Sgs Qualifor Forest Management Certification

SGS QUALIFOR Doc. Number: AD 36-A-04 (Associated Document) Doc. Version date: 5 April 2007

Page: 1 of 58

FOREST MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION REPORT

SECTION A: PUBLIC SUMMARY

Project Nr: 9495-UG

Client: UWA-FACE Mt Elgon National Park

Web Page: www.uwa.or.ug

Address: PO Box 135, Mbale

Country: Uganda

Certificate Nr. SGS-FM/COC-000980 Certificate Type: Forest Management

Date of Issue 01/10/2007 Date of expiry: 30/09/2012

Forest Zone: Tropical

Total Certified Area 112 100 ha

Scope: The management of Mt Elgon National Park, Uganda, consisting of primary forests and other vegetation types, degraded indigenous forest areas, and softwood plantations.

Company Contact Fred Kizza Person:

Address: PO Box 135, Mbale, Uganda

Tel: +256 078 929950 / +256 039 791002

Fax

Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Evaluation dates:

Re-Evaluation 16-18 April 2007; Clearance of Findings 13-14 August 2007

Surveillance 1 7-10 July 2008, 12 -13 November 2008. Clearance of Findings 3 -5 February 2009. Clearance of findings 18 -19 March 2009 Follow up on Stakeholder consultation. (Closing of ASI CAR) Surveillance 2 12-14 July 2009

Surveillance 3 Surveillance 4

SGS South Africa (Qualifor Programme) 58 Melville Road, Booysens - PO Box 82582, Southdale 2185 - South Africa Systems and Services Certification Division t +27 11 681-2500681 f +27 11 681-2543 [email protected] www.sgs.com/forestry AD 36-A-04 Page 2 of 58

AD 36-A-04 Page 3 of 58

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SCOPE OF CERTIFICATE...... 5 2. COMPANY BACKGROUND ...... 8 2.1 Ownership ...... 8 2.2 Company Key Objectives ...... 8 2.3 Company History...... 8 2.4 Organisational Structure...... 9 2.5 Ownership and Use Rights...... 9 2.6 Other Land Uses ...... 10 2.7 Non-certified Forests ...... 10 3. FOREST MANAGEMENT SYSTEM...... 10 3.1 Bio-physical setting ...... 10 3.2 History of use ...... 13 3.3 Planning process...... 14 3.4 Harvest and regeneration...... 15 3.5 Monitoring processes ...... 16 4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ...... 17 4.1 Social aspects ...... 17 4.2 Environmental aspects ...... 18 4.3 Administration, Legislation and Guidelines...... 19 5. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT, HARVESTING, SILVICULTURE AND MONITORING 20 6. PREPARATION FOR THE EVALUATION...... 21 6.1 Schedule ...... 21 6.2 Team ...... 21 6.3 Checklist Preparation ...... 21 6.4 Stakeholder notification ...... 21 7. THE EVALUATION ...... 21 7.1 Opening meeting...... 21 7.2 Document review...... 22 7.3 Sampling and Evaluation Approach ...... 22 7.4 Field assessments...... 22 7.5 Stakeholder interviews ...... 22 7.6 Summing up and closing meeting ...... 23 8. EVALUATION RESULTS...... 23 8.1 Findings related to the general QUALIFOR Programme ...... 23 PRINCIPLE 1: Compliance with law and FSC Principles...... 23 PRINCIPLE 2: Tenure and use rights and responsibilities...... 24 PRINCIPLE 3: Indigenous peoples’ rights ...... 25 PRINCIPLE 4: Community relations and workers rights ...... 26 PRINCIPLE 5: Benefits from the forest ...... 28 PRINCIPLE 6: Environmental impact...... 29 PRINCIPLE 7: Management plan ...... 31 PRINCIPLE 8: Monitoring and evaluation ...... 32 PRINCIPLE 9: High Conservation Value Forests...... 33 PRINCIPLE 10: Plantations ...... 34 9. CERTIFICATION DECISION...... 36 10. MAINTENANCE OF CERTIFICATION...... 36 11. RECORD OF CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTS (CARs) ...... 38 12. RECORD OF OBSERVATIONS...... 47 13. RECORD OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS AND INTERVIEWS ...... 50 14. RECORD OF COMPLAINTS...... 57

AD 36-A-04 Page 4 of 58

ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS (not part of the Public Summary)

AD 20: Evaluation Itinerary AD 21: Attendance Record AD 36-B: Evaluation - Observations and Information on Logistics AD 40: Stakeholder Reports (incorporated into AD 36-A) Evaluation team CV’s List of stakeholders contacted(

Complaints and Disputes

Procedures for submitting complaints, appeals and disputes, and the SGS processing of such are published on www.sgs.com/forestry. This information is also available on request – refer contact details on the first page.

AD 36-A-04 Page 5 of 58

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the evaluation was to evaluate the management of UWA-FACE Mount Elgon National Park (MENP) against the requirements of the QUALIFOR Programme, the SGS Group’s forest certification programme accredited by Forest Stewardship Council.

1. SCOPE OF CERTIFICATE The scope of the certificate falls within the Tropical Forest Zone and consists of one Forest Management Unit as described below.

Description of FMU: Description Ownership Area (ha) Longitude E/W Latitude N/S Mt Elgon National Park State 112 100 34° 14” – 44” 0° 52” - 1° 25”

Size of FMUs: Nr of FMUs Area (ha) Less than 100 ha 0 0 100 to 1000 ha in area 0 0 1001 to 10000 ha in area 0 0 More than 10000 ha in area 1 112 100 Total 1 112 100

Total Area in the Scope of the Certificate that is: Area (ha) Privately managed 0 State Managed 112 100 Community Managed 0

Composition of the Certified Forest(s) Area (ha) Area of forest protected from commercial harvesting of timber and managed primarily for 110 600 conservation objectives Area of forest protected from commercial harvesting of timber and managed primarily for 110 600 production of NTFPs or services Area of forest classified as “high conservation value forest” 90 940 Total area of production forest (i.e. forest from which timber may be harvested) 1 500 Area of production forest classified as “plantation” 1 500 Area of production forest regenerated primarily by replanting 1 500 Area of production forest regenerate primarily by natural regeneration 0

List of High Conservation Values Description Notes AD 36-A-04 Page 6 of 58

List of High Conservation Values Description Notes The forest areas contain regionally and nationally The forest areas contain regionally and nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values. significant concentrations of biodiversity values. Overall, IUCN have listed 37 faunal species in the area as "globally threatened" (22 mammal, 2 insect and 13 bird species, of which nine species are endemic). The avifauna is diverse and includes a number of rare and threatened bird spp which are restricted to Mt Elgon and a few other East African mountains. It is the only place in Uganda with Jackson’s francolin (Francolinus jacksoni), bronze-naped pigeon (Colomba delegorguie), Hartlaub’s turaco (Tauraco hartlaubi) and tacazze sunbird (Nectarinia tacazze). The majority of the plant species in the forest zone above 2 000 m have been shown to be endemic to the Afro-montane Region, and a number of species in this zone are endemic to Mt Elgon e.g. Senecio elgonensis, Senecio barbatipes and Philippia exclesa. Some rare plants found on the mountain include Ardisiandra wettsteinii, Carduus afromontanus, Echinops hoehnelii, Ranunculus keniensis, and Romulea keniensis. MENP was ranked amongst the top ten most species rich (including vegetation, birds, butterflies, moths, and small mammals) forests in Uganda, making the area a priority for species conservation. MENP’s RTE spp, its status as the eastern limit of various spp characteristic of the tropical forests of west and central Africa, together with its status as the western limit of various Afro-Alpine spp, combine to make this area biologically significant on a global scale. MENP was declared a Man and Biosphere Reserve in 2005 and proposals have been submitted to UNESCO for its upgrading to a transboundary Man and Biosphere Reserve in collaboration with the neighbouring protected areas in Kenya. The forests constitute a threatened and Forests covered 20% of Uganda 40 years ago, but this endangered ecosystem. has been reduced to a current cover of only 10 %. MENP is largely an island forest surrounded by agricultural areas with high population densities. The forest areas provide basic services of nature Mt Elgon is an important watershed and is a source of in critical situations. over 20 rivers which traverse large areas of Uganda and Kenya, supporting the livelihoods of over 4 million people. The mountain plays a crucial role as a water catchment and is vital to the economic functioning of an extensive surrounding area. The forests are fundamental to meeting the basic The local communities are often impoverished and needs of local communities. depend on the forests for a large range of forest resources including bamboo shoots, bamboo poles, firewood, building materials, medicine, grazing, food items, honey and water. A natural resource use study conducted in 1994 estimated the economic value of resource use from the park to be between US$1,5 – 2,7 million annually, and little has changed in the intervening period. Most of the resource use is concentrated in the previously encroached areas, the forest zone and the bamboo zone and in all instances limited to the areas nearest to the park boundary (approximately 30 % of the park is affected by this in varying degrees). The forests are important to the traditional cultural This is in part related to the values associated with identity of local communities. traditional foods and medicines obtained from the mountain. The importance attached to the harvesting and consumption of bamboo shoots by the Bagisu is particularly well known. Other plants and animals are associated with circumcision, marriage and burial sites. AD 36-A-04 Page 7 of 58

List of High Conservation Values Description Notes An example is the traditional use of headgear and other regalia fashioned from the skins and tails of black and white Colobus monkeys for traditional ceremonies, particularly circumcision. Considerable cultural significance is afforded by local people to certain specific sites on the mountain. These sacred sites may be burial sites or ritual sites or be associated with natural products that are present in unusual quantity or quality.

Annual Timber Production Species (botanical name) Species (common name) Area (ha) Maximum Annual Sustainable Yield (m3)

Projected Actual No timber harvesting is conducted Totals

List of Timber Product Categories Product Notes No timber harvesting is conducted. Totals

Approximate Annual Commercial Production of Non-Timber-Forest-Products Product Species Unit of measure Total units Botanical Name Common Name) There is no commercial production of NTFP’s, but the following products are utilized by local communities. Firewood Assorted spp Assorted spp Head load 40,528 Gibengeyi (poles) Olea welwelstchewii Elgon teak Number 2,448 Kamateka/Lukeka Arundinaria alupina Bamboo shoots Bundle 5,440 Kufusi (stem) Bundle 1,632 Kumuro Bundle 272 Lusoola (poles) Markhamia platycalyx Markhamia Number 2,176 Namakumba (leaves) Leaves 272 Podocarpus 2,176 Shisala she bubani milianjianus Podo Bundle Tsindula tsingali False egg plants Bundle 816 Birwa 272 (fruits, roots, leaves) Forest berries Bundle Gusotono (leaves, 2,176 roots) Bundle Indelema (leaves) Green vegetables Bundle 272 Namakumba (leaves) Green vegetables Leaves 1,088 Nandekye (leaves) Green vegetables Bundle 272 Kamateka/Lukeka Arundinaria alupina Bamboo shoots Bundle 6,256 AD 36-A-04 Page 8 of 58

2. COMPANY BACKGROUND 2.1 Ownership The Mt Elgon National Park is a state owned entity managed by the Ugandan Wildlife Authority (UWA). The UWA and FACE Foundation from the Netherlands reached an agreement for the management of a 25 000 ha restoration part of MENP. The restoration area and the rest of the national park are managed as one management unit by UWA. There are no plans for any extension to MENP. 2.2 Company Key Objectives The overall management objective for MENP is: To conserve and manage the physical, ecological and cultural resources of MENP for the benefit of present and future generations. The following more specific objectives have also been formulated:

Objective Notes Commercial

Compensate for CO2 emissions by sequestering CO2 through the planting of indigenous trees. Social Provide employment opportunities to the communities adjacent to MENP as a means of reducing pressure on the park resources. Impart forest skills and knowledge to the local communities with a view to making them environmental ambassadors of the park. Environmental Restore the integrity of the degraded forest ecosystems in MENP and thereby enhance biodiversity conservation. This is achieved by replanting the degraded areas with locally occurring indigenous tree spp. Strive to plant 1 000 ha per year.

2.3 Company History FACE Foundation (Forests Adsorbing Carbon dioxide Emissions) was established in 1991 with funding from SEP, the Dutch Electricity Generating Board, who requested FACE Foundation to provide sufficient CO2 credits from afforestation and reforestation projects to offset the CO2 emissions from one 600 MW power station in the Netherlands. FACE Foundation is a not-for-profit organisation. SEP was subsequently disbanded and FACE Foundation now operates independently, continuing to manage projects that sequester carbon. The ongoing AD 36-A-04 Page 9 of 58

project operations will in future be funded from the sale of carbon credits. FACE Foundation has identified a series of projects around the world (e.g. Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Ecuador, Malaysia and Uganda) largely aimed at creating a long term stable resource of CO2 in forests that closely resemble natural forests. These forests should have the capacity to regenerate naturally and therefore act as a long-term store of CO2. FACE Foundation does not buy land or trees, but instead it invests in a single function of the forest: - the capacity to sequester CO2. Other parties (e.g. the forest owner) contribute, but only with the aim to obtain other benefits from the forest, e.g. timber, fruit, nature conservation, or soil protection. In Uganda, FACE is working with the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) under the title of UWA-FACE. Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) is part of the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife and is responsible for the management of Uganda’s National Parks. UWA and FACE have signed an agreement whereby FACE undertake the planting of the forests in the restoration zones of MENP and are entitled to the carbon benefits arising from these actions. UWA is ultimately responsible for the management of the planted forests which are an integral part of MENP and help to achieve UWA’s overall objective for the Park as a whole which is: “to safeguard the biodiversity and integrity of the physical and ecological processes of the park in perpetuity for the health, welfare, employment and inspiration of present and future generations” Since the inception of the project in 1995, some 8 125 ha of native forests of the project total of 25 000 ha have been established i.e. about one third of the total area that will be restored. Whilst initially only the restoration part of MENP was certified, UWA management has now decided to expand the scope with effect from the second certification period to cover the whole National Park. 2.4 Organisational Structure The broad organisational structure of the company is set out below:

The company employs 145 permanent employees in total. This includes management staff and their assistants, and the balance is made up of park rangers, drivers, administrative and other support staff. The company only make occasional use of contractors for operational activities such as renovation of buildings or the erection of boundary beacons/pillars. UWA-Face employs about 70 casual workers on a regular basis depending on amount of planned work for the month. 2.5 Ownership and Use Rights The area has a turbulent past and was encroached during the political regime of the 1970s and 80s. At this time it was a Forest Reserve. In 1992 the area was gazetted as a National Park and in 1993 the Government of Uganda decided to evict the encroachers. For approximately 20 years these people had been farming within the Forest Reserve, grazing cattle, growing maize and bananas. There was no productively managed forest in the area. Following the gazetting of the national park, the local people have no tenure rights and they have lost all rights of access to forest resources. The only way that use can be re-established is through the signing of formal agreements with the Chief Warden. Local communities and UWA have signed memoranda of understanding (MOUs) relating to the rights of community members to enter the forest to collect NTFP’s and firewood. These cover the use of fresh bamboo stems, firewood, green vegetables, mushrooms, salt lick and salt water, ropes, water collection, right of passage through the park, medicinal plants, access to cultural sites, (e.g. circumcision sites) and the use of the boundary zone for cultivation. The status of people currently living in the park is of critical importance to the future of MENP. Land tenure rights of people living in the park are at present uncertain and this has created conflict between local people and the AD 36-A-04 Page 10 of 58

management of MENP. People are generally unwilling to use resources in the park sustainably, as there is no incentive to invest time and money in sustainable practices when eviction may be imminent.. 2.6 Other Land Uses

A network of hiking trails has been developed in the park with hikes of four days or longer that traverse the peaks. Volcanic foothills, cliffs, caves, gorges and waterfalls combined with panoramic views across wide plains to create some of the finest scenery in Uganda. This spectacular scenery is the main attraction for hikers, but there is also a variety of forest monkeys and small antelope, along with elephant and buffalo, although the latter two are rare. The park is also known as a birding destination with a checklist topping 300 birds including many species not recorded elsewhere in Uganda. Other attractions include ancient cave paintings close to the trailhead at Budadiri, and spectacular caves and hot springs within the crater.

