing – 8, Arrested suspects were convicted by magistrate Nearest magistrate are absent in arrested. 17 Vegetation destruction – 18. court. Poaching gear was confiscated and most cases. This leads to keeping fisher canoes Pitsawying-15. destroyed. suspects in the PA cells for a long confiscated. time, which is in violation of human, in addition to being costly for the PA Also, PA does not have adequate facilities to keep big numbers of suspects before prosecution takes place.

D-10: Illegal activities in Lake Mburo national park Year No. Arrested Incidents of recorded illegal Action Taken Comments activities 1996 18 poachers Bush fires – 1 46 ++ poachers escaped arrests. Poaching of game is very common in the 46 escaped Poaching – 12 18 poachers arrested at ranches neighboring the park. That is 3 herdsmen Fishing – 10 Nyabuhama parish, 1 was found where most of the patrols took place. Charcoal burning – 1 with legs and heads of impala. Fires threatened the whole park. The park Grazing – 1 3 herdsmen caught grazing were management and the local people agreed fined shs 50,000 each by the upon the fining of the lawbreakers by the Local Council local council, over the concerns that the 3 poachers were fined shs. park took lawbreakers to police, where 70,000 by the Local Council. they would be tortured and heavily fined.

1997 34 poachers Poaching – 57 Arrests, prosecutions and local Poachers mainly come from Rakai 222 23 escaped Grazing – 31 fines district, some come disguised as vermin 25 herdsmen Fishing – 2 guards, and poaching intensifies during 2 were fined the month of December. 1998 80 poachers escaped, 5 Grazing – 16 Some of the poachers who were The Local councils were the ones arrested, 10 herdsmen Poaching – 11 arrested were handed over to the involved in convictions and releases of Fishing – 3 local council III in Sanga. Cattle the culprits. herds were confiscated. One fish-smoking kiln destroyed. Poachers were warned and educated about the values of wildlife. Local council members pledged to always inform the park’s management about lawbreakers.

D-11: Mburo Continued Year No. Arrested Incidents of recorded illegal Action Taken Comments activities 1999 One poacher. 12 Poaching–10. Charcoal Shoot out with poachers. Local councils were involved in deciding fishermen. 6 convicted, 6 burning–1.Fishing–9. Confiscated meat of zebra, the fate of the wrongdoers. released warthogs and oribi., the rest escaped.

2000 4 poachers Grazing – 16, Poaching–11, 43 herds of cattle were The suspect who killed a hippo was taken Encroachment –2.Grazing– confiscated. to police and remanded. pastoralists’ invasion–during 1 poacher was convicted. Fines dry season. Poaching for were levied on the pastoralists, a

bush meat and fish. kraal system was introduced, 223 Encroachment. whereby the straying cattle would be kept in the kraal until the owner paid and ranger out- posts were increased. Poachers’ hideout was destroyed.

D-12: Illegal activities in Queen Elizabeth national park Year Poachers Incidents of recorded illegal activities Action Taken Comments arrested 2000 2 Poaching, pitsawying, charcoal burning, Culprits are taken to police encroachment and food collection 1999 - Tree cutting, poaching, encroachment, grazing Deploy more rangers and pitsawying 1998 - Poaching–12 Vegetation destruction-20 Taken to court, Deployed Low staffing levels for law rangers and UPDF, More enforcement and community efforts on intelligence network. conservation and inadequate funding worsened the situation. Illegal activities tend to increase

toward festivals like Easter and 224 Christmas. 1997 60 arrests and Poaching, Illegal fishing, Pitsawying–42 Pole 99 cases confiscated poaching Armed poaching has decreased, prosecution cutting-10 equipment. but wire snaring is on the increase. Delayed salaries often demoralize rangers, and illegal activities increase. Problem animals make local people resent wildlife. 1996 7 Poaching, pitsawying, grazing, Encroachment Culprits are taken to the police Primate poaching is mainly done for food and cultural purposes 1995 22 Encroachment, Pitsawying, charcoal burning, Carry out patrols and arrested Illegal activities are on the and grazing culprits. Meet with the local decrease, but they are still there. leaders and local communities 1994 8 Boundary cairns destruction, Encroachment, Imprison the culprits. Charcoal burning, Grazing. 1993 14 Poaching, Grazing, Pitsawying, Charcoal Culprits were mostly taken to burning, Bush fires police for prosecution 1992 3 poaching Taken to police station

D-13: Illegal activities in Semuliki wildlife reserve Year Poachers Incidents of recorded illegal Action Taken Comments arrested activities 2000 Poaching by UPDF who were Reported the UPDF soldiers to their Poaching has subsided. Insecurity in deployed in the reserve, wetland commander and they were prosecuted. the area hindered effective patrols destruction, illegal cattle grazing Land negotiations with encroaching of the area. Illegal activities have and encroachment communities. Illegal grazers were fined generally declined shs. 80,000. Plans to excise off the encroached land. 1998 Fishing Confiscation of weapons. Stealing of phoenix leaves Culprits are arrested 1997 Poaching, Charcoal burning Carry out ranger patrols Arrest culprits and The distance between the PA and

taken to police human settlement is a determinant 225 in poaching 1996 Encroachment, Hunting Arrests made and some culprits fined. Some are taken to police.