2.7 Non-certified Forests

UWA is in charge of the management of 10 National Parks, 12 Wildlife Reserves, 14 Wildlife Sanctuaries and provides guidance for 5 Community Wildlife Areas. No commercial timber harvesting takes place on any of these areas. Two of the National Parks (Mt Elgon and Kibale) have been assessed for certification. Both management teams attested to the positive effects of certification and indicated that they will promote the concept amongst their colleagues in other parks currently not certified. A statement has also been put on the UWA website www.uwa.or.ug confirming that UWA adheres to the forest management practices consistent with the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Principles and Criteria.

3. FOREST MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

3.1 Bio-physical setting Mt Elgon National Park is found some 100 km north east of lake Victoria in the districts of Mbale, Manafwa, Bududa, Bukwa, Sironko and Kapchorwa and the area is covered by Uganda Department of Lands and Surveys maps – sheets 54/II, 54 III, 54 IV, 55/I and 55/III (series Y 732 at 1:50.000). Geography: Mount Elgon is a solitary extinct volcano with one of the largest craters in the world surmounted by a 8 km diameter caldera straddling the border between Uganda and Kenya, 100 km north-east of Lake Victoria, and is the seventh highest mountain in Africa. National Parks now exist on both the Ugandan and Kenyan sides of the mountain though they only merge on the north-east side of the mountain. Wagagai, the highest peak lies in Uganda and is 4 321 m. Despite its height, and due to the large basal area (80 km across) the average slope angle of Mount Elgon is less than 4 degrees. The mountain descends to the plain in series of precipitous “shelves” and is deeply dissected by numerous streams cascading over the cliffs in spectacular waterfalls. Volcanic eruptions and subsequent weathering processes over a long period have created a general landscape appearance of both gentle and steep slopes, valleys and gorges. Mount Elgon is the oldest of the East African volcanoes, resting on the dissected peneplain of Pre Cambrium bedrock of the Trans Nzoia Plateau and the bulk of it is made up of tufts and coarse agglomerates of under saturated rocks with fragments and extrusions of basaltic lava. The soils on Mount Elgon are from the Andisol order ("developed in volcanic ejecta") (FAO classification). Mt Elgon was formed from lava debris blown out from a greatly enlarged vent during the Miocene period about 15-20 million years ago. This resulted in its characteristic low, convex structure. The rocks of Elgon Massif are entirely volcanic in origin and are composed of tuffs, coarse agglomerates, basalts and mudflow materials. There are extensive signs of glaciation on the upper slopes of the mountain. In the caldera are small lakes and moraine ridges, which indicate that glaciations occurred here during the Pleistocene era about 1.5 million years ago. These subsequently cut through the caldera as low as 3 500 m. a.s.l, giving rise to the Suam Gorge and Uganda Pass, when the weight of the melt waters in the caldera cut streambeds out of the weak volcanic ash and agglomerate walls. These activities coupled with other factors gave rise to the various physical features that characterize Mt Elgon like the Caldera, Endebess bluff and the Elephant platform. The mean annual precipitation of the Mt Elgon massif is 1 270 mm and varies from 1 250 mm to more than 2 000 mm , with the eastern and northern slopes receiving less rainfall compared to the southern and western slopes. The moist southwesterly and dry north easterlies influence the bimodal rainfall received in Mt Elgon thus bringing about the long rains (March - July) and short rains (September - November). The months of December to March are characterized by dry weather conditions. Rainfall increases with altitude and the high altitude areas receive almost continuous precipitation throughout the year in the form of light drizzle and mist. The forest zone receives the maximum rainfall and is important in the mountain’s role as a water catchment. Mt Elgon is a source of over 20 rivers which traverse large areas of Uganda and Kenya and act as a water catchment for Lake Victoria, the Nile and Lake Turkana. AD 36-A-04 Page 11 of 58

Temperatures are generally influenced by altitude, with the very high peak areas having low temperatures ranging from < 0°C-20°C while the lower altitude zones at the base of the mountain are relatively warmer. Minimum and maximum temperatures experienced in the ecosystem range from < 0°C to 27°C. The mountain’s physical conditions, under the influence of relatively high rainfall and temperatures accelerate the weathering and leaching processes thus bringing about diverse changes in the chemical composition of the soils. Ecology: Mt Elgon is viewed as an outlier of the Eastern Afro-montane forests of the Albertine Rift and has been identified as a biological hotspot by Conservation International. The flora of the Eastern Afro-montane Hotspot shows much uniformity and continuity, its composition changing with increasing altitude. The most widespread tree genus is Podocarpus, although Juniperus is found in drier forests. A zone of bamboo is often found between 2 000 and 3 000 m, above which there is often a Hagenia forest zone up to 3 600 m. A number (the results of at least 5 different studies have been published) of plant classification approaches have been proposed for MENP. However, the simplest system describes three distinct natural vegetation types viz. the lush montane forest (90 940 ha), the mixed bamboo belt (2 257 ha) and the heath / moorland (17 403 ha). The latter contains stands of some rare and endemic plant species, like the gaint Lobelia elgonensis and the dotted clusters of peculiar groundsel (Senecio spp). Another floristic description of Mt Elgon describes 5 broad plant communities: 1. Grassland: <10 cm in height; dominated by Adropogon amethystinus, Pennisetum clandestinum and Digitaria scalarum (Graminae); grass species accounting for 15–60% species composition; occasional shrub and herb species over 10 cm occurring with increasing frequency towards forest edge. The grasslands are thought to be maintained as an artificial climax by cattle grazing. Wild grazers such as buffalo and antelope are now scarce on the Ugandan side of the mountain. 2. Bushland: dominated by woody herbs and shrub species forming a closed layer between 1 and 2 m above the ground, with occasional tree saplings; tree canopy absent or below 5% cover; Erica trimera ssp. elgonenis (Ericaceae) abundant in shrub layer and canopy layer (where present) with Artemisia afra (Compositae), Dichrocephala integrifolia (Compositae) and Senecio lyratus (Compositae) particularly abundant in shrub layer; sparse understorey of forbs, pteridophytes and grasses beneath shrub layer; sporadic grazing by cattle in grassy patches; previously cleared for grazing and left to regenerate for 6 or 15–20 years. 3. Forest: tallest trees reaching 15–25 m; >50% canopy cover with an overstorey dominated by Afrocrania volkensii (Cornaceae), sometimes forming an association with Podocarpus latifolius (Podocarpaceae), and no tree understorey; Dicliptera laxata (Acanthaceae) and Impatiens meruensis (Balsaminaceae) particularly abundant in the field layer, with Mimulopsis alpina (Acanthaceae) more abundant in less grazed plots (where its growth form became increasingly shrubby forming a closed layer in patches (¡40% cover)), and with occasional shrubs occurring in this layer; grazed intensively until either 1983 or 1990, when the human populations in the area were evicted, and grazed by cattle with varying intensity since that time. 4. Forest edge: within 100 m of closed canopy forest and either grassland or bushland communities; tallest trees reaching 10–15 m; <50% canopy cover; shrubs, herbs and tree saplings forming a patchy layer (¡40% cover) sharing species from each community. 5. Formerly cultivated fields: abandoned for a number of years; dominated by Rumex ruwenzoriensis (Polygonaceae), Plectranthus laxiflorus (Labiatae) and Pilea tetraphylla (Urticaceae), with Urtica massaica (Urticaceae) more common in plots where grazing by cattle was most intense. Considering the vegetation as a whole, the most significant division is between forest and non-forest vegetation types. The following vegetation description applies only to the restoration areas. All vegetation types described are in areas formerly completely cleared for agriculture. Often a particular area will have a mixture of characteristics of two or more types. Six vegetation types have been identified: Pennisetum clandestinum dominated grasslands Ferns dominated vegetation. Vernonia auriculifera dominated vegetation Riverine vegetation Creepers and climbers Encroached In almost all vegetation types described here, old Aningeria adolfi-friedercii trees are found scattered among them. i. Pennisetum clandestinum dominated vegetation AD 36-A-04 Page 12 of 58

This fast disappearing vegetation type often occurs on hill tops and the fringes of the park and in areas still being encroached by grazing. Several other grasses, bushes and shrubs are often observed. In most cases the Pennisetum is giving way to Vernonia auriculifera dominated shrubs or creepers. There is scarcely any regeneration of tree species in this area except in a few cases where Albizzia coppices are seen to be coming up. A few Croton macrostarchys and Maesa lanceolata, Acacia spp. have also been observed. Rehabilitation of this area requires pioneer species resistant to grass root competition, as the Pennisetum exhibits aggressive roots. ii. Vernonia brachycalyx dominated vegetation The Pennisetum clandestinum vegetation is giving way in most areas to Vernonia auriculifera dominated shrubs. The shrubs often range from 2 metres to 6 metres height at maturity. Between the shrubs several, grass and herb species are found. Also observed with the shrubs are several creepers which sometimes cover their canopy. This causes the floor under the shrubs to lack light and therefore being unable to support plant growth. This means scanty growth of plants under the shrubs is observed. One to several tree species are seen to be regenerating in different parts of the area covered with this vegetation. They include Maesa lanceolata, Dombeya goetzenii, Hagenia abyssinica, Prunus africana, Aningeria adolfi–friederici, Allophyllus africana and Olea capensis. Rehabilitation in this area can be done by using a combination of pioneer, intermediate and climax species. The Vernonia do not last long (2 to 5 years at most) allowing pioneers to grow, yet they provide reasonable shade for the shade bearers which are often the climax species. The climax species should however be planted in small quantities as compared to the other two types. iii. Ferns Areas covered by pure ferns are few and quite scattered, mostly on hill tops and cliffs. However several areas are observed to have a high percentage of ferns with some grasses and shrubs. Normally ferns are seen to be suppressing a combination of Digitaria scalarum and Pennisetum clandestinum. Where pure ferns occur, no other vegetation occurs except at the fringes of such an area. The major colonising species found among the ferns is Vernonia auriculifera. Other species are Haegenia abyssinica, Croton macrostarchys, Prunus africana, Allophyllus africana, Albizzia spp. Pioneer species are the best species to use in rehabilitation as they are fast growing and can soon outgrow the ferns to avoid being suffocated as old ferns often fall over. iv. Creepers and climbers. There are several species in the creepers and climber vegetation type. They normally replace either Vernonia auriculifera dominated or Pennisetum clandestinum vegetation types. They have been observed to “strangle” regenerating species especially where they replace Vernonia shrubs. The few regenerating species found in these areas include Croton macrostarchys, Celtis spp. and some Albizzia. This type is probably the most complicated one to rehabilitate by tree planting as most, if not all, seedlings will be “strangled” by the creepers, which by covering the whole plant deny sunshine and ultimately food. The type however covers a very small area. v. Riverine vegetation. This is normally the densest vegetation in the formerly encroached zone. It is often mixed with several trees. Regeneration here is vigorous with species including Vernonia auriculifera, Maesa lanceolata, Prunus africana, Celtis spp., Fagara spp, Croton macrostarchys, Neoboutania macrocalyx, Macaranga kilimandscharica, Bersama abyssinica, Mimulopsis arboreus, Eretia cymosa, Ficus spp. Often coppices of Aningeria and Sapium ellipticum and several creepers and climbers have been observed. The wild banana (Ensete endulis) is a common feature here. In most areas the regeneration is quite heavy does not require any rehabilitation. vi. Encroached These are basically recently re-encroached areas often with crops. These are found in areas not yet rehabilitated especially in the Bulago-Bumasobo, Bubiita, Busano, Buwabwala, Wanle-Bufumbo, Bududa-Bushika, Bumbo,Bulucheke, Bumasifwa-Busulani areas , which is about 3928 ha (3.5%) of the total area of Park. These are found in areas not yet rehabilitated especially in the Bulago-Bumasobo area. They vary from a few meters beyond the park boundary to several kilometers. Crops grown include bananas, beans, irish potatoes, cabbages, onions maize etc. Target vegetation One of the purposes of UWA-Face Project rehabilitation of the Mt Elgon ecosystem is to restore the forest to as close a state as it was before the encroachment. The closest known original state of Mt Elgon ecosystem is given by the Mt Elgon forest reserve map of 1966. From the map it can be observed that encroachment in MENP was such that much of the three main forest types have been destroyed. These three types mainly fall on the fringes of the Park which explains why they were most vulnerable to encroachment. A brief description of the three (Rich forest, medium rich forest and poor forest) is given below. i. Rich Forest This is high forest with large trees and dense cover and corresponds to the Pygeum moist montane forest described by Synnott (1968). This type of forest probably covers the largest part of the encroached area. Common species here include Prunus (Pygeum) africana and Aningeria adolfi-friederici. Other species are Entandrophragma excelsum, Olea capensis, Albizzia spp., Podocarpus milanjianus. In higher regions Dombeya, schefflera and Pittosporum are found. Under storey trees and shrubs can be very dense especially in areas with rather open upper canopy. AD 36-A-04 Page 13 of 58

ii. Medium rich forest This is open high forest with tall trees over dense dark understorey. It is a poorer version of the former type (rich forest) with almost the same species composition but with a difference in tree size and stocking. Here the trees are smaller and fewer. The difference is mainly caused by edaphic factors, altitude or rainfall distribution. This type forms the transition between the rich forest and the poor forest described below. iii. Poor forest This is a forest with occasional large trees over herbs and shrubs and consists of two main types viz. Hagenia - Rapanea moist montane forest and Juniperus – Podocarpus dry montane forest. It normally occurs above the Prunus forest from about 2 750 m with the upper limit being the end of the forest. Here heath species or grassland form the boundary. Large trees here include Rapanea spp, Afrocrania volkensii and Hagenia abyssinica. These are often short trees less than 15 m high. Shrubs found in association with the trees are Hypericum, Lobelia, Senecio, Philippia and Crassocephelum manii. In the northern part of the park, a coniferous forest has developed as a distinct community with species such as Podocarpus gracilior, Juniperus procera and Ekebegia capensis. Other species include Ilex mitis, Olea, Celtis africana, Teclea nobilis and Diospyros abyssinica and Croton macrostarchys to a lesser extent. Fauna: In terms of fauna, a total of 296 species of forest birds have been recorded. Two species of diurnal primates (17% of the country’s total and 30 species of small mammals (shrews and rodents) are known to occur on Mt Elgon, consisting of a mix of highland, forest dependent and open habitat species. In addition, there are a range of larger mammals including monkeys (Black and White Colobus, Blue and de Brazza's), leopards, elephants, buffalos, bush pigs and duikers. MENP supports a diversity of birds associated with tropical mountain massifs. Due to hunting in the 1980s, most elephants (Loxododonta africana) and buffaloes (Syncerus caffer) moved to the Kenya side of the mountain. Of recent, buffaloes have come again into the northern sector of the park. About 171 species of butterflies and 71 species of moths have also been recorded. Soils: The soils have been formed directly from the parent agglomerates in a single weathering cycle and are still young and rich in weatherable minerals and remarkably resistant to erosion. The soils belong to the undesols. Above 3 000 m are the “Masaba series” which are very dark in colour and well drained. Between 2 100 – 3 000 m are the “Benet series” – the soils of the Forest belt. These are deep, typically brown to red-brown loams. The soils below 2 100 m are generally Nitosols and are deep, well drained, reddish brown with a high clay content. Another classification of the soils divided them into black humose loams above 3 050 m and humose red-loams and clay loams at lower altitudes. They are rich in bases, including calcium and sodium, which is associated with the dominance of montmorillonite in the clay mineral fraction. These exchangeable bases, especially calcium, are usually present at higher concentrations in forests than in non-forest soils. The pH of the upper soil horizon lie usually within the range of 5,5 – 6,5; the main exceptions are at some lower elevations forest soils with pH values of over 6,5. The organic matter content of the upper soil horizon is between 15 – 40 % for the majority of sites.