1995 Poaching Arrests made and some culprits fined. Harvesting of palm trees was a Encroachment Some are taken to police. major concern for the PA Pole cutting management. The palm produces a Palm harvesting liquid, which is tapped to brew a Phoenix leaves collection local potent liquor. Once it is tapped the tree dies. 1994 22 poachers Harvesting palm oil Ranger patrols are deployed. Rattan cane stealing Arrests are made Poaching, illegal cattle grazing, charcoal burning and encroachment

D-13: Semuliki Continued Year Poachers Incidents of recorded illegal Action Taken Comments arrested activities 1993 Poachers-60 Illegal grazing-50 Guards were deployed in the reserve to It is reported that the majority of the Illegal hunting-20 enforce the laws and arrest the culprits. communities were involved in Encroachment poaching. The main method of poaching was by the use wire snares, followed by spear and net hunting 1992 Poachers-54 Encroachment and Illegal fishing Guards were deployed to arrest and take to The importance of involving Poaching (snares)–806 police the culprits. communities in the management of Pitsawying-4 the PA was recognized due to the

increasing conflicts between the 226 people and the wildlife managers. 1991 2 poachers Pitsawying, illegal grazing and arrested poaching 1990 4 poachers Poaching, grazing and Guards deployed to arrest and take A number of poaching appliances arrested, 15 encroachment- 15 poachers for prosecution. were confiscated, and destroyed. court cases, registered.

1989 1 poacher Poaching-20 20 wire snares recovered by patrol rangers. Illegal activities intensified in the arrested Encroachment and illegal grazing month of December

D-14: Illegal activities in Mgahinga gorilla national park Year Poachers Incidents of recorded illegal activities Action Taken Comments arrested 2000 nil Poaching, grazing, firewood Rangers carrying out patrols removed over 60 Snares were common in collection and trespassing while snares. Arresting domestic animals. March. Grazing is not a crossing over to Rwanda serious problem 1998 nil Illegal grazing. Taken to court. Trespassing Appliances are confiscated Poaching 1997 nil Illegal cattle grazing Patrols are staged by rangers, UPDF, and RPF Illegal harvesting of bamboo 1996 18 Poaching Ranger patrols are staged.

Some are ta ken to court. 227 Illegal appliances are confiscated.

1995 6 Poaching Culprits arrested and taken to court. 1994 Illegal grazing. Reported to police. Poaching Range patrols are conducted. 1993 3 Smuggling, Poaching, Trespassing Appliances are confiscated Grazing Culprits are arrested Illegal entry to the park Range patrols are staged Vegetation destruction Illegal water collection 1992 20 Grazing Equipment are confiscated Poaching Culprits are arrested Illegal fires Encroachment 1991 14 Poaching Taken to police Encroachment Vegetation destruction Grazing

D-15: Illegal activities in Kibale national park Year Poachers arrested Incidents of recorded illegal activities Action Taken Comments 2000 98 Mostly males, only Collecting mushrooms, firewood, and charcoal one old female burning to earn a leaving. Honey gathering to sell, collecting building materials, hunting for economic as well as cultural values. Pitsawying, laying traps to catch duikers for food 1999 43 (4 adult women Poaching-16 Arrested and prosecuted 1998 54 (4 females) Fishing, firewood collection and charcoal Culprits pay fine burning Some are arrested Range patrols are staged 1997 45 all males Charcoal burning-70 Consultative meetings are held Less turn up tourists was

Pitsawying, Poaching. Hunting old chimps to sell with LC chairmen. realized due rumors of 228 young ones. Chimp parts are sold as medicinal Cases are taken to courts rebel hideouts in the park items. 1996 36 (only 2 females) Hunting – 6. Banana harvesting, Poaching, Arrests are made Pitsawying, Preparation of local brew, medicinal plants collection. Firewood collection. Illegal entry to the park 1995 75 (11 females) Collecting wild coffee for school fees – 13, Collecting bananas for food, collecting firewood and mushrooms. 1994 44 people caught Grazing- 16. Trap laying, poaching –2, timber Fines, confiscation of wire Major illegal activities 6 poachers caught harvesting, and bush fires. snares (12), axes (15), pangas are grazing and trap (9), hand saws (14), spears (2). laying. UPDF has helped Convictions 4 in checking illegal activities. 1993 7 all males Distilling local brew from the bananas that were left in the formerly encroached parts of the park- 37. Encroachment, Fishing and grazing

D-16: Illegal activities in Kigezi wildlife reserve Year Poachers Incidents of recorded Action Taken Comments arrested illegal activities 1996 57, 2 young Poaching of game Taken to court, taken to Bullets were used in the process of arresting the poachers. Bush boys, 1 old illegal fishing, illegal police, some detained at burning was observed in the month of March. Whole area was woman pitsawying, charcoal the camp for three days burnt in August. Rangers confiscated charcoal, but sold it to raise burning and then let go. Young boy their transport. Lots of tree destruction observed. There were disciplined by LC I searching in people’s homes, where they found game meet. chairman Suspects escaped arrests 1997 62, 3 ran Bush burning, and Taken to LC and Many footmarks of poachers observed. Rebels suspected to be in away, 1 old poaching, disciplined. It is reported the areas. It was reported that poaching was high due to lack of woman, 5 encroachment that the charcoal was given arms and food. Most rangers were away looking for food to eat.

young boys observed. Poisoning of to the chairman LC III, Encroachment is reported, and two houses are burnt inside the 229 animals. Poaching at and the rest was thrown in reserve. Investigative reports indicate that the reserve staffs were night using moonlight the river. Some of the selling charcoal. Poaching reported on the increase. Poisoning of young boys were game using fuldon poison was reported. Rangers report that they discip lined and educated. found a kill and that they brought to the camp a leg for the exhibit. 1998 11 charcoal Bush fires, charcoal Brought to the Only saw signs of poachers – bush fires and trails. It is reported burners. 1 burning. Encroachment, headquarters/ ranger post, that the cause of death hippos and elephants was not known. It young boy. poaching. Discipline by the LC. could be linked to the poison that was found in the PA earlier. The 52 poachers Taken to police. Taken to charcoal burner was released under the pretext that he was to bring local administration a license to burn charcoal. Investigation reports implicate the police. The warden would warden law enforcement in charcoal burning. Gunmen were at times hold meetings sighted in the reserve. Report indicate that many illegal activities with local leaders to talk were observed, such as trails used by poachers, but there are no about encroachment in the arrests reported. “It was a one day ambush, then in the following reserve. morning we saw a trail where poachers had passed out from the park. On our way back, we saw a new trail, which is currently used by poachers.

D-16: Kigezi Continued Year Poachers Incidents of recorded Action Taken Comments arrested illegal activities 1999 - Poaching, firewood Took the young boy to the The records indicate use of bullets as rangers were coming back collection, vegetation LC II for disciplinary from patrol when they met the local defense force – LDU and they destruction action. The poachers (LDUs) disturbed the rangers. It is unlikely that the rangers used suspects were taken to the bullets in the struggle with the LDUs as reported. The bullets station could have been used to kill animals, but they used the excuse of the LDUs to account for the bullets. 2000 - Charcoal burning It is commented that sacks of charcoal were burnt in the forest. Fish poisoning, This possibly could not be true. Frequencies of arrests reduced and pitsawying, cutting it is reported that the poachers would escape before there are

trees for tobacco arrested. As reported, acquisition of ammunition is so 23

curing. Rebel activities uncontrolled. Some ammunit ion comes from the LDU’s while 0 were reported in the others come from the army. Anybody in the reserve can receive reserve ammunition on behalf of the reserve management including porters in the camp. This creates a loophole in the use and control of the ammunition

APPENDIX E MAP 1

231

APPENDIX F INFORMATION FROM DISTRICT LEADERS

Name of District ------

Name of Protected Area------

Date ------

Title of Respondent ------

How would you describe the status of the boundary of the PA?

a) V. Good b) Good c) Neither good nor bas d) Bad

e) V. Bad f) Good and Bad

How would you describe the status of the resources in this PA?

a) V. Good b) Good c) Neither good nor bad d) Bad

e) V. Bad

How are illegal activities in the above mentioned protected area handled by the PA management? ------

------

Do local councils get involved in the resolution of PA/community conflicts? Yes---- No -

----)

If yes how? ------

How is the tourism industry organized in this PA? ------

------

Do local councils get involved in the organization of tourism based on this PA? (Yes----

No ----).