3.2 History of use Mt Elgon was first gazetted as a Crown Forest in 1938. It became a Forest Reserve in 1968 and from 1968 to 1993 was administered by the Forest Department under the Forest Act. The period 1992 – 1993 saw the status of this protected area change to Forest Park. In 1993, the conservation status of the protected area was elevated to National Park. Population growth in Uganda has resulted in continuous encroachment and boundary changes in 1937, 1942, 1951 and 1964. Since 1964 there was no legal boundary change until 1983 when 6000 ha in Kapchorwa had been excised and was degazetted to accommodate the Benet people. During the political upheaval in the period 1970-1985 the park was subjected to serious agricultural encroachment that resulted in the destruction of over 25 000 ha of rich prime high montane forest, between 2 000 – 3 000 m, through clearing for agricultural production. Pit-sawing combined with shifting cultivation reduced the dense forested lower slopes to bare landscapes that later became colonised by Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum). High immigration rates and encroachment proceeded unchecked throughout the years of civil unrest (17% of the reserve had been deforested by 1990) until the resettlement programmes took place in 1983 and 1990. A large area of Kwoti (6 000 ha) was degazetted from the forest for the purpose of resettling forest dwellers in 1983. However, in 1990 the degazetted area was found to have been measured inaccurately, and the area was regazetted later that year. This left many people who had been allocated ground in 1983 without land, and these people have continued to farm the area illegally since this time, petitioning the government to reinstate the 1983 park boundary. By the 1990s, when the government took a decision to remove all encroachers from all the protected areas in the country, parts of MENP had been much degraded and its water catchment status severely impacted. For approximately 20 years these people had been farming within the Forest Reserve, grazing cattle, growing maize and bananas. There was no productively managed forest in the area. Following the gazettement, local AD 36-A-04 Page 14 of 58

communities lost all rights of access to forest resources. The only way that use can be re-established is through the signing of formal agreements with the Chief Warden. The newly formed MENP’s primary objective is “to safeguard the biodiversity and integrity of the physical and ecological processes of the park in perpetuity for the health, welfare, employment and inspiration of present and future generations”. To assist in achieving this goal, the Government invited IUCN and European Community to undertake restoration work and subsequently, a similar invitation was extended to FACE Foundation. In 1994 FACE Foundation formally started its operations with UNP (Uganda National Parks, now UWA) as its contract partner under the UNFCCC Joint Implementation programme. MENP’s Management Plan has been prepared and approved by the Board of Trustees of Uganda Wildlife Authority. The plan defines zones planned for various activities or uses that the stakeholders have identified. The important zones are the Wilderness zone (comprising the bulk of the park), Restoration zone, Tourism zone, Integrated Resource Use zone and Plantation zone. The restoration zone comprises formerly encroached areas 2 – 3 km wide along the entire boundary length of 211 km. In this zone human assisted forest rehabilitation will be encouraged. This zone makes up the UWA-Face Project Area in MENP. The total area covered by this zone is about 25 000 hectares and since the inception of the project in 1995, some 8 125 ha of native forests have been re-established; with 289 ha established in 2005 and 80 ha in 2006. The adjoining lands are all agricultural land holdings of communities and local peoples on the Ugandan side with over 80 % of the land being held under customary tenure. Protected areas adjoin the park on the Kenyan side of the border. Mt Elgon (Kenya side) comprises Mt Elgon National Park as a core zone; Trans-Nzoia Forest and Chepkitale National Reserves as buffer zones and is listed as a Biosphere Reserve. 3.3 Planning process Planning is done at five levels: a) A strategic plan for the whole UWA for the period 2002 – 2007 dated June 2002 is in place. The Strategic Plan is a document that summarises why the organisation exists (Mission: To conserve and sustainably manage the wildlife and protected areas of Uganda in partnership with neighbouring communities and other stakeholders for the benefit of the people of Uganda and the global community), what it is trying to accomplish (Objectives: 1. Establish and maintain efficient and effective management to uplift the conservation integrity of Protected Areas (PA) and wildlife in the country. 2. Strengthen capacity and establish management systems and operating procedures that will enable UWA to function in an efficient and business like manner. 3. Strengthen the capacity of UWA management to become a wildlife service oriented organisation to contribute to the government’s mission of poverty eradication in rural areas) and how it will go about doing so (Strategy – consisting of 12 strategic programmes). The main elements of UWA’s conservation strategic approach are law enforcement, community conservation, research and monitoring and financial sustainability in the management of PAs. The 12 programmes in the strategic plan are: SP1: Development of Policies, Systems and Procedures SP2: Planning SP3: Protected Area Management SP4: Wildlife Services SP5: Collaborative Management SP6: Monitoring and Research SP7: Security and Law Enforcement SP8: Financial Sustainability and Management SP9: Tourism Development SP10: Public relations SP11: Performance Accountability SP12: Good Governance b) A general management plan for MENP dated December 2000 is the first level of planning at the individual park level. The plan identifies management objectives and prioritised actions to address issues. The plan is a primary document to be used in the preparation of annual operational plans and provides the basis for evaluating operational performance in achieving management objectives. The primary management objective for MENP has been defined as: To conserve and manage the physical, ecological and cultural resources of MENP for the benefit of present and future generations. Six management programmes have been developed to ensure management objectives are achieved: AD 36-A-04 Page 15 of 58

i. Resource management and protection ii. Community conservation and development iii. Tourism iv. Support systems v. Research and monitoring vi. Plantation management These programmes are also reflected in the organisational structure of MENP which largely follow this subdivision into specific programmes. c) Annual operations plans are compiled for each year and the plan for 2006/07 was available. This plan also included a detailed financial budget. This document is initiated by park management and submitted to UWA HQ. This is then used to produce an integrated operations plan for the whole UWA entity. The plan schedules all activities per park per month where applicable. d) Each of the 7 departments in the management structure of MENP compiles a monthly planning document setting out its activities for that particular month. e) Specific projects, such as the FACE project and the softwood plantations, are required to conform to the general management plan and both these projects have their own project plans of operations. The version of the FACE-plan for January 2006 – December 2008 dated 2005 was available. UWA-Face’s short term objectives are to support the objectives of UWA in protecting and conserving the integrity of MENP’s boundary, etc. This is done by: i. Restoring the integrity of the degraded forest ecosystems in the park and thereby enhance biodiversity conservation. This is achieved by replanting the degraded areas with locally occurring indigenous trees and by protecting adjacent degraded forest to enhance the natural regeneration of indigenous trees. ii. Provide employment opportunities to the communities adjacent to the park as a means of reducing pressure on the park resources. iii. Impart forest skills and knowledge to the local communities with view to making them environmental ambassadors of the project. The long term objectives are defined as: i. restore the natural vegetation in the area of MENP under protection and conservation due to the reforestation activities. This does not only include the areas with open woodland, grass vegetation or degraded natural forest immediately beyond the planted UWA-Face plantation areas. It also covers all areas within MENP, which are positively influenced (from the point of view of carbon fixation) through restoration and/or protection activities directly and/or indirectly executed or assisted through UWA-Face Project. ii. Compensate for CO2 emissions by procuring CO2. This is achieved by growing trees, which take CO2 out of the air (sequestration) and store it (i.e. offset). A softwood management plan has similarly been prepared for the plantations part of MENP. The old management plan has been replaced by the new one (2007), which has been revised to suit the current social, financial, and other management needs. It was decided by the UWA Board of Trustees that softwood plantations shall be managed as a stand alone programme for effective implementation of its goals and objectives. The main goal of the plantations is to produce timber for economic value and reduce pressure from the adjacent natural forest and also serves as a demonstration for tree planting to nearby communities. The plan will run for a period of 10 years after which a revision will be undertaken to capture socially, economically and ecologically changes.

3.4 Harvest and regeneration No harvesting of indigenous trees is undertaken and forest management work in the FACE-project is limited to planting and tending activities. Species are matched to site and a restricted range of primary and intermediate species are planted. The project aims to re-establish natural forest simply by replanting mixtures of native species in degraded vegetation. Containerised seedlings are raised by local farmers on a contract basis, using locally collected seeds, saplings or cuttings. The stock is transported to the outpost from where workers carry the plants to the planting site and match individual species to prevailing conditions. Workers are trained to recognize light demanding and shade bearing species and to plant them in sites that will provide these conditions. Seedlings are planted at 5 m x 5 m spacing in areas where there is no sign of natural regeneration. Weeding (slashing weeds using pangas), and where necessary, climber cutting is carried out two to three times per year over the first 3 years depending on the weed growth, until the plants are established. Blanking is only required if less than 50% of the seedlings survive. The result is a relatively low stocking of ± 400 sph, but experience is showing that in many areas, natural regeneration is also coming in from neighbouring forest or from the remaining seed and root bank AD 36-A-04 Page 16 of 58

in the soil, largely due to the absence of fire from the elephant grass. In blanking, a higher proportion of Ficus cuttings tend to be utilised, as they are more robust. Protection from fire is provided through the use of firebreaks, watchers and fire fighting teams. The major part of fire protection is the boundary around the park that is planted with eucalyptus trees, and maintained free of weed cover. In places, permits are issued to raise annual crops amongst younger trees, taungya style, further increasing the incentive to protect these areas from fire. Stand-by fire teams are employed during the dry season. Watchers also ensure that the young trees are not cut for firewood. Fire-breaks are also maintained around the plantations where there is a risk that fire will spread from other areas. Protection from grazing by domestic animals is afforded through the enforcement of National Park Laws that strictly forbid the grazing of animals within the park. Grazing by wild animals was not reported to be a problem. The softwood plantation covers an area of 1 000 ha at Kapkwata and 500 ha in and Suam. Softwood plantations are looked at as a resource that can generate substantial income and also provide an opportunity to test a collaborative resource management policy. The planting in Suam (40 km South- East of Kapkwata) started in 1965 and aimed at controlling grazing in the natural high forest and reducing pressure for agricultural encroachment. In both areas, the taungya system was used in establishment and early tending of the trees. However, in 1978, planting stopped in both areas due to lack of operational funds and inadequate supervision. The program activities in the plantation management plan include agricultural practice, nursery work, planting, tending, fire management, pest and disease, control, research and monitoring of tree growth and administration of expenditure and revenue from the plantations. All mature plantations were felled, with the last felling being undertaken in 2005 and the area was then replanted to softwoods. No harvesting can therefore be expected at least for the next ± 10 years when thinnings may be considered. The presence of exotic softwood plantations is not fully compatible with the natural park concept of conservation of natural ecological resources and processes. UWA admits in the plan itself that the presence of exotics species in the boundaries of the park should be limited or avoided altogether.

3.5 Monitoring processes UWA has a central Monitoring and Research Unit at their headquarters in Kampala with:

i) Information on wildlife management areas

ii) A Management Information System (MIST)

iii) A Library

iv) A research database for easy retrieval of information on all research projects, research organizations and personnel.

Monitoring activities are prioritized under the headings:

i) Ecology: wild animals, vegetation and meteorology

ii) Socio-economics: demographic and resource use

iii) Management: illegal activities, problem animals and patrol coverage

iv) Development: concessions, tourism and pollution

The spatial Management Information System (MIST) provides managers and planners with up-to-date information for their planning, decision-making and evaluation. The users in MENP have access to MIST through stand alone computers. The databases from the various parks are synchronised with the central MIST database through automatic database replication using digital data transfer. MIST provides information generated by the processing of data and also by giving access to files which are kept in central digital archives on the UWA server. Only data which can be processed into information which is relevant and useful for managers and planners are collected, stored and processed in MIST. Standardised data sheets have been developed for the recording of:

i. ecological data and data on illegal activities by rangers and air patrols; ii. visitor data at park gates; and iii. data on resource harvest by local communities. All spatial data collected are geo-referenced using Global Positioning System (GPS).

This enables production of the following outputs: AD 36-A-04 Page 17 of 58

i. indices for monitoring of wildlife populations, illegal activities and resource harvest by local communities without the need for expensive baseline data; ii. distribution maps for planning and monitoring; iii. baseline information for patrol deployment planning; iv. information on wildlife population structure; v. performance indicators to monitor and evaluate the implementation of annual operations plans; and vi. reports for collaborating institutions etc. Annual operations planning and monitoring and evaluation of implementation of plans are also handled in MIST.

4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

4.1 Social aspects

Number of own workers 70 Number of contract workers ±20 Minimum daily wage for agricultural/forestry workers Uganda Shillings 70 000/month (±US$40/month) Infant mortality rates (under 5 years) 6,6 Proportion of workers employed from the local population (%) 100

A pastoralist population called the Sabiny, of Nilo-Cushtic origin, live on the northern slopes of Mount Elgon between about 2 500 and 3 000 m where they graze their cattle, sheep and goats on pastures within the forest and on the high moor lands in the districts of Kapchorwa and Bukwa. The Ndoroboo are part of the Sabiny tribe and have traditionally lived in the forest. The Kony (Benet), one of these pastoral communities, lived in the northern grassland and moor land areas of the mountain. They were evicted and resettled in 1983 to an area north of the park. Apart from the Sabiny there are no other recorded traditional residents of the area currently gazetted as MENP. The Bagisu tribe constitutes 4.7 % of the Ugandan population and they are the dominant tribal grouping on the southern and western slopes, whilst the Sabiny are dominant on the northern foothills and constitute 0.7% of Uganda’s population. The mountain is more important to the Bagisu tribe than to the Sabiny. The Bagisu, a Bantu speaking people, were the first settlers on the mountain’s western and southwestern slopes. Traditionally agriculturalists, they began cultivating Mt. Elgon’s fertile volcanic soils in the 14th century. The Bagisu have gradually moved further up the lower slopes of Mount Elgon. The Bagisu have remained on the mountain’s slopes up to the present day and now currently inhabit the Mbale, Sironko, Manafwa and Bududa Districts. They are known throughout East Africa for producing high quality Arabica coffee. The area is also culturally relevant for the Baganda, the single largest ethnic group in Uganda (17 % of the population), who are descendants from people originally from Mount Elgon. Available literature refers to the upland people that settled adjacent to MENP by many names, including the Benet, Ndorobo, indigenous Sebei and Kony among others, creating a great deal of confusion. Information obtained from local people in Kapchorwa, indicates that this group constitutes a separate ethnicity or "tribe". They are all of Sabiny descent, share common cultural practices and language, though they view themselves as "indigenous" to the mountain. The term "Benet" is used differently by different actors. Most often, it is used to refer to the several communities who were evicted from the forest in the 1970s and early 80s - these are the people who claim an indigenous status. Within that general usage, there are a group of people who maintain that they originated from an area in the park called Benet - perhaps in an effort to legitimize their own land claims. Settlers from the lower plains (Ngege area) displaced due to cattle raiding by the Karimajong warriors have also begun calling themselves Benet. The slopes of Mt Elgon are composed of volcanic soils that are very rich coupled with sufficient rainfall at 2 000 m. The area has a very rich agricultural potential. Cash crops include wheat and maize in Kapchorwa and Bukwa and coffee and bananas in Mbale, Sironko, Manafwa and Bududa. The richness of the soils is reflected in the very high population density of over 500 persons / km² compared to the national average of 125 / km². Population density is high in the majority of parishes adjacent to the forests, and land shortage and fragmentation are an increasing problem as the population grows. The population density immediately around the park has been increased further by the eviction of encroachers from the park without relocation to other areas. The boundary is also very long due to the convoluted shape of the mountain, and 61 Parishes share the park boundary on the Ugandan side. In Mbale (two more districts, Manafwa and Bududa, have been created in Mbale district in 2005/2006) the annual population growth averages 3½ % which is among the highest in the country. The peasant land holding averages 0.25 – 1.0 ha with an average of 10-15 members per household. Generally over half of the household members are children. A demographic survey conducted in 1997 showed that the majority of the population are under the age of fifteen and that only 7% of the population lived beyond the age of forty-five. People live and cultivate AD 36-A-04 Page 18 of 58

adjacent to the protected area boundaries and in most cases have destroyed the boundary line for agricultural plots. The extreme land hunger in Mbale has created agricultural encroachments and raised conflicts with some communities adjacent to the protected area. Heavy tree cutting in Mbale has exposed the land to serious landslides that have proved fatal during heavy persistent rains. Land fragmentation is a threat to increased crop production. Generally, the standards of living are low. Many children do not have regular access to schooling and many families are without primary health care. Despite improving healthcare services in the area over the last ten years over half the population lived over 16 km away from a hospital. Population growth and land use practices are seen as the two most important factors affecting the degradation of natural resources within and adjacent to the National Park. In 1983 and 1990 the UWA started a resettlement programme to move the population from within the park to settlement areas allocated outside the park. The two largest relocations from the National Park took place in 1983 and 1990. The status of people currently living in the park is of critical importance to the future of MENP. There is serious conflict between UWA and some of the local communities around MENP. Some local people have a very negative perception of UWA, but UWA deny any wrongdoings. Two separate issues surfaced viz. i. General encroachment onto MENP along the lower boundaries by agriculturists for land and other natural resources. ii. The use of high-lying moorland/forest by a subgroup the Benet (about 34 000 strong), who claim historical/traditional rights to the area as people indigenous to this part of MENP. A high court judge ruled in favour of the Benet tribe regarding their rights to part of MENP. UWA respects this ruling and will not evict the Benet from the park until either another piece of land outside the park is found for them, or a part of MENP is degazzeted which they can legally occupy. This is seen as acting in the spirit of recognising and respecting a legal or customary right and accommodating or compensating any damages; although only after legal recourse had been sought. There is currently a stalemate situation regarding the encroachment on the lower western boundary, with “illegal settlements” in MENP being accommodated at this time, with its concomitant negative effects on the integrity of the forest. This subject is further elaborated upon in the report on stakeholder consultation. Kapchorwa district has a lower population density and bigger land holdings for commercial production. Maize has been a profitable crop in the past although, as with coffee, national and local market prices are highly variable seasonally and annually. There are very few opportunities for paid employment in the area, especially in those areas where there is higher population densities and little or no commercial agricultural activity. The local people have few areas of cultural significance within the restoration zone. A number of areas exist that are used during the circumcision ceremonies, but most of the 23 identified sites of significance involves natural features such as caves and waterfalls. Tourism is an important source of income for the region. Visitors come to climb Mt Elgon (a 5-day trek) and see the landscape, hot springs, birds, wildlife and differing vegetation types as altitude increases. Other sources of income in the area are limited to employment opportunities in Local Government and the local demand for agricultural labour. Since 2000, a total of 52 Collaborative Resource Management Agreements have been signed between parishes and MENP. These agreements allow the commercial and non-commercial harvesting of resources such as wild coffee growing naturally in the forest under-storey, honey, vines, rattan, palm leaves and bamboo, fish, mushrooms, water etc. However, there still are a number of situations on the boundary of the NP where such agreements are not in place, resulting in conflict between UWA staff and local people as all activities on MENP are therefore illegal and park rangers have no option but to act against transgressors. UWA-Face is recognised as being one of the few significant sources of income in the area. They employ a permanent staff complement of 145 employees, including management staff, and take on about 70 casual labourers. All UWA staff (145 persons) is employed on a four year contract basis, renewable depending on performance. UWA-Face casual workers (70 persons) are employed on “regular basis” depending on amount of planned work for the month. Normally the peak period is during the planting season and fire season. No major planting has been carried out in the restoration areas during the last 3 years (only 80 ha in 2006), thus the peak periods have been only the dry season December – March when UWA increases the casual labour force to ±100 persons.

4.2 Environmental aspects Mt Elgon was identified by the East African Community and partner states as a trans-boundary ecosystem that needs to be managed through a regional programme of conservation and sustainable development. Accordingly, the Mt Elgon Regional Ecosystem Conservation Programme (MERECP) was initiated in response to this need for a regional approach to the management of this important trans-boundary ecosystem as a water catchment for Lake Victoria, the Nile and Lake Turkana. An ecosystem approach and a regional, multinational approach are needed to ensure the continuation of the ecological and development benefits and services provided by the mountain ecosystem – both directly to the local peoples of the area, the remote users of Mt Elgon products and the biodiversity that is of local, national, regional and global significance. MERECP is based on on-going national AD 36-A-04 Page 19 of 58

activities as well as achievements of the recently concluded Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) on both sides of the mountain to address conservation and development issues that require regional approach. MERECP will be implemented over a period of 4 years at cost of approximately US $ 4.87 Million inclusive of all investments, technical assistance and implementation costs. The Royal Norwegian Government through a funding agreement with the EAC Secretariat funds MERECP, and the project is technically and managerial supported by the IUCN. The MERECP objectives are: i. Promotion of conservation and management of natural resources and biodiversity in and outside protected areas; ii. Enhancement of sustainable development in Mt Elgon ecosystem; iii. Integration of conservation and management needs of Mt Elgon ecosystem into national, regional and international development framework; and iv. Effective implementation of MERECP as a regional trans-boundary programme. One of the first products of MERECP has been the production of a report on the type and extent of invasive plant spp in the Mt Elgon ecosystem dated August 2006. In total 35 spp were identified, of which 16 spp are encountered frequently. Focal spp on the Ugandan side include Lantana camara, Solanum spp and Senna spectabilis. The two Acacias (A. mearnsii and A. melanoxylon) are seen as highly important as far as invasiveness is concerned. Since the species is in its early establishment phase and of limited extend, an eradication campaign of A. melanoxylon was recommended and should be acted upon by management. The ecosystem is valuable for its ecological goods and services and development opportunities. As such the Mt Elgon ecosystem includes two National Parks, one National Reserve; several Forest Reserves, open areas and other categories of land use without conservation status. The key values of Mt Elgon are presented in the form of natural heritage, biodiversity, water catchments, agricultural base and tourism. Land tenure rights of people living in or on the boundary with MENP are at present uncertain and this has created conflict between some local people and the management of the MENP. People are generally unwilling to use resources in the park sustainably, as there is no incentive to invest time and money in sustainable practices when eviction may be imminent. Even in the event that all people are resettled outside the NP, the people from forest- adjacent parishes are continuing to graze cattle and collect live wood from the forest. Current grazing by cattle in Benet and grazing which took place in the past has been shown to alter the composition of plant and animal communities considerably. In particular, grazing in the forest has been found to suppress tree regeneration. Tree growth continues to be suppressed in areas which have not been grazed intensively for fifteen years, due to dense colonisation by the woody herb Mimusops alpina in these areas. Both the Bagisu and the Sabiny tribes practice traditional circumcision ceremonies at specific sites in the forest during the even years. The circumcision ceremony (Imbalu) is an especially important cultural link between the local people and Mt. Elgon. During the three day ceremony of dancing, visiting friends and family, and receiving gifts, the "candidates" are decorated with skins and wave two black and white Colobus monkey tails in the air. Bamboo shoots are also collected and used in the preparation of a special dish which is eaten during the ceremonies. The impact that the collection of Colobus skins and tails has on the primate population and the collection of bamboo is not currently known. However, simply looking at the human population density in the area, it is assumed that the impact on them may be significant. UWA staff intensify patrols during the Imbalu season to reduce the hunting of the black and white Colobus monkeys..

4.3 Administration, Legislation and Guidelines Uganda is administered under a decentralised system of divisions referred to as districts. With decentralisation in 1998, local government (district and the sub-county) assumed most of the responsibilities formerly undertaken by the central government ministries. These included income tax collection, service provision, formulation of policies and laws, managing the environment and local forest reserves. The current local government in Uganda is organised into a five-tier system of elected representatives called Local Councils (LCs), from level one (LC1) to level five (LC5). The District Council or the fifth level (LC5) is the highest political organisation in a district. It comprises elected councilors who represent specific constituencies and interest groups, and is headed by the District Chairperson, who presides over meetings of the executive committee. Below the District Council is the County or Municipality Council (LC4) in the rural and urban settings respectively, which is an administrative unit. The sub-county (LC3) is the second level of local government. Below the LC3 are the Parish (LC2) and the Village (LC1) levels. Each Local Council at every level includes an executive committee of nine members and a position for the secretary for production and environment. Local governments have Production and Environment Committees (PECs), whose members are elected and downwardly accountable to local people. These committees are empowered by the Local Government Act of 1997 and the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (Government of Uganda, 1997, 2003) to manage the local environment and other natural resources, including preparation, approval, control, monitoring and overseeing the implementation of environment programmes. At the local government level, the District and Sub-county Councils have legislative powers, while the executive committee, which is part of the council, is responsible for executive functions, but it is answerable to the council. The executive (administrative) functions are exercised through a hierarchy of employed officials with the Chief Administrative Officer (at the district level), followed by the Assistant Chief Administrative Officer (County level), AD 36-A-04 Page 20 of 58

Sub-county and Parish chiefs at Sub-county and Parish levels, respectively. The executive committee initiates and formulates policies for approval by the council, oversees the implementation of central government programmes, including the management of natural resources and council’s policies. It monitors the implementation of council’s programmes, and receives and solves problems and disputes forwarded to it from lower local governments. Local organisations crafted and passed byelaws and resolutions that protect forest resources. District and sub-county governments have powers to formulate forest byelaws. This is provided for in sections 39 and 40 of the Local Government Act of 1997 (Government of Uganda, 1997) and the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act of 2003 (Government of Uganda, 2003). Many of these byelaws and resolutions address problems of deforestation, over exploitation of forest resources and protection of marginal areas and water sources. These are also intended to support national environment policy. The Ugandan Wildlife Statute No 14 governs activities within the NP. The Act allows for the creation of park byelaws. Other important regulations include the requirement to submit an EIA to NEMA, Labour laws including the Social Security Act, PAYE regulations, and the Health and Public Safety Act. The following table lists the key national legislation, regulations, guidelines and codes of best practice that are relevant to forestry in the commercial, environmental and social sectors. This list does not purport to be comprehensive, but indicates information that is key to the forestry sector.

Legislation and regulation Notes The National Social Security Fund Act 1985 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 The Land Act of 1998 The Employment Act 1977 The employment decree 1975 The Employment regulations 1977 The workers Compensation Act 2000. Human Resources Manual 2002 The Uganda Wildlife Statute 1996 The National Forest Plan 2002 The National Forestry and Tree Planting Act No 8 of 2003 The National Environmental Statute 1995 The Game preservation and Control Act 1959 The 2001 Forestry Policy for Uganda The Local Government Act, 1997 Guidelines and Codes of Best Practice Notes UWA – FACE Project terms and Conditions of Service.

5. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT, HARVESTING, SILVICULTURE AND MONITORING The following table shows significant changes that took place in the management, monitoring, harvesting and regeneration practices of the certificate holder over the certificate period.

Description of Change Notes SURVEILLANCE 1 No significant changes SURVEILLANCE 2 No significant changes SURVEILLANCE 3

SURVEILLANCE 4

AD 36-A-04 Page 21 of 58

6. PREPARATION FOR THE EVALUATION

6.1 Schedule The restoration zone of UWA-FACE Mt Elgon National Park was first certified on 21 March 2002 and remained certified for its first 5-year certification period. The organisation was thus well versed in terms of the FSC standards required. Previous main assessment and the annual surveillance reports were used to prepare for and plan the re-evaluation which this time covered the whole National Park. Specific note was taken of some stakeholder concerns that were raised about the rights of indigenous people. Key stakeholders were identified.

6.2 Team The table below shows the team that conducted the main evaluation and the independent specialist(s) that were selected to review the main evaluation report before certification is considered.

Evaluation Team Notes Team Leader Has an M Sc in Forestry/Nature Conservation, 33 years experience in forestry, involved with the FSC process since 1995, speaks English and Afrikaans, qualified lead auditor since 2004. Local Specialist Has a PhD, in Forestry, 11 years experience in forestry and teaching, involved in teaching and research since 2000, speaks English, Swahili and Ugandan local languages (Rukiga, Runyankore, Runyoro, Rutoro and Luganda), and has 2 years experience as local specialist on FSC assessments in Uganda. Trainee Lead Is currently completing an M Sc in Environmental Management, has 8 years experience in Auditor forestry internationally, speaks English, Zulu, Afrikaans, Portuguese and is intimately involved with the FSC process in Africa. Lead Auditor Has an Honours degree in Forest Ecology and Ecophysiology, 16 years experience in Trainer forestry and forest management internationally and nationally in South Africa, and has been involved in international FSC auditing since 2000, and speaks English and Afrikaans. Peer Reviewers Notes Not required for recertification

6.3 Checklist Preparation A checklist was prepared that consisted of the documents listed below. This checklist was prepared by adapting the QUALIFOR generic forest management checklist. This adaptation included canvassing comments from stakeholders 4 weeks before the field evaluation and a copy of this checklist is available on the SGS Qualifor website, www.sgs.com/forestry.

Standard Used in Evaluation Effective Date Version Nr Changes to Standard SGS Qualifor: Generic Forest 11 April 2007 AD 33-UG- Management Standard (AD33) 02 adapted for Uganda.

6.4 Stakeholder notification A wide range of stakeholders were contacted 4 weeks before the planned evaluation to inform them of the evaluation and ask for their views on relevant forest management issues, These included environmental interest groups, local government agencies and forestry authorities and forest user groups. Responses received and comments from interviews are recorded under paragraph 13 of this Public Summary.

7. THE EVALUATION The Main Evaluation was conducted in the steps outlined below.

7.1 Opening meeting AD 36-A-04 Page 22 of 58

An opening meeting was held at the offices of MENP in Mbali. The scope of the evaluation was explained and schedules were determined. Record was kept of all persons that attended this meeting.

7.2 Document review A review of the main forest management documentation was conducted to evaluate the adequacy of coverage of the QUALIFOR Programme requirements. This involved examination of policies, management plans, systems, procedures, instructions and controls.