232 233

If yes, how do they get involved? ------

------

Does this PA enjoy political support from?

a) Central Government (Yes---- No----)

b) Local Government (Yes----- No----)

c) Local people around the PA and their parliamentarians (Yes--- No---)

d) No support at all (Yes --- No----)

Does this PA involve local people in its management activities?

a) Involves local people in the management decisions making (Yes--- No---)

b) Involves at least some government officials in decision making Yes/No)

c) Does not involve people at all (Yes --- No ---)

d) Others, please specify

What benefits does this PA provide to the local people?

a) Revenue sharing (Yes--- No---)

b) Environmental benefits (Yes---No---)

c) Access to natural resources such as forest products, firewood, grazing,

water etc. (Yes--- No---)

d) Employment benefits (Yes--- No---)

e) Support infrastructure development programs, such as schools, roads,

clinics etc (Yes--- No---)

f) Educational values (Yes--- No---)

g) Markets for agricultural produce (Yes--- No---)

h) Bee keeping benefits (Yes --- No -----)

234

i) Others, please specify------

Please rate your understanding about the wildlife legislation in Uganda.

a) V. good b) Good c) Neither good nor bad d) Bad

e) V. Bad

Please rate your understanding about the existing CBC programs in the PA in your district

a) V. good b) Good c) Neither good nor bad d) Bad

V. Bad

How would you rate the effectiveness of the CBC programs in the PA in meeting management objectives?

a) V. Good b) Good c) Neither good nor bad d) Bad e) V. bad f) Other ------

How do you rate the interaction between the PA and the district administration?

a) V. good b) Good c) Neither good nor bad d) Bad

e) V. bad

What would be your recommendations to improve the interaction between the PA and this district administration ------

------?

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abbot, J., D. Thomas, A. Gardner, S. Neba, and M. Khen. 2001. Understanding the links between conservation and development in the Bamenda Highlands, Cameroon. World Development 29(7):1115-1136.

Adams, J. and T. O. McShane. 1992. The myth of wild Africa: conservation without illusion. Norton, New York.

Adams, W., and M. Infield. 2001. Park outreach and gorilla conservation: Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, Uganda. Pages 131-147 in D. Hulme and M. Murphree, editors. African wildlife and livelihoods: the promise and performance of community conservation. James Currey, Oxford, Great Britain.

Adams, W., and M. Infield. 1998. Community conservation research in Africa. Principles and comparative Practice: community conservation at Mgahinga Gorilla National Park. Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.

Agrawal, A., and K. Sivaramakrishnan, editors. 2000.Agrarian environments: resources, representation, and rule in India. Duke University Press, Durham North Calorina.

Alreck, L., and R. Settle. 1995. The Survey research handbook. Guidelines and strategies for conducting a survey. Irwin, Burr Ridge, Illinois.

Arrow, K., and A. Fisher. 1974. Environmental preservation, uncertainty and irreversibility. Quarterly Journal of Economics 88:312-319.

Baland, J. and J. Platteau.1996. Population pressure and management of natural resources: income-sharing and labor absorption in small-scale fisheries. Rome, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. FAO economic and social development paper No. 139.

Barbier, E., and C. Burgess. 2001. The Economics of tropical deforestation. Journal of Economic Surveys 15(3):413-431.

Barrett, B., and P. Arcase.1995. Are integrated projects sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in Sub-Saharan Africa, World Development 23 (7):1073-1085.

Barrett, B., K. Brandon, C. Gibson, and H. Gjertsen. 2001. Conserving tropical biodiversity amid weak institutions. BioScience 51 (6):497-502.

235 236

Barrow, E., 1997. Framework for community conservation: mimeo, African Wildlife Foundation, Nairobi, Kenya.

Barrow, E., and M. Murphree. 2001. Community conservation: from concepts to practice. Pages 24-37, in D. Hulme and M. Murphree, editors. African wildlife and livelihoods: the promise and performance of community conservation. James Currey, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Bateman, I., and R. Turner. 1993. Evaluation of the environment, methods and techniques: the contingent valuation method, in K.R. Turner, editor. Sustainable environmental economics and management: principles and practice. Belhaven Press, London and New York.

Beinart, W. 1994. Twentieth century South Africa. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.

Bell, H. 1987. Conservation with a human face: conflict and reconciliation in African land use planning. Pages 79-101 in D. Anderson and R. Grove, editors. Conservation in Africa: people, policies and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.

Bodmer, R. 1994. Managing wildlife with local communities in the Peruvian Amazon: the case of the Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu Tahuayo. Pages 113-134 in D. Western and R. M. Wright, editors. Natural connections: perspectives in community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Brandon, K., 1998. Perils to parks: the social context of threats. Pages 415-440 in Brandon K., K. Redford and S. E. Sanderson, editors. Parks in peril: people, politics, and protected areas. , Island Press, Washington, DC.

Bruner, A., Gullison, R., Rice, and R. Fonseca. 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291(5501):125-128.

Child, G. 1995. Wildlife and people: the Zimbabwean success. How the conflicts between animals and people became progress for both. Wisdom Foundation, Harare and New York.

Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groots, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. O’neill, J. Paruelo, R. Raskins, P. Sutton and M. van den Belt, 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital Nature 387: 253- 260.

Covarrubias, A. J. 1996. Lending for power in Sub-Saharan Africa. A World Bank Evaluation Study. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Cuarón D.A., 2000. A global perspective on habitat disturbance and tropical rainforest mammals. 14(6):1574-1579.

237

Daily Almanac 2001. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A001763.html. Learning Net Work. Cited on December 20th 2001.

Dixon, A., M. Hufschmidt, and Maynard, editors. 1986. Economic valuation techniques for the environment: A case study workbook. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Donovan, R. 1994. BOSCOSA: Forest conservation and management through local institutions (Costa Rica). Pages 215-233 in D. Western and R. M. Wright, editors. Natural connections: perspectives in community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Ellis, F. 1993. Peasant economics: farm households and agrarian development. Cambridge University, Great Britain.

Fazio, H.1995. Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. Pages 247-282 in Petty R. and J. Krosnick, editors. Attitude strength: antecedents and consequences. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.

Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

Gibson C. 1999. Politicians and poachers: the political economy of wildlife policy in Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Gibson, C., M. A. MacKean, and E. Ostrom. 2000. People and forests: communities, institutions and governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Gibson, C. and S. Marks. 1995. Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: an assessment of community-based wildlife management programs in Africa. World Development 23(6):941-957.

Grove, R. 1987. Early themes in African conservation: the Cape in the nineteenth century. In D. Anderson, and R. Grove. People, policies and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge United Kingdom.

Hackel, D. J. 1999. Community conservation and the future of Africa’s wildlife. Conservation Biology 13(4):726-734.

Hanna, S., and M. Munasinghe, editors. 1995. Property rights and the environment: social and ecological issues. Beijer International Institute of ecological economics and the World Bank, Washington, DC.

Harrison, P., 1987. The Greening of Africa: breaking through in the battle for land and food. International Institute for Environment and Development. Glasgow, Great Britain.

238

Hill, M., and A. Press. 1994. Kakadu National Park: an Australian experience in co- management. Pages 135 – 159 in Western D. et al, editors. Natural Connections: perspectives in community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Hufschmidt, M., D. James, A. Meister, B. Bower, and J. Dixon. 1983. Environment, natural systems and development: an economic valuation guide. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Hulme, D. and M. Murphree. 2001a. Community conservation in Africa. Pages 1-9, in D. Hulme and M. Murphree, editors. African wildlife and livelihoods: the promise and performance of community conservation. James Currey, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Hulme, D., and Murphree M. 2001b. Community conservation as policy: promise and performance. Pages 280–297 in D. Hulme and M. Murphree, editors. African wildlife and livelihoods: the promise and performance of community conservation. James Currey, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Hyden, G., editor. 1998. Governance issues in conservation and development. Conservation and development forum, Gainesville Florida.

Infield, M., and A. Namara. 2001. Community attitudes and behavior toward conservation: an assessment of a community conservation program around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx 35(1):48-60.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 1994. Guidelines for protected areas management categories. Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) with assistance of Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom, World Conservation Monitoring Center, IUCN.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 1981. Conserving Africa’s natural heritage: the planning and management of protected areas in the Afrotropical realm. Proceedings of the 17th Meeting of IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA). Switzerland Gland.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), March 1981.Proceedings of the 17th Meeting of the IUCN’s Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Garoua, Cameroon 17-23 November 1980. UNEP, UNESCO, WWF Gland Switzerland.

Jassat, E. 1990. People’s participation project in Rushinga district, Mashonaland central: a mid-term evaluation report. Institute Development Studies, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Jones, B. 2001. The Evolution of a community-based approach to wildlife management at Kunene, Namibia. Pages 160-176 in D. Hulme and M. Murphree, editors. African wildlife and livelihoods: the promise and performance of community conservation. James Currey, Oxford, United Kingdom.

239

Kazoora, C. and V. Ray. 1997. The Economics and management of community conservation in Lake Mburo National Park: the implications for community conservation in Uganda. A study by the community conservation for Uganda Wildlife Authority Project, implemented by the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Uganda.

Kellert, S., N. Mehta, A. Ebbin, and L. Lichtenfeld. 2000. Community natural resources management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society and Natural Resources 13:705-715.

Kiss, A., editor. 1990. Living with wildlife: wildlife resource management with local participation in Africa. World Bank technical paper No.130. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Koojo, S. 2001. An evaluation of chimpanzee censusing techniques and estimation of snare density in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Dissertation, Master of Science (Environmental and Natural Resources Management) Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.

Kramer, A., N. Sharma, and Munasinghe. 1995. Valuing tropical forests: methodology and case study of Madagascar. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Kramer, A. and C. Van Schaik. 1997. Preservation paradigms and tropical rain forests. In Kramer R.A., Van Schaik C.P. and Johnson J. editors. Last Stand: protected areas and the defense of tropical biodiversity, pages 3-14. New York and Oxford; Oxford University Press, United Kingdom.