7.3 Sampling and Evaluation Approach A detailed record of the following is available in section B of the evaluation report. This section does not form part of the public summary, but includes information on: Sampling methodology and rationale; FMUs included in the sample; Sites visited during the field evaluation; and Man-day allocation. The main assessment audit consisted of a document review process, a stakeholder consultation process and 7.5 man-days of field visits (including interviews with employees and other stakeholders) which focused on the encroachment, restoration and plantation areas as these were considered the most sensitive activities or situations. Considerable effort was made to interview specifically stakeholders of the encroaching communities on the lower boundary. The first and second surveillance visits were 5 mandays each and the team consisted of a lead auditor and a local specialist, who split in order to cover more ground. The local specialist focussed on social issues and interviewing workers and surrounding communities and the lead auditor concentrated on the forest management and verified the zonation of the park and the management per zone.

7.4 Field assessments Field assessments aimed to determine how closely activities in the field complied with documented management systems and QUALIFOR Programme requirements. Interviews with staff, operators and contractors were conducted to determine their familiarity with and their application of policies, procedures and practices that are relevant to their activities. A carefully selected sample of sites was visited to evaluate whether practices met the required performance levels.

7.5 Stakeholder interviews Meetings or telephone interviews were held with stakeholders as determined by the responses to notification letters and SGS discretion as to key stakeholders that should be interviewed. These aimed to: clarify any issues raised and the company’s responses to them; obtain additional information where necessary; and obtain the views of key stakeholders that did not respond to the written invitation sent out before the evaluation.

Nr of Stakeholders Nr of Interviews with contacted NGOs Government Other RE-EVALUATION

65 2 12 51 SURVEILLANCE 1

1 2 9 SPECIAL INTERM AUDIT

20 14 1 5

SURVEILLANCE 2

8 10 SURVEILLANCE 3 AD 36-A-04 Page 23 of 58

Nr of Stakeholders Nr of Interviews with contacted NGOs Government Other

Responses received and comments from interviews are recorded under paragraph 13 of this Public Summary.

7.6 Summing up and closing meeting At the conclusion of the field evaluation, findings were presented to company management at a closing meeting. Any areas of non-conformance with the QUALIFOR Programme were raised as one of two types of Corrective Action Request (CAR): Major CARs - which must be addressed and re-assessed before certification can proceed Minor CARs - which do not preclude certification, but must be addressed within an agreed time frame, and will be checked at the first surveillance visit A record was kept of persons that attended this meeting. Since three major CARs were raised that precluded certification, a close-out visit took place on 13-14 August 2007. All open Major CARs were closed during this visit. Further details are presented under the close-out evidence for each of these CARs.

8. EVALUATION RESULTS Detailed evaluation findings are included in Section B of the evaluation report. This does not form part of the public summary. For each QUALIFOR requirement, these show the related findings, and any observations or corrective actions raised. The main issues are discussed below. 8.1 Findings related to the general QUALIFOR Programme

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 111::: CCCooommmpppllliiiaaannnccceee wwwiiittthhh lllaaawww aaannnddd FFFSSSCCC PPPrrriiinnnccciiipppllleeesss

Criterion 1.1 Respect for national and local laws and administrative requirements

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance UWA management staff has a good understanding of the legislation. There is a copy of most of the relevant regulation available in the office, either with the Chief Warden or with other officials.

Criterion 1.2 Payment of legally prescribed fees, royalties, taxes and other charges

Strengths MENP have a Revenue Sharing Initiative for park entry fees, and records at MENP indicate that about US$29 000 has been spent to develop local infrastructure since 2002. Weaknesses Compliance UWA-Face budgets for the financial year 2007 had provisions for VAT and NSSF contributions for its staff. Receipts are also available showing remittances of Value Added Tax to Uganda Revenue Authority and NSSF contribution for its 145 staff members.

Criterion 1.3 Respect for provisions of international agreements

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance The UWA wardens are aware of CITES and alist of CITES species is available. The requirements of the ILO have been included into The Employment Act 6 of 2006.

Criterion 1.4 Conflicts between laws and regulations, and the FSC P&C

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance There is no evidence of conflict that exists between national laws and the FSC P&Cs. AD 36-A-04 Page 24 of 58

Criterion 1.5 Protection of forests from illegal activities

Strengths Weaknesses Significant encroachment and associated illegal activities take place along the lower boundary of the park. Much of this land encroachment is attributable to outside interference over which UWA has no control, however UWA has put a number of actions in place to amicably address this situation which includes interaction with all levels of government. Minor CAR 01 was raised to address this. Compliance UWA works closely with local communities, local leaders and resource use groups especially when handling minor offences resulting from park resource use. Major offences like hunting, charcoal burning and timber cutting are referred to the police for investigation and prosecuation. There are regular patrols throughout the forest, supported by 17 ranger outposts distributed throughout MENP, increasing access to remote areas.

Criterion 1.6 Demonstration of a long-term commitment to the FSC P&C

Strengths Weaknesses There is no publicly available policy stating long term commitment to Forest Management practices consistent with the FSC Principles and Criteria. Minor CAR 02 was raised. Compliance MA2007: The fact that top management decided to expand certification to include the whole national park, is regarded as a de facto demonstration of a long term commitment to the FSC Principles and Criteria. This is further strengthened by the positive attitude of park management to certification. COF2007: A statement has been put on the UWA website www.uwa.or.ug that UWA adheres to the forest management practices consistent with the Forest Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria. Minor CAR 02 was closed.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 222::: TTTeeennnuuurrreee aaannnddd uuussseee rrriiiggghhhtttsss aaannnddd rrreeessspppooonnnsssiiibbbiiillliiitttiiieeesss

Criterion 2.1 Forest management shall respect all national and local laws and administrative requirements

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance Mt Elgon National Park (MENP) is fully state-owned land and was declared a National Park in terms of Statutory Instruments 2003 No 42 of the Ugandan Wildlife Authority statutes. The boundaries of the MENP are fully defined and records are deposited at the Survey Records Office in the Department Responsible for Surveys and Mapping. There is no harvesting of the natural forest. The project is linked to the carbon emission reductions scheme and is long term as carbon fixation for at least 99 years is a requirement in terms of the CDM. The softwood plantations comprise a small part (1 500 ha) of MENP and have recently been replanted after harvesting, i.e. although they are not managed on an annual sustainable yield basis, they are replanted as harvesting takes place.

Criterion 2.2 Local communities’ legal or customary tenure or use rights

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance The Benet, a pastoral community, lived in the northern grassland and moor land areas of the mountain. They were evicted and resettled in 1983 to an area north of the park. The Ugandan High Court in Mbale ruled that the members of this community are historical and indigenous inhabitants of the National Park. UWA accepted this verdict and indicated that the Benet tribe will be allowed to stay in the area until such time as either an alternative area for settlement is found and they are resettled, or when the area they currently occupy is excluded from the park. The area where the Benet resides is marked on maps and the situation is comprehensively addressed in the general management plan. Customary rights revolve around the use of sites in the forests that are used during the circumcision ceremonies that are carried out every even year. These sites are well known and their use is respected. Local people have collaborative resource use agreements that enable them to collect resources on prescribed days of the week.. The park is also the source of water for communities. The use of each type of resource is defined in terms of the amounts that may be collected, locality, when and harvesting method. To ensure that the ecological integrity of the park is not jeopardised some obligations are put on the local communities to monitor the use of these resources. Significant damage was done to the forests in the past by people, separate from the Benet, claiming user rights to it. This has now largely now been contained by UWA and the Ugandan Government through the eviction of illegal settlars. Relations with some local communities have become strained as a result of this. Much of the current land encroachment along the lower boundary is attributable to external interference over which UWA has no control. AD 36-A-04 Page 25 of 58

Criterion 2.3 Disputes over tenure claims and use rights

Strengths Weaknesses The most serious controversy on MENP is the land encroachment issue which has lead to evictions which in turn has caused some communities to be seriously displeased. Two separate issues have been identified in this regard viz. 1. General encroachment into MENP along the lower boundaries by agriculturists for land and other natural resources. 2. The use of high-lying moorland/forest by a group, the Benet, who claim historical/traditional rights to the area as people indigenous to this part of MENP. See 4.1 for more detail on this situation. There is currently a stalemate situation regarding the encroachment on the lower boundary, with illegal settlements in MENP being accommodated at this time, with its concomitant negative effects on the integrity of the forest. The reason that this issue is not raised as a CAR in terms of Principle 3 or Criterion 2.3 is that: i) UWA has accepted the court ruling in the case of the Benet tribe and undertook not to act against them unless alternative land can be found (thus recognizing and respecting their rights). ii) Much of the current encroachment along the lower boundary is attributable to external interference over which UWA has no control; and is the subject of a debate that must still be resolved at the highest level of political decision-making. UWA has put a number of actions in place to amicably address this situation. See 13 for more details on this.

These efforts have yielded results as some communities have harvested their crops and abandoned MENP voluntarily in certain areas. However, both situations require the full attention from UWA to come to an acceptable resolution for all parties and it will be closely monitored during future surveillance evaluations.. Compliance Documented procedures for handling of transgressions of wildlife use rights are available. This sets out criminal, civil, customary law, law of contract, as well as arbitration – the latter states that disputes must be resolved by conciliation under the Arbitration Act, without resorting to the tribunal or court. All cases, elevated to a legal level, are recorded in a file on legal matters. Non-legal cases are normally handled via a system of meetings with e.g. local communities and these are all fully documented. Management follows the guideline that disputes must be resolved through meetings/discussions with affected communities and no instances are currently known where forest operations are carried out that may compromise tenure or use rights of local communities.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 333::: IIInnndddiiigggeeennnooouuusss pppeeeooopppllleeesss’’’ rrriiiggghhhtttsss

Criterion 3.1 Indigenous peoples’ control of forest management

Strengths Weaknesses See 13 and 4.1 for a full discussion on the position of indigenous peoples. In summary: the rights of the Benet community are respected, but the presumed rights of the other local people encroaching on MENP are not, and form the basis for a dispute that can only be resolved at the highest political level in Uganda. This situation requires the full attention from UWA to come to an acceptable resolution for all parties and it will be closely monitored during future surveillance evluations. Compliance The general management plan for MENP contains a map showing all areas of encroachment/dispute and detailed information on encroachment areas are given in the FACE restoration plan. The use rights of the Benet are respected, and no forest management activities are carried out in their area that requires their consent. The only management activities carried out in this area are ranger patrols to monitor and act against any illegal activities such as poaching, timber theft or cattle grazing inside the forests.

Criterion 3.2 Maintenance of indigenous peoples’ resources or tenure rights

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance UWA respects the use rights of the Benet and no management operations that impact on the use of the Benet of their area are carried out. The only action that may possibly be seen to impact upon them is the use of ranger patrols to monitor the number of cattle grazing in this area, and to specifically prevent cattle grazing in the forests. There are also non-Benet cattle grazing illegally at times in the area which UWA is attempting to control. Current grazing by cattle and grazing which took place in the past has been shown to alter the composition of plant and animal communities considerably. In particular, grazing in the forest has been found to suppress tree regeneration. Tree growth continues to be suppressed in areas which have not been grazed intensively for fifteen years, due to dense colonisation by the woody herb Mimusops alpina in these areas. Ranger patrols are used to minimise the impact of cattle grazing on the forests in the vicinity of the Benet area. The monitoring system MIST is used effectively to monitor both the coverage of such patrols throughout MENP and also to generate monthly reports on illegal activities. AD 36-A-04 Page 26 of 58

Criterion 3.3 Protection of sites of special cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance to indigenous peoples

Strengths Weaknesses Within MENP there are many sites associated with traditional ceremonies, particularly circumcision. Sabiny women visit certain caves after the birth of twins to perform rituals. Mt Elgon also has a significant place in Bagisu folklore concerning the creation and origin of man. A number of burial sites are present inside MENP that are important to nearby villages. Examples of significant sacred sites are the Sayuni area which is sacred to the Bagisu (Bulucheki sub-county) and Khauka cave on Wanale Ridge. Not all of these cultural sites have been recorded on the official list of sites of special significance and must be included. Observation 11 was raised. Sites such as Sipi falls, Mise and Dititimet caves in Kapchorwa District are well protected by local communities and used as a source of interest to attract tourists, although some fall outside the boundaries of MENP. Communities have enclosed them and established some campsites. However, no management objectives or prescriptions were available for the 23 sites of special significance that were identified inside MENP. Minor CAR 03 was raised. Compliance A report is available listing 23 sites of special interest, e.g. caves and waterfalls. Photo and other records are also available and most of these sites are accessible to tourists..

Criterion 3.4 Compensation of indigenous peoples for the application of their traditional knowledge

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance Although bamboo is used extensively by local people for food, poles, stakes and many other applications it is not seen as having commercial application at this stage, and there is no intention by UWA to exploit any traditional knowledge commercially. None of the plants used for medicinal purposes by local people have been exploited for commercial use.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 444::: CCCooommmmmmuuunnniiitttyyy rrreeelllaaatttiiiooonnnsss aaannnddd wwwooorrrkkkeeerrrsss rrriiiggghhhtttsss

Criterion 4.1 Employment, training, and other services for local communities

Strengths MENP is legally obliged to pay 20 % of the park entry fees to the local government. MENP supports a number of community projects and through its Community Conservation Unit, offers training and extension services to neighbouring parishes. These projects are all aimed at improving the livelihood of the communities around MENP. Local people are sensitised through conservation education and some have established Banda’s (guest houses) outside MENP for renting to tourists visiting the park.. Weaknesses The current 52 collaborative resource use agreements were already in place in 2004 and no further agreements were concluded since that time. Some areas were found where no user agreements were yet in place. This effectively prevents legal access to park resources at such points. Negotiations are in process to put agreements in place here as well. Compliance The Ugandan wildlife statute stipulates collaborative management as an approach to Protected Area and wildlife management. It has been recognised that traditional law enforcement alone has not yielded better results and local communities have knowledge and a role to play in conservation. Local people have collaborative resource use agreements that enable them to collect resources on prescribed days of the week. MENP provides enhanced opportunities for employment amongst communities living around the park, primarily through actions associated with the promotion and development of tourism. Of particular importance are the opportunities to work with the private sector and communities in the development of tourism infrastructure and provision of tourist services such as guides and porters on the extensive network of hiking trails and its associated facilities in the park. Permanent employment is also directly created by MENP ranging from warden level to park rangers and casual workers. Casual labour and contracting services is provided for a range of products and services.