Lacy C. R. 1987. Loss of genetic diversity from managed populations: interacting effects of drift, mutation, immigration, selection, and population division. Conservation Biology 1(2):143-158

Lamprey, R.H., and F. Michelmore. 1996. Surveys of Uganda’s wildlife protected areas: phase II surveys, May-June 1996. Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities Kampala, Uganda.

Lane, C. 1996. Pasture Lost: Barabaig economy, resources tenure and the alienation of their land in Tanzania. Initiatives, Nairobi, Kenya.

Leader-Williams, N., and S. D. Albon. 1988. Allocation of resources for conservation. Nature 336:453-535.

Lewis, D. and A. Phiri. 1998. Wildlife Snaring-an indicator of community response to a community-based conservation project. Oryx. 32:111-121.

240

Little, D. P. 1994. The link between local participation and improved conservation: a review of issues and experiences. Pages 347-372 in, D. Western and R. M. Wright, editors. Natural Connections: perspectives in community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Lynch, O., and J. Alcon. 1994. Tenurial rights and community-based conservation. Pages 373 – 392 in D. Western and M. Wright et al, editors. Natural connections: perspectives in community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC.

MacKenzie, J. 1988. The Empire of nature. Hunting, conservation and British imperialism. Manchester University Press, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Makombe, K., editor. 1993. Sharing the land, wildlife, people and development in Africa. IUCN/ROSA. Environmental Issues Series No. 1.

Makumbe, J. 1996. Participatory development: the case study of Zimbabwe. Participation essential ingredients of development process. University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Margoluis R., and N. Salafsky. 2001. Is our project succeeding? A guide to threat reduction assessment for conservation. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC.

Margoluis, R., and N. Salafsky. 1998. Measures of success: designing, managing, and monitoring conservation and development projects. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Maslow, A. with D.C. Stephens and G. Heil 1998. Maslow on management. John Wiley and Sons, INC. New York.

McNeely, J.A. 1993. Economic incentives for conserving biodiversity: lessons for Africa. Ambio 22:144-194.

McNeely, J. A.1989. Protected areas and human ecology: how national parks can contribute to sustaining societies of the twenty-first century. Pages 150-157 in D. Western, and M. C. Pearl, editors. Conservation for the twenty-first century. Oxford University Press, New York.

McNeely, J., J. W. Thorsell, H. Ceballos-Lascurain. 1992. Guidelines, development of national parks and protected areas for tourism. World Tourism Organization, Madrid, Spain. United Nations Environment Program, Paris France.

Mehta, N.J., and J.T Heinen. 2001. Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environmental Management 28(2):165-177.

241

Metcalfe, S. 1996. Development Through Conservation Project (DTC). A final evaluation report for CARE DTC project. Grant No. 617-0124-G-00-91-01-00.Kabale Uganda.

Mogaka, R., and G. Tumushabe. 1998. Natural resources conflicts management: a comparative study of Uganda’s Fisheries and Kenya’s Forestry Sectors. conservation and development forum, Gainesville Florida.

Mordi, R. 1991. Attitudes toward wildlife in Botswana. Garland Publishing, Inc. New York and London.

Mugabe, and N. Clark, editors. 1998. Managing Biodiversity: national systems of conservation and innovations in Africa. Nairobi, Kenya: ACTS Press, African Center for Technology Studies, Nairobi, Kenya.

Mungatana, D.E. 1999. The Welfare economics of protected areas: the Case of Kakamega Forest National Reserve, Kenya. Eugen Ulmer GmbH and Co., Stuttgart. Druck: Hausdruckerei der TU Dresden, Germany.

Murphree, M. 1996. Approaches to community participation. A paper presented at the Overseas Development Administration, 18th. April 1996. African Wildlife Policy Consultation, Civil Service College, Sunningdale Berkshire United Kingdom.

Myres, N., R. Mittermeier, C. Mittermeier, G. Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403(6772):853-858.

Namara, A. 1998. Community perspectives on natural resources management in Uganda. A report on consultations with community based conservation initiatives in Uganda by the African Conservation Center (ACC) Nairobi.

Namara, A., and M. Infield. 1998. The influence of a community conservation program on farmers and pastoralist communities around Lake Mburo National Park. A report of a socio–economic survey carried out under the Community Conservation Project for Uganda Wildlife Authority, Kampala Uganda.

Naughton-Treves, L. 1999. Whose animals? A history of property rights to wildlife in Toro, western Uganda. Land Degradation and Development 10(508):311-328.

Naughton-Treves, L. 1998. Predicting patterns of crop damage by Wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology 12(1):156-168.

Okoth-Ogendo, W. and G. Tumushabe, editors. 1999. Governing the environment: political change and natural resources management in Eastern and Southern Africa. African Center for Technology Studies (ACTS), Nairobi, Kenya.

Orians H.G. 1993. Endangered at what level? Ecological applications 3(2):206-208.

242

Oneka, M. 1996. On park design: looking beyond the wars. Thesis Landbouwuniversitet Wageningen University, the Netherlands.

Ostrom, E. 1997. Self-governance and forest resources. A paper presented at the conference on Local institutions for forest management: how can research make a difference? Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia, November 19-21 1997.

Otto, J., and E. Kent. 1994. Profile of national policy: natural forest management in Niger. Pages 234-261in D. Western and R.M. Wright, editors. Natural connections: perspectives in community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Patel, H. 1998. Sustainable utilization and African wildlife policy: rhetoric or reality? The case of Zimbabwe’s Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). A report for the Indigenous Environmental Policy Center (IEPC), Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Pearce, D. and D. Moran. 1994. The economic value of biodiversity. Earthscan Publications Ltd. London, United Kingdom.

Pimbert, M.P., and J. N. Pretty. 1997. Parks, people and professionals: putting participation into protected area management. Pages 287-327 in M. P. Pimbert and J.N. Pretty, editors. Social change and conservation. Earthscan Publications Limited, London, United Kingdom.

Pimbert, M.P., and N.J. Pretty. 1994. Participation, people and the management of National Parks and protected areas: past failures and future promise. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, IIED and WWF, London, England.

Poffenberger, M. 1994. The resurgence of community forestry management in eastern India. Pages 53 –79 in D. Western, and R.M. Wright, editors. Perspectives in community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington.

Pye-Smith, C., and G. Borrini-Feyerabend, with R. Sandbrook. 1994. The wealth of communities, stories of success in local environmental. Management Kumarian Press, Bloomfield CT.

Redclift, M. 1984. Development and the environmental crisis: red or green alternatives? Routledge, London and New York.

The Republic of Uganda.1992a. Final results of the 1991 population and housing census (pre-release). Statistics Department, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning Entebbe, Uganda.

243

The Republic of Uganda 1992b. The 1991 Population and housing census (district summary series) Kapchorwa District. Statistics Department Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning Entebbe, Uganda.

The Republic of Uganda. 1992c. The 1991 population and housing census (district summary series) Kabarole District. Statistics Department Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning Entebbe, Uganda.

The Republic of Uganda 1992d. The 1991 population and housing census (district summary series) Mbale District. Statistics Department Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning Entebbe, Uganda.

The Republic of Uganda 1992e. The 1991 population and housing census (district summary series) Mbarara District. Statistics Department Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning Entebbe, Uganda.

Robinson, G.J. 1993. The limits to caring: sustainable living and the loss of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 7(1):20-28.

Rojas, M. 1992. The species problem and conservation: what are we protecting? Conservation Biology 6(2):170-178.

Rokeach, M. 1973. The Nature of human values. The Free Press. New York.

Salafsky, N., and R. Margoluis. 1999. Threat reduction assessment: a practical and cost- effective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects. Conservation Biology 13(4):830-841.

Salafsky, N. and E. Wollenberg. 2000. Linking livelihoods and conservation: a conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity. World Development 28(8):1421-1438.

Schmink, M. 1999. Conceptual framework for gender and community-based conservation. Gainesville, Florida: MERGE, Managing Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis, Tropical Conservation and Development Programs, Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville Florida.

Schwartzman, S., A. Moreira, and D. Nepstad. 2000. Rethinking tropical forest conservation: Perils in parks. Conservation Biology 14(5):1351-1357.

Scott, W., H. Argalias, and V. D. McGranahan. 1973. The Measurement of real progress at the local level. Examples from the literature and a pilot study. Report No. 73.3 United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

Seddon, N., J.Tobias, J. W. Yount, J.R. Ramanampamonjy, S. Butchart, and H. Randrianizahana. 2000. Conservation issues and priorities in the Mikea Forest of southwest Madagascar. Oryx 34(4):287-304.

244

Sibanda, B. and A. Omwega.1996. Some reflections on conservation, sustainable development and equitable sharing of benefits from wildlife in Africa: The case of Kenya and Zimbabwe. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 26(4):175- 181.

Slocum, R., and B. Thomas-Slayer. 1995. Participation, empowerment and sustainable development. Pages 3-8 in: R. Slocum, L. Wichhart, D. Rocheleau, and B. Thomas-Slayter. Process and participation: tools for change. International Technology Publications, Exeter, United Kingdom.

Songorwa, N.A. 1999. Community-based wildlife management (CWM) in Tanzania: are communities interested? World Development 27(12):2061-2079.