Criterion 4.2 Compliance with health and safety regulations

Strengths Weaknesses MA2007: A number of non-conformances in the field of health and safety have been found. Forest managers have not systematically assessed the risks associated with all tasks and appropriate safe procedures, use of PPE, emergency procedures and key responsibilities have not been prescribed. Minor CAR 04 was raised. Skills certificates are not issued on the completion of training courses. Observation 01 was recorded. Appropriate PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) is not available at all worksites and Minor CAR 05 was raised. Employees do not have access to adequate local medical facilities while working on the FMU, and health and safety records are not maintained - this mostly relates to lack of first aid kits and occupational injury records. Minor CAR 06 was raised. The population in the vicinity of MENP is increasing and there is no effective government programmes on AD 36-A-04 Page 27 of 58

family planning. The population in this region is around 600-700 people / km² (Wanale and Bufumbo), well above the national average of 125 persons / km². It is widely recognised that deforestation is highly correlated with population growth and much of the current social problems in or around MENP can be attributed to the high population density. Accommodation for staff does not comply with the ILO code of practice on Safety and Health in Forestry and minor CARs 07, 08 and 15 were raised.: The Minor CARs (Minor CARs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 15) and Observation 01 raised above indicate a significant failure to adhere to generally accepted international safety standards. Major CAR M09 was raised. COF2007: CAR 07 remains open to monitor progress in planning and execution of the associated corrective actions. Compliance MA2007: Copies of various Labour related acts are available.. Occupational Health and Safety is covered in the management plan. Waste management and sanitation was satisfactory at most worker accommodation quarters. COF2007: A document “Safety Precautions at Workplace” has been developed and communicated to park staff via MECA (Mt Elgon Conservation Area quarterly report) meetings. A staff welfare and safety officer has been appointed who will also be responsible for HIV/Aids education and counselling. Minor CAR 04 was closed. Work gear has been issued to the casual workers in the restoration zone and tarpaulins are provided for shelter during rain events. A contract is in place for the supply of a large range of uniforms and PPE for the UWA employees and casual workers with the intent to supply PPE and/or uniforms on a biennial basis. Minor CAR 05 was closed. Two rangers were sent for a six month intensive first aid training course. Workshops on first aid and disease prevention and handling have been held in various parts of MENP. The workshops covered aspects such as basic first aid, common diseases and FSC awareness. Each outpost has now been issued with a first aid kit and were clearly being used. Records are maintained of all field accidents and diseases affecting staff. Minor CAR 06 was closed. Lists have been compiled of the prevalent diseases affecting people around MENP. Some 36 diseases were identified in the four sectors of the park, e.g. malaria, aids, measles, diabetes and yellow fever. Health Centres were contacted to assist park management in monitoring posts for hygiene and medical issues on a weekly basis and reports to this effect were available.Workshops on first aid and disease prevention and handling were held in various parts of MENP to further improve awareness levels. This subject is also addressed in the new safety policy document. Minor CAR 08 was closed. Since sufficient progress was clearly made on addressing the shortcomings identified as set out under Minor CARs 4-8 above, Major CAR M09 was closed.

Criterion 4.3 Workers’ rights to organise and negotiate with employers

Strengths Weaknesses The mechanism to enable the participation of workers in decision-making where this affects their working terms and conditions, is not always effective.. Observation 02 was raised. Compliance The HR manual of UWA makes provision for employees to join a trade union. About 30 % of permanent employees have joined the Federation of Ugandan Employers. At lower level, although free to do so, workers are not members of any union – because there are monthly union affiliation fees involved and in such impoverished communities this is a barrier. Quarterly staff meetings are held where all employees are encouraged to air any grievances and minutes of such meetings were available.

Criterion 4.4 Social impact evaluations and consultation

Strengths Weaknesses A report dated July 1999 on the social impacts of the FACE restoration project is available. This covered a large number of aspects, and concluded that the project contributed significantly to social equity, but some issues were identified, e.g. access to park resources, that was not adequately addressed resulting in some negative attitudes within communities.. However, the study was done for the FACE restoration project only, is outdated, and does not cover the whole MENP. Recommendations flowing from this report were also not fully implemented and Minor CAR 10 was raised. Compliance There is a District Steering committee headed by Resident District Commissioners, District Officials, UWA and other stakeholders that meet to discuss park issues. The committees help to bridge the gap between UWA and local people and communicate the decisions made to the local people. UWA is able to discuss park management with district officials and how to resolve conflicts. These meetings are broken down to Parish level and minutes are kept. Meetings are on-going with evidence of regular and recent meetings being available.

Criterion 4.5 Resolution of grievances and settlement of compensation claims

Strengths Weaknesses By far the most important stakeholder issue is the dispute about the park boundary and consequent land use rights along a large part of the lower park boundary. Two boundaries exist at the moment i.e. the original 1993 boundary when the national park was established, and the revised 2004 boundary that was AD 36-A-04 Page 28 of 58

established by UWA when it became clear that a mistake was made with the original boundary. The dispute revolves largely around the utilization of the area of land between these two boundaries. UWA engaged in intensive negotiations about the land/boundary dispute and took a number of steps to resolve it: 1. Awareness meetings were held with local communities on the importance of the park and the disadvantages of encroachment. UWA is clearly taking its custodianship of the conservation of MENP very serious and is doing everything possible to convince local communities of its importance. 2. The incorrect 1993 boundary was properly re-surveyed and an accurate boundary established in 2004. 3. This 2004 boundary was clearly marked with pillars and the planting of Eucalyptus trees to eliminate any confusion about its exact position. 4. UWA called on political support at local and national level. The Executive Director: UWA confirmed that they were taking the matter to the President of Uganda for his personal involvement. UWA has decided to condone the use of the disputed area between these two boundaries in those instances where there is significant pressure for its use, until Parliament makes a political decision about this subject. This is a very difficult and emotional subject and UWA is taking a pragmatic approach – yielding where pressure is high, but still trying to lobby political decision makers to act in the interest of MENP and conservation in general. It is clear that UWA is taking all reasonable and practical steps to address this dispute in a fair manner. However, progress is slow and environmental degradation continues in the affected area.. Compliance No documented procedure for general disputes is available, although dispute resolution is defined in the collaborative resource use agreements which have a chapter on this subject, including penalties and sanction for transgressions. The general approach to dispute resolution, however, is clearly formulated.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 555::: BBBeeennneeefffiiitttsss fffrrrooommm ttthhheee fffooorrreeesssttt

Criterion 5.1 Economic viability taking full environmental, social, and operational costs into account

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance No commercial logging takes place in the National Park. However revenue is earned from the tourists that visit MENP. The current budget makes provision for a range of expenses to be paid, which include environmental, social and operational costs. The MENP is predominantly focused on conservation of the park and virtually all management expenses thus focuses on maintaining the ecological integrity of the park. The majority of the land is set aside for conservation, except for 1 500 ha of softwood plantation that is planted on a commercial basis.

Criterion 5.2 Optimal use and local processing of forest products

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance Local people have collaborative resource use agreements that enable them to collect resources on prescribed days of the week. These resources include: medicinal plants, firewood, bamboo shoots, vegetables, mushrooms, grass for thatching houses, banana stakes, access to cultural sites and sitting of bee hives. There are currently 52 of these agreements in place. Limited collection of wildlife is allowed such as the collection of chameleons by collectors.

Criterion 5.3 Waste minimisation and avoidance of damage to forest resources

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance No logging activities take place as MENP is a National Park and no extraction of materials is permitted from the natural forests. In the softwood production areas, sufficient logging debris is left behind for soil conservation.

Criterion 5.4 Forest management and the local economy

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance NTFPs such as mushrooms, bamboo shoots, dry bamboo, medicinal plants, forest vegetables and saltlick can be utilized by the community by either obtaining a Collaborative Resource Use Agreement or obtaining a Specific Issue Resource Permits. These have certain conditions such a time periods and quantities permitted. The harvest is monitored by a community liaison person and quantities harvested are submitted to UWA for monitoring. AD 36-A-04 Page 29 of 58

Criterion 5.5 Maintenance of the value of forest services and resources

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance Forest managers are aware of the need to protect the park for water provision and the prevention of soil erosion.

Criterion 5.6 Harvest levels

Strengths Weaknesses It is not known whether the harvesting of NTFP (non-timber forest products) exceeds their replenishment rates over the long term. Although harvesting of NTFPs is monitored, no replenishment rates have been determined for them and it is therefore not possible to determine whether such harvesting is done on a sustainable basis or not. No inventory has been undertaken of NTFP products for the whole National Park. Minor CAR 11 was raised. Compliance No harvesting of indigenous timber spp take place in MENP. The softwood plantation covers only a small portion of the national park (1500 ha) and has its own management plan to regulate harvesting activities.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 666::: EEEnnnvvviiirrrooonnnmmmeeennntttaaalll iiimmmpppaaacccttt

Criterion 6.1 Environmental impacts evaluation

Strengths Weaknesses The quality of access roads outside the park is poor and UWA is encouraged to be more pro-active in terms of co-operating with government and the local communities to upgrade these roads as they do use these. Erosion and lack of proper drainage on the roads (outside the park) has a severely negative environmental impact. Observation 06 was raised. Compliance An Environmental Impact Assessment has been prepared for the FACE project and approved by NEMA, the National Environmental Management Authority. Actions to mitigate negative impacts have been formulated and were implemented. The general management plan has a section on environmental considerations that documents the rationale behind the plan’s major proposals and evaluates the potential for environmental impacts. The environmental and social impacts have been identified for MENP as a whole as: watershed/catchment area values, biological values, aesthetic and tourist values, cultural and historical values, educational values, employment and carbon sink values. No site disturbing activities are carried within the national park. and management activities revolve largely around the restoration and protection of the park.

Criterion 6.2 Protection of rare, threatened and endangered species

Strengths MENP is largely a natural system providing total protection to all plant communities and their associated faunal assemblages. This is further enhanced by the association with other protected areas on the Kenyan side of the mountain. Mt Elgon is an important watershed and is a source of over 20 rivers which traverse large areas of Uganda and Kenya, supporting the habitats of a large diversity of species. Weaknesses There is some confusion between the classification “Rare” and the category “Endangered”, with some species appearing on both lists. Although RT&E species have been identified, no information is available on the ecology and biology of these species and management prescriptions for their conservation is not available. Observation 03 was raised. Compliance Overall, IUCN have listed 37 faunal species in Mt Elgon as "globally threatened" (22 mammal, 2 insect and 13 bird species, of which nine species are endemic), earmarking the park as a a priority area for species conservation. Large animals have become increasingly scarce since the large increase in human populations on the mountain in the 1980s in response to the political regime at the time. A further 2 mammal spp, 3 plant spp and 26 bird spp have been identified as “Threatened”, and 4 mammal spp and 2 plant spp are identified as “Rare”.

Criterion 6.3 Maintenance of ecological functions and values

Strengths Weaknesses Evidence was found of bramble within the park, and staff was not aware that this is an alien invader. Although this is in small localised pockets, and not very widespread, no monitoring or control of bramble is being done and (). Observation 07 was recorded to follow up on this. Compliance The status of Mt Elgon as the eastern limit of various spp characteristic of the tropical forests of west and central Africa, together with its status as the western limit of various Afro-Alpine spp, combine to make this area biologically significant on a global scale. It is ranked amongst the top ten most species rich (including vegetation, birds, butterflies, moths, and small mammals) forests in Uganda, making the area a priority for species conservation. A number (the results of at least 5 different studies have been published) of plant classification approaches have been proposed for MENP. Considering the vegetation as a whole, the most AD 36-A-04 Page 30 of 58

significant division is between forest and non-forest vegetation types. However, the simplest system describes three distinct natural vegetation types viz. the lush montane forest, the mixed bamboo belt and the heath / moorland. The latter contains stands of some rare and endemic plant species, like the gaint Lobelia elgonensis and the dotted clusters of peculiar groundsel (Senecio spp). Another floristic description of Mt Elgon describes 5 broad plant communities viz. Grassland, Bushland, Forest, Forest edge and Formerly cultivated fields. The only silvicultural practices that take place are the replanting of degraded areas to indigenous spp that occur in the area. No harvesting of indigenous trees is undertaken and forest management work in the FACE-project is limited to planting and tending activities. Species are matched to site and a restricted range of primary and intermediate species are planted. The project aims to re-establish natural forest simply by replanting mixtures of native species in degraded vegetation. The result is a relatively low stocking of ± 400 sph, but experience is showing that in many areas, natural regeneration is also coming in from neighbouring forests or from the remaining seed and root bank in the soil.

Criterion 6.4 Protection of representative samples of existing ecosystems

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance See 6.2.

Criterion 6.5 Protection against damage to soils, residual forest and water resources during operations

Strengths Weaknesses The management of buffer zones along rivers differ from area to area. In some communities grass and trees had been planted along the river banks while in other areas nothing has been done. The water quality in most areas deteriorates where the stream flows out of the NP. This was due to erosion and runoffs from the cultivated areas outside the park into the water sources. However, some buffer zones in the plantation zone in Kapkwata are inadequate, where trees are planted to the edge of the watercourse. This was part of the evidence for raising Minor CAR 17. Compliance The only soil disturbing activities undertaken by the park are road maintenance, soil collection for nursery activities and pit planting and firebreak maintenance. About 1 km of road was constructed at the start of the FACE project but no road construction has been undertaken since and none is planned. Firebreaks are maintained inside the strip of eucalyptus trees that mark the boundary of the park. These activities do not threaten any water resources. Soil collection for nurseries was identified in the EIA as a potential area of concern and may now only be collected from selected parent trees. A detailed document Forest Field Work Guidelines are available to describe the How, Why and When of all nursery operations, ground preparation and planting, tending and fire protection activities in the restoration zone. These guidelines are implemented and there is no evidence of field operations with significant environmental impacts.

Criterion 6.6 Chemical pest management

Strengths Weaknesses There is not an up-to-date list of all pesticides used on the FMU and a hazardous pesticide (in terms of FSC standards) was in use at the nursery. Major CAR 12 was raised to address this. Compliance MA2007: No chemicals are being used with the exception of Ambush in the nursery. COF2007: Inspections at Kapkwata showed that no chemicals of any kind are kept in stores. It was confirmed that the stock of Ambush was depleted and that the container had been appropriately disposed of. Major CAR 12 was closed.

Criterion 6.7 Use and disposal of chemicals, containers, liquid and solid non-organic wastes

Strengths Weaknesses Disposal of waste is not conducted in an environmentally responsible manner at all sites and lacks effort to recycle waste. Observation 04 was recorded in this regard. Compliance Three waste pits are available at most accommodation areas and are split into organic waste, plastics and paper (i.e. waste that can burn), and waste that can not burn e.g. batteries, metal. The latter is periodically collected and removed to the waste dump at the nearest town. Non-organic wastes are re-cycled were possible.

Criterion 6.8 Use of biological control agents and genetically modified organisms

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance No biological control agents or genetically modified organisms are used. AD 36-A-04 Page 31 of 58

Criterion 6.9 The use of exotic species

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance The only exotic species present are eucalypts growing on the boundary of the park. Outside the park eucalypts are grown widely and show no sign of invasion.

Criterion 6.10 Forest conversion to plantations or non-forest land uses

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance No conversion of forest is taking place.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 777::: MMMaaannnaaagggeeemmmeeennnttt ppplllaaannn

Criterion 7.1 Management plan requirements

Strengths Weaknesses There is no reference in management plans to the control of alien invasive plant species in MENP, but a separate document is available on this subject. Also, in the profile of the adjacent lands, the description of the Kenya side is weak, only mentioning the problems. Observation 05 was raised. There is a lack of appropriate maps indicating access roads outside MENP that are important to forest management. The access roads to the various parts of the park are not mapped, resulting in wrong roads being taken to access certain areas, and vehicles getting stuck on poor sections of roads, which staff are not aware of. Minor CAR 13 was raised. Compliance Planning is done at five levels: A) A strategic plan for the whole UWA for the period 2002 – 2007 dated June 2002 is in place. The Strategic Plan is a document that summarises why the organisation exists. B) A general management plan for MENP dated December 2000 is the first level of planning at the individual park level. The plan identifies management objectives and prioritised actions to address issues. The plan is a primary document to be used in the preparation of annual operational plans and provides the basis for evaluating operational performance in achieving management objectives. C) Annual operations plans are compiled for each year and the plan for 2006/07 was available. This plan also included a detailed financial budget. This is used to produce an integrated operations plan for the whole UWA entity. The plan schedules all activities per park per month where applicable. D) Each of the 7 departments in the management structure of MENP compiles a monthly planning document setting out its activities for that particular month. E) Specific projects, such as the FACE project and the softwood plantations, are required to conform to the general management plan and both these projects have their own project plans of operations. There is no harvesting of the natural forest. There is an updated Softwood Plantation Management Plan dated 2007, which is comprehensive, and describes the rate of harvest, species selection, management prescriptions (for production and conservation zones) and operational techniques. The first thinning operations may take place in 2008.