Songorwa, N.A., T. Buhrs, and D.F.K. Hughey. 2000. Community-based wildlife management in Africa: A critical assessment of the literature. Natural Resources Journal 40:603-644.

Struhsaker, T. 1998. Ecology of an African rain forest: logging in Kibale and the conflict between conservation and exploitation. University Press of Florida, Gainesville Florida.

Studsrød, E. and Per Wegge. 1995. Park-People relationship: the case of damage caused by park animals around the Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Environmental Conservation, 22:133-142.

Taylor, R. D. 1993. Wildlife management and utilization in a Zimbabwean communal land: A preliminary evaluation in Nyaminyami district Kariba. Causeway, Harare Zimbabwe. WWF Multispecies Project 1993.

Terborgh, J. 2000. The fate of tropical forests: a matter of stewardship. Conservation Biology 14(5):1358-1361.

Terborgh, J. 1999. Require for nature. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Tumushabe, G. 1999. Environmental governance, political change and constitutional development in Uganda. Pages 63-88 in Okoth-Ogendo and W.G. Tumushabe, editors. Governing the environment: political change and natural resources management in Eastern and Southern Africa. African Center for Technology Studies (ACTS), Nairobi, Kenya.

The Uganda Gazette No. 32 Vol. LXXXIX. 1996. The Wildlife Authority Statute No. 8. Uganda Printing Press Corporation Entebbe, Uganda.

Veit, P., A. Mascarenhas, and O. Ampadu-Agyeyi. 1995. Lessons from the ground up: African development that works. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Wainwright, C., and W. Wehrmeyer. 1998. Success in integrating conservation and development? A study from Zambia. World Development 26 (6):933-944.

245

Wells, M. 1998. Investing in Biodiversity: a review of Indonesia's integrated conservation and development projects. The World Bank, East Asia Region.

Wells, P. M. 1994. A profile and interim assessment of the Annapurna Conservation Area Project, Nepal. Pages 261-281 in D. Western and R.M Wright, editors. Natural connections: perspectives in community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC.

West, C. P., and R. Brechin, editors. 1991. Resident people’s and national parks: social dilemmas and strategies in international conservation. Tucson, University of Arizona Press, Arizona.

Western, D. 1994. Linking conservation and development aspirations. Pages 499 – 511 in D. Western and M.R. Wright, editors. Natural connections: perspectives in community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Western, D., and R. Wright. 1994. Background to community-based conservation. Pages 1-14 in, D. Western and R.M. Wright, editors. Natural connections: perspectives in community-based conservation. Island Press Washington, DC. Covelo, California.

Wholey, S.J., H.P. Harry, and N.E. Kathryn, editors. 1994. Handbook of practical program evaluation. Jossey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco, California.

World Bank, 1996. Development in Practice: toward environmentally sustainable development in Sub-Saharan Africa. A World Bank Agenda. The World Bank Washington, DC.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Arthur Mugisha was born on 17th July 1962 in a small remote rural village of

Buringo, Bushenyi District, Uganda, to Mr. and Mrs. Enoch Rwabitetera. He started his formal education at the age of eight, from Masheruka Boys’ Primary School in 1971. He joined Mbarara High School for his Ordinary Level secondary education in 1978, and joined Ntare School for his Higher School Certificate (HSC) in 1981. From Ntare School he joined one of the prestigious universities in Eastern Africa, Makerere University,

Kampala in 1984, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in forestry in

1987.

After graduating from Makerere University, Arthur returned to Mbarara High

School where he taught agriculture and biology for one year. In 1989, he joined a wildlife conservation project co-sponsored by the Uganda government and the European Union, whose mandate was to produce a management plan for Queen Elizabeth National Park in western Uganda. He worked as a socio-economic enumerator, collecting socio-economic data about the residents in the 14 fishing village enclaves within the Park. At the end of the contract in 1990, Arthur joined the ranks of the then Uganda National Parks in Queen

Elizabeth, as a Warden responsible for the Park’s Education Programs. After working for a year, Arthur was promoted and transferred to head Lake Mburo National Park that was heavily in conflict with its neighboring communities emanating from its bad establishment history. In 1993, Arthur won a British Council scholarship and joined the

London University at Wye College where he obtained a Master of Science degree in rural

246 247 resources and environmental policy and returned to work in Lake Mburo at the end of

1994. He was transferred to head Kibale National Park in 1995, where he worked for 18 months before he was transferred to the Uganda Wildlife Authority headquarters to establish a community conservation program in the organization. In 1998, he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Director in charge of Field Operations and later appointed as a Director. He joined the University of Florida in 1999, and he hopes to rejoin the Uganda Wildlife Authority on completion of his PhD program. In addition to traveling widely, Arthur has made presentations to many conservation forums both national and international. He is married with two children.