Criterion 7.2 Management plan revision

Strengths Weaknesses The current General Management Plan is dated December 2000, and specifies a review period of every five years. There has not yet been any revision and examples of inaccurate and outdated information include outdated plantation figures incorrect staffing figures and incorrect ranger posts.Minor CAR 14 was raised. Compliance A new softwood plantation management plan was drawn up, incorporating up to date information. There has also been a separate study of the extent of invasive plant species in the Mt Elgon with a framework strategy for their management. New scientific and technical developments in forestry and biodiversity conservation are available and Forest Managers have access to this information. UWA has extensive international networks, and numerous members of their staff have travelled internationally.

Criterion 7.3 Training and supervision of forest workers

Strengths The level of education was good with all field supervisors fully literate. Management staff has the training and experience to plan, organise and implement all park activities. All wardens have some form of tertiary qualification. Weaknesses Compliance A training programme for 2006/07 for UWA is available which cover all level of employees. AD 36-A-04 Page 32 of 58

Criterion 7.4 Public availability of the management plan elements

Strengths Weaknesses The whole management plan is publicly available on request – however, management is encouraged to post a summary of their updated management plan on the UWA website as soon as possible to assist access to this information for the larger stakeholder community. Compliance The current Management Plan, entitled “Mount Elgon National Park General Management Plan, UWA, December 2000” was drawn up in consultation with the various stakeholders and is available to stakeholders.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 888::: MMMooonnniiitttooorrriiinnnggg aaannnddd eeevvvaaallluuuaaatttiiiooonnn

Criterion 8.1 Frequency, intensity and consistency of monitoring

Strengths A modern GIS-based spatial Management Information System (MIST) provides managers and planners with up-to-date information for their planning, decision-making and evaluation. Standardised data sheets have been developed for the recording of (1) ecological data and data on illegal activities by rangers and air patrols, (2) visitor data at park gates and (3) data on resource harvest by local communities. All spatial data collected are geo-referenced using the Global Positioning System (GPS). This enables production of the following outputs: (1) indices for monitoring of wildlife populations, illegal activities and resource harvest by local communities, (2) distribution maps for planning and monitoring, (3) baseline information for patrol deployment planning, (4) information on wildlife population structure, (5) performance indicators to monitor and evaluate the implementation of annual operations plans and (6) reports for collaborating institutions etc. Annual operations planning and monitoring and evaluation of implementation of plans are also handled in MIST. Weaknesses Monitoring procedures are documented in the UWA monitoring plan. However, water quality is not consistently monitored and results are not acted upon, which raises health risk concerns. Minor CAR 15 was raised. Compliance MA2007: A monitoring and research plan for 2003-2008 for UWA is available in which the monitoring requirements of each Protected Area is described. This plan prescribes each indicator to be monitored, method, frequency, method of analysis and responsibility. UWA carried out a threat analysis for wildlife conservation and wildlife Protected Areas in general. This formed the basis for monitoring and research programme development. This analysis showed that for MENP the top four threats are encroachment, timber harvesting, unsustainable resource harvesting and poaching. COF2007: Training of staff on water quality was provided and some 8 rivers were identified for water quality monitoring. A technique based on assessing the bio-assay of the river’s invertebrate fauna will be used, similar to the SASS5 methodology that is widely used in Southern Africa. The central Planning unit in Kampala has been told to include an analysis of the hydrology of the park in the review of the General Management Plan that is due to start in September 2007. Minor CAR 15 was closed.

Criterion 8.2 Research and data collection for monitoring

Strengths Weaknesses Although harvesting of NTFPs is monitored, no replenishment rates have been determined for them and it is therefore not possible to determine whether such harvesting is done on a sustainable basis or not. A reliable inventory has not recently been undertaken of NTFP products for the whole National Park. Minor CAR 11 was raised. The current monitoring of RTE spp is not well focussed and effort is required to more specifically obtain information on their status in MENP. Compliance Management is fully aware of the social impact of their operations in MENP, particularly as encroachment and land use rights are such emotionally charged subjects in this situation. Monitoring is used to GPS-map all areas of encroachment and MIST is able to produce detailed maps of all new encroachment areas. The work of contractors is closely supervised and corrective actions implemented where and when required. Data is captured in MIST on all animal sightings and MIST reports representing this data are available. Permanent Sample Plots are also in place where the growth rate of several indigenous tree spp is monitored.

Criterion 8.3 Chain of custody

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance No timber products leave the forest and there is no commercial utilization of NTFPs as all products are used by local communities for their normal livelihood purposes. Before the softwood plantation area start producing saleable material in ± 10 years there is no need for a chain of custody system. AD 36-A-04 Page 33 of 58

Criterion 8.4 Incorporation of monitoring results into the management plan

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance The data from PSPs are being analysed and used to e.g. prepare growth curves for various spp. The coverage of areas patrolled by ranger patrols were captured on the GIS maps. This allowed management to determine where there may be inadequate patrol coverage and thus lead to changes to the patrol routines. The extend of encroachment area are monitored and recorded onto maps using GPS and the GIS mapping system. This enables management to negotiate with stakeholders based on the best and latest information.

Criterion 8.5 Publicly available summary of monitoring

Strengths Weaknesses There is no publicly available summary of the results of monitoring. Despite the fact that there is an annual report for UWA where monitoring is addressed at a very broad level, no specific information is presented on MENP. Major CAR M16 was raised. Compliance COF2007: A file, that is publicly available, is kept where results from the MIST system is kept. This evaluation and report is viewed as a first attempt and progress in developing the system into a more comprehensive management monitoring system will be closely assessed in future. Major CAR M16 was closed.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 999::: HHHiiiggghhh CCCooonnnssseeerrrvvvaaatttiiiooonnn VVVaaallluuueee FFFooorrreeessstttsss

Criterion 9.1 Evaluation to determine high conservation value attributes

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance Although MENP was not assessed strictly in terms of the terminology used to define HCVF attributes, it is clear that considerable attention has been given to this subject; both in the general management plan as well as specialised investigations The conservation values of MENP are numerous and diverse. Some are primarily local or regional in character, while others are significant at the national or international level. The following HCVF attributes were identified: 1. The forest areas containing regionally and nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values. 2. The forests constitute a threatened and endangered ecosystem. 3. The forest areas provide basic services of nature in critical situations. 4. The forests are fundamental to meeting the basic needs of local communities. 5. The forests are important to local communities’ traditional cultural identity.

Criterion 9.2 Consultation process

Strengths The Mt Elgon Regional Ecosystem Conservation Programme (MERECP) was initiated in response to the need for a cross-boundary approach to the management of the whole Mt Elgon ecosystem, including areas on the Kenyan side of the mountain. MERECP is based on on-going national activities as well as achievements of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects on both sides of the mountain to address conservation and development issues that require a regional approach. This programme attempts to ensure that the management and conservation of the whole Mt Elgon massif is done on an ecosystem basis. Weaknesses Compliance The Mount Elgon Conservation and Development Project has been assisting MENP authorities with forest and community issues since 1987. The current aim of the project is to "promote community development and conserve Mount Elgon’s ecosystem for present and future use using a community based resource management approach involving the participation and empowerment of local communities in the development process. Working in conjunction with MENP, park regulations have been formulated with reference to the needs of local people and their resource use levels, and enforced in conjunction with a comprehensive extension programme. Much effort has also been put into establishing a system of collaborative resource use agreements to ensure that the use of NTFPs are done on a sustainable basis without harming the integrity of the forests, with 52 such agreements already in place. A programme is also in place to hold regular meetings with local communities to increase awareness of the importance value of the forests. The Forest Exploration Centre at Kapkwai is used intensively as an education resource for particularly the youth of the Mbali and Kapchorwa districts and for Ugandan people in general.

Criterion 9.3 Measures to maintain and enhance high conservation value attributes

Strengths AD 36-A-04 Page 34 of 58

Weaknesses Compliance MENP, as well as the equivalent protected areas on the Kenyan side, is strictly protected as an entity. Despite the damage done along the lower boundary through encroachment, the park is still largely intact and represents a functioning ecosystem, within the constraints of modern society. No harvesting of timber products take place in the natural forests of MENP and the harvesting of NTFPs is regulated through a system of collaborative resource use agreements, which are monitored by management using feedback from the communities and ranger patrols as input into the MIST monitoring tool.

Criterion 9.4 Monitoring to assess effectiveness

Strengths Weaknesses The control of alien plant spp is one of the activities prescribed in the HCVFs. One of the first products of MERECP has been the production of a report on the type and extent of invasive plant spp in the Mt Elgon ecosystem. In total 35 spp were identified, of which 16 spp are encountered frequently. Since the species is in its early establishment phase and of limited extend, an eradication campaign of A. melanoxylon was recommended and should be acted upon by management. Compliance There is currently no ecological research taking place in MENP and information is needed to update some of the older investigations that were done. Management has requested their HQ in Kampala to encourage researchers to come to MENP for studies. UWA in collaboration with the Islamic University of Uganda with support from MERECP, has plans under way to upgrade the Mt Elgon Exploration Centre into an international conservation centre (Biological Research Station), to offer training not only to primary schools but to people involved in ecological research. A formal proposal in this regard is currently being prepared by the University.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 111000::: PPPlllaaannntttaaatttiiiooonnnsss

Criterion 10.1 Statement of objectives in the management plan

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance The Plantation objective is to manage the plantations for sustainable production of timber and other forest products to: Provide a source of revenue for the sustainable management of MENP To contribute to national and local needs for wood products To provide a buffer against harvesting of wood products from the surrounding natural forests within MENP.

Criterion 10.2 Plantation design and layout

Strengths Weaknesses Buffer zones in the softwood plantation areas have not adequately been indicated on the maps, and the size of such buffer zones is not adequate in some places. Maps only show compartments and do not overlay the rivers and streams within these compartments. Some buffer zones in Kapkwata are inadequate, where trees are planted to the edge of the watercourse. Minor CAR 17 was raised. Compliance Plantations only represent 1.34% of the certified FMU, therefore the scale is not significant in terms of the visual impact. There are only two plantation areas, namely Suam and Kapkwata, which are on the far north-eastern boundary of the Park. During the active re-planting programme from 1999 to 2007, some 500 and 1 000 ha have been planted on Suam and Kapkwata respectively. These areas have been mapped and all of the natural vegetation areas have also been identified by exclusion from the compartments.

Criterion 10.3 Diversity in composition

Strengths Weaknesses Maximum clear cut area has not been defined, since no clear-felling will take place for the next ±10 years. The areas are too small for a continuous sustainable harvest, but this is not the objective of the park. Only some 1 500 ha of the total area of 112 100 ha comprises plantation forestry, and classical even yield regulation in this situation is impractical. Both these aspects are therefore not viewed as non-conformances to the FSC standards. Compliance Species planted are Cupressus lusitanica, C benthamii, Pinus patula, and P radiata. Pines were found to be susceptible to fungal attach, therefore Cupressus was favoured. Planting was first initiated in 1957 in Kapkwata and in 1965 in Suam, aimed at controlling grazing in the natural high forest and reducing pressure for agricultural encroachment. In both stations, the taungya system was used in establishment and early tending of trees. AD 36-A-04 Page 35 of 58

Criterion 10.4 Species selection

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance The spp being used, Cupressus lusitanica, C benthamii, Pinus patula, and P radiata, have been proven in many other parts of Africa as appropriate for these conditions.

Criterion 10.5 Restoration of natural forest

Strengths Since the inception of the FACE project in 1995, some 8 125 ha of native forests have been established constituting about 33 % of the total degraded area of 25 000 ha. This is viewed as a commendable achievement under difficult logistical conditions. Weaknesses Compliance The lower slopes of Mt Elgon were completely degraded through illegal agricultural encroachments in the early 1970’s and late 1980’s. Through reforestation using endemic tree species, the FACE project is addressing the damaged nature conservation values and the biological diversity of MENP. This is achieved by replanting the degraded areas with locally occurring indigenous trees and by protecting adjacent degraded forest to enhance the natural regeneration of indigenous trees. This does not only include the areas with open woodland, grass vegetation or degraded natural forest immediately beyond the planted UWA-Face plantation areas. It also covers all areas within MENP, which are positively influenced (from the point of view of carbon fixation) through restoration and/or protection activities directly and/or indirectly executed or assisted through the UWA-Face Project.

Criterion 10.6 Impacts on soil and water

Strengths Weaknesses Three landslides occurred in the softwood plantation zone during 2006 and there was no plan to rehabilitate them. Observation 08 was raised. Streams and rivers within the compartments are not indicated on maps. This was used as part of the evidence for raising Minor CAR 17. Compliance Soils are described in the softwood management plan 2007. The soils are rich in weatherable minerals and remarkably resistant to erosion.

Criterion 10.7 Pests and diseases

Strengths Weaknesses The diseases affecting the seedlings in the nursery and for which a chemical pesticide Ambush was used in 2006 are not known. Observation 09 was raised. Allthough the fire risk is low, MENP has no fire- fighting equipment at all (e.g. beaters, water dispensing equipment) thus severely limiting their ability to effectively combat any fire. Observation 10 was raised. Compliance A formal fire plan is in place and a range of fire suppression measures are in place that reduce the risk of fire damage.

Criterion 10.8 Monitoring of impacts, species testing and tenure rights

Strengths Weaknesses Potential biophysical offsite impacts are not monitored on a regular basis with no monitoring records of such potential impacts being available. Evidence of such offsite impacts was also seen e.g. at compt 8 harvesting debris had accumulated at the bridgehead walls on a public road, clearly washed downstream from the harvested compartment. Minor CAR 18 was raised. Compliance Refer principles 2, 6 and criterion 10.4 for evidence of compliance.

Criterion 10.9 Plantations established in areas converted from natural forests after November 1994

Strengths Weaknesses Compliance The plantations were established by the Forest Department and the major planting in Kapkwata started in 1957. The planting in Suam started in 1965 and aimed at controlling grazing in the natural high forest and reducing pressure for agricultural encroachment. In both stations, the taungya system was used in establishment and early tending of the trees. However, in 1978, planting stopped at both stations due to a lack of operational funds and inadequate supervision. No natural forests were converted to plantations since November 1994.

AD 36-A-04 Page 36 of 58

9. CERTIFICATION DECISION SGS considers that UWA-FACE’s forest management of Mt Elgon National Park in Uganda, can be certified as: i. The three outstanding Major Corrective Action Requests were closed during a close-out visit on 13-14/08/2007. ii. The outstanding Minor Corrective Action Requests do not preclude certification, but UWA-FACE Mt Elgon National Park is required to take the agreed actions before April 2008. These will be verified by SGS QUALIFOR at the first surveillance to be carried out about 12 months from the date of the issuance of the certificate. If satisfactory actions have been taken, the CARs will be ‘closed out’; otherwise, Minor CARs will be raised to Major CARs. iii. The management system, if implemented as described, is capable of ensuring that all of the requirements of the applicable standard(s) are met over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the evaluation; iv. The certificate holder has demonstrated, subject to the specified corrective actions, that the described system of management is being implemented consistently over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the certificate.

10. MAINTENANCE OF CERTIFICATION During the surveillance evaluation, it is assessed if there is continuing compliance with the requirements of the Qualifor Programme. Any areas of non-conformance with the QUALIFOR Programme are raised as one of two types of Corrective Action Request (CAR): .01 Major CARs - which must be addressed and closed out urgently with an agreed short time frame since the organisation is already a QUALIFOR certified organisation. Failure to close out within the agreed time frame can lead to suspension of the certificate. .02 Minor CARs - which must be addressed within an agreed time frame, and will normally be checked at the next surveillance visit The full record of CARs raised over the certification period is listed under section 11 below. The table below provides a progressive summary of findings for each surveillance. A complete record of observations demonstrating compliance or non-compliance with each criterion of the Forest Stewardship Standard is contained in a separate document that does not form part of the public summary.

SURVEILLANCE 1 Issues that were hard to Once again the Benet community issue emerged. SGS evaluated the situation and assess concluded that UWA were not in breach of any of the certification requirements. Number of CARs closed 5 Outstanding CARs were closed. Nr of CARs remaining open Three CARs from previous evaluation remained open for continued monitoring New CARs raised One Major CAR was raised and one new minor CAR was raised. The major CAR has been closed Certification Decision The forest management of the forests of Mt Elgon remains certified as: The management system is capable of ensuring that all of the requirements of the applicable standard(s) are met over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the evaluation; and The certificate holder has demonstrated, subject to the specified corrective actions, that the described system of management is being implemented consistently over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the certificate. SURVEILLANCE 2 Issues that were hard to There was an incident on 10 June 2009 where park rangers were attacked and one of the assess rangers was killed whilst trying to stop the communities from cultivating in the park. This issue is being dealt with by the police. An update of the Benet issue is provided in the stakeholder consultation section in Chapter 13 of this report. Number of CARs closed Two Minor CARs were closed Nr of CARs remaining open Two CARs were left open due to scheduled work in November 2009, and these CARs were raised in February 2009 at a clearance of findings visit, not a regular surveillance visit. AD 36-A-04 Page 37 of 58

Nr of New CARs raised Three new minor CARs were raised. Certification Decision The forest management of the forests of Mt Elgon remains certified as: The management system is capable of ensuring that all of the requirements of the applicable standard(s) are met over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the evaluation; and The certificate holder has demonstrated, subject to the specified corrective actions, that the described system of management is being implemented consistently over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the certificate. SURVEILLANCE 3 Issues that were hard to assess Number of CARs closed Nr of CARs remaining open Nr of New CARs raised Certification Decision SURVEILLANCE 4 Issues that were hard to assess Number of CARs closed Nr of CARs remaining open Nr of New CARs raised Certification Decision

AD 36-A-04 Page 38 of 58

11. RECORD OF CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTS (CARS) The following outstanding CARs from the previous certification period were closed out:

CAR # Indicator CAR Detail

16 6.2.2 Date 20 / 7 / 2005 Due Date> 24/04/2007 Date Closed> 18/04/2007 Recorded>

Non-Conformance:

Rare, threatened and endangered species are not adequately identified and managed. Objective Evidence:

No expert reports were available to demonstrate that these species are taken care of or no indication of an understanding by local staff of their importance. 2006 Update: The library at MENP Head Office contains a significant amount of literature, some of which also refers to the occurrence of species and naming threatened ones (e.g. Nature conservation in Uganda’s Tropical Forest Reserves, IUCN publication. However, this information needs to be collated in a more formal document naming the RTE’s occurring in the reserve and recommending the management objectives to protect them. Close-out evidence:

A list is available that identifies mammals, birds and plants that are Endangered, Threatened or Rare in MENP. The list is a starting point, but needs refinement to e.g. ensure that it is synchronised with the IUCN classification. Obvious mistakes must also be corrected e.g. leopard is indicated as both Rare and Endangered. Date 18 1.5.1 25/04/ 2006 Due Date> 24/04/2007 Date Closed> 18/04/2007 Recorded> Non-Conformance:

Forest managers have not taken measures to control illegal activities Objective Evidence: At Wanale, compartment 357, there has been encroachment across the legal park boundary for cultivation purposes. Close-out evidence:

Much of the current encroachment along the lower boundary is attributable to outside interference over which UWA has no control; it is also the subject of political debate that must still be resolved at the highest level of political decision-making in Uganda. However, UWA has put a number of actions in place to amicably address this situation. Date 19 2.2.5 25/04/ 2006 Due Date> 24/04/2007 Date Closed> 18/04/2007 Recorded> Non-Conformance:

The access to the forest by local communities with local rights holders is jeopardising the ecological function of the forest Objective Evidence: At Sisiyi, compartment 111, there is evidence of significant harvesting of young trees by the local community Close-out evidence:

See close-out evidence under CAR 18.

20 8.4.1 Date 25/04/ 2006 Due Date> 24/04/2007 Date Closed> 18/04/2007 Recorded>

Non-Conformance:

The results of research and monitoring programmes are not regularly analysed and incorporated into planning on a regular basis Objective Evidence: The data collected from PSP’s between 1998 and 2003, was never analysed. Close-out evidence: The data from PSPs are being analysed and used to e.g. prepare growth curves for various spp. AD 36-A-04 Page 39 of 58

The following new CARs were raised:

01 1.1.1 Date 18/04/2007 Due Date> Next Date Closed> 3/2/2009 Recorded> surveillance Non-Conformance:

There is evidence of legal non-compliance in Mt Elgon National Park. Objective Evidence: New sites are being cleared for cultivation by local communities within the park itself and there is evidence of illegal firewood collection and grazing. 2008 Update: UWA continues to patrol and prosecute for such illegal activities, and the eviction of people in February 2008 has created immense media attention. This is a sensitive issue and needs continued monitoring (see stakeholder issues). UWA are certainly being proactive in trying to solve the problem, but the repercussions are checking their activities. This CAR is to remain open for continued monitoring. Close-out evidence: There is considerable overlap between this CAR and Major CAR M19. And the same were verified during the field visit. The following steps were taken in closing the CAR. It was verified in field and found that all the steps were implemented. . • UWA had strategic planning meetings on the 22/12/2008 to investigate the root causes of the non-conformance and to plan appropriate action. Definite actions were assigned to identified staff. • All relevant staff attended an in-house FSC workshop and refresher training on the FSC principles and criteria. • The illegal cultivation was stopped and law enforcement patrols were increased in the area. • Streams were mapped and delineation was done along the water courses. • Delineation was marked in field with pegs to demarcate the stream and buffer zone area. . • Awareness meetings were held in all the relevant parishes to get cooperation from the local farmers. Attendance registers and minutes are kept on file. • Sign boards were erected along the streams to create further awareness of the importance of the conservation of the riparian zones. • A farming permit was introduced to register all the farmers that cultivate fields in the park. Conditions are stipulated in the permit and local government also sign each permit to confirm that the particular individual is from that community. • There is a management decision to leave the trees that are currently not complying until they can be harvested and to withdraw the plant line above the delineation mark with the next planting. This CAR is closed. 02 1.6.1 Date Next 18/04/2007 Due Date> Date Closed> 14/08/2007 Recorded> surveillance

Non-Conformance:

There is no publicly available policy stating long term commitment to Forest Management practices consistent with the FSC Principles and Criteria. Objective Evidence: No such document is available.

Close-out evidence:

A statement has been put on the UWA website www.uwa.or.ug confirming that UWA adheres to the forest management practices consistent with the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Principles and Criteria. 03 3.3.2 Date Next 18/04/2007 Due Date> Date Closed> 10 Jul 2008 Recorded> surveillance

Non-Conformance:

Management objectives for sites of special significance have not been developed in co-operation with interested and affected stakeholders. Objective Evidence: AD 36-A-04 Page 40 of 58

No management objectives or prescriptions were available for the 23 sites identified. Close-out evidence: A document “Management of Sites of Special Interest” dated December 2007 is available which describes the sites and their management. Included is a table of scheduled management activities e.g. slashing. Numerous sites were physically visited by SGS and confirmed good management (e.g. Sasa River Camp, Wall of death, bamboo zone, Sasa Patrol Hut, Jackson’s Pool and Wagagai Peak). 04 4.2.2 Date Next 18/04/2007 Due Date> Date Closed> 14/08/2007 Recorded> surveillance

Non-Conformance:

Forest managers have not systematically assessed the risks associated with all tasks and appropriate safe procedures, use of PPE, emergency procedures and key responsibilities have not been prescribed. Objective Evidence: 1. Very limited document instructions on safety in the work place are available and have also only been identified for the restoration areas thus excluding the majority of the FMU. 2. A comprehensive safety policy document that covers all activities on the whole National Park is not available. 3. A senior manager has not been appointed to manage all aspects of safety (ILO requirement).

Close-out evidence: An appropriately comprehensive document “Safety Precautions at Workplace” is in place and the contents have been communicated to staff. The Assistant Warden: Community Conservation was appointed as the staff welfare and safety officer.

05 4.2.5 Date Next 18/04/2007 Due Date> Date Closed> 14/08/2007 4.2.6 Recorded> surveillance 4.2.1 Non-Conformance:

Appropriate PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) is not available at the worksite. Objective Evidence: Inadequate PPE and work clothes are provided to workers and rangers. Close-out evidence: PPE and work gear have been issued to some of the casual workers in the restoration zone. Tarpaulins are being provided for shelter from the rain until appropriate rain coats can be obtained. Although not all casual workers working in the forest have as yet been provided with adequate PPE, management gave the undertaking that, until PPE are issued, no worker will be allowed onto the work place without at least adequate footwear.

06 4.2.7 Date Next 18/04/2007 Due Date> Date Closed> 14/08/2007 4.2.8 Recorded> surveillance Non-Conformance:

Employees do not have access to adequate local medical facilities while working on the FMU, and health and safety records are not maintained. Objective Evidence: First aid kits are not always available and/or appropriately stocked. Occupational safety records are not maintained.

Close-out evidence: Two rangers were sent for intensive first aid training and workshops on first aid and disease prevention and handling were held in various parts of MENP. Each outpost has now been issued with a first aid kit. Records are being kept at all out-posts to record field accidents and diseases affecting staff.

07 4.2.9 Date Next 18/04/2007 Due Date> Date Closed> 14 Jul 2009 Recorded> surveillance

Non-Conformance: AD 36-A-04 Page 41 of 58

Accommodation for staff does not comply, as a minimum, with the ILO code of practice on Safety and Health in Forestry. Objective Evidence: MA2007: Evidence of kitchens presenting a health risk and inadequate accommodation and facilities for workers. COF2007: Planning is in process to construct and equip more houses for staff accommodation, with appropriate energy saving stoves / kitchens and is scheduled for commencement during the financial year 2007/08. Management has already started with the installation of energy efficient stoves in two ranger posts. No beds are provided for staff in any outpost of UWA. This can no longer be viewed as a cultural practice and this decision should be revisited by management. This CAR remains open to monitor progress in implementation of the 2006 plan and other aspects mentioned here. 2008 Update: A reconnaissance exercise has been carried out to identify poor accommodation (e.g. Bumbo outpost) and recommendations have been provided for all accommodation on the FMU. There has been progress, according to the schedule with upgrading and all of the accommodation inspected in the high altitudinal zones (above the restoration zone) was very good, e.g. Sasa patrol hut (with new equipment, beds and mattresses) and new A-frame for the Rangers at Mude Camp, also with beds and mattresses. Some of the accommodation inspected in the restoration zone, however (Kapkwata, Suam and Bumbo Ranger Posts), had not yet received attention. In order to adequately assess the upgrading of accommodation, a larger sample is necessary, as well as the provision of a final long term schedule with accurate time frames. This has not yet been finalised due to the fact that the new management plan is in the process of collation, for implementation in 2009. This CAR should remain open for further monitoring Close-out evidence: The new management plan includes an assessment of the accommodation and offices and prioritizes their renovation. UWA priority investment activities for the next three years starting in 2009/10 for Mt Elgon Conservation Area. In section 4.1 it is documented that there will be 18 ranger posts constructed and there is a budget of UGX 400 million for this. Evidence of implementation is at Kapkwata and Suam where asbestos sheets have been removed and replaced with iron sheets and the floors and walls repainted, as per schedule. Bunk beds will also be built in the ranger’s posts and the rangers will only need to transport mattresses. Timber has been provided for this already and the process has been approved. This CAR is closed. 08 4.2.10 Date Next 18/04/2007 Due Date> Date Closed> 14/08/2007 Recorded> surveillance

Non-Conformance:

The programme on the FMU to raise awareness of diseases endemic to the area that affects forest workers and their families is inadequate. Objective Evidence: Although Malaria/AIDS are significant diseases in the area, interviews with workers indicated that awareness programmes have not been executed since 2003. Close-out evidence: Lists have been compiled of the prevalent diseases affecting people around MENP, identifying some 36 diseases in the four sectors of the park. Letters were send to all the Health Centres in the vicinity of the park requesting assistance to check the ranger posts for hygiene and medical issues on a weekly basis. Reports on health concerns from at least 7 Health Centres were seen as a result of this. Three workshops on first aid and disease prevention and handling were held in various parts of MENP to further improve awareness levels. M09 4.2.4 Date 18/04/2007 Due Date> 17/07/2007 Date Closed> 14/08/2007 Recorded>

Non-Conformance:

Forestry operations do not comply, as a minimum, with the ILO code of Practice on Safety and Health in Forestry. Objective Evidence: Minor CARs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 15 that were raised indicate a high level of non-compliance with health and safety of employees. Close-out evidence: AD 36-A-04 Page 42 of 58

See the actions taken to close out Minor CARs 4-8 and 15. Five out of the 6 outstanding Minor CARs were closed during the close-out visit of 13-14/08/2007. This is considered sufficient progress in addressing the issues of concern. 10 4.4.1 Date Next 18/04/2007 Due Date> Date Closed> 10 Jul 2008 Recorded> surveillance

Non-Conformance:

The social impact of forest operations has been inadequately evaluated. Objective Evidence: The study of the social impacts was done (in 1999) for the FACE project only, and not for the whole National Park. Recommendations flowing from this report were not fully implemented e.g. the need for 3-yearly audits was specified, but to date there have been no such audits. Close-out evidence: In preparation for the development of the new management plan, there has been an huge reconnaissance survey which has involved extensive interaction and consultation with all stakeholders. This has included an evaluation of the social impact of all activities, and this will be formalised in the new GMP (General Management Plan). This CAR is closed. 11 5.6.3 Date 18/04/2007 Due Date> Next Date Closed> 10 July 2008 8.2.3 Recorded> surveillance Non-Conformance:

It is not known whether the harvesting of NTFP (non-timber forest products) exceeds their replenishment rates over the long term. Objective Evidence: Although harvesting of NTFPs is monitored, no replenishment rates have been determined for them and it is therefore not possible to determine whether such harvesting is done on a sustainable basis or not. No inventory has been undertaken of NTFP products for the whole National Park. Close-out evidence: NTFPs have been listed but quantitative surveys are still lacking and the monitoring through resource licences is not consistently applied by community members with such authority. This CAR is closed and replaced with major CAR 21. M12 6.6.1 Date 18/04/2007 Due Date> 17/07/2007 Date Closed> 14/08/2007 6.6.2 Recorded> Non-Conformance:

A prohibited chemical pesticide is being used and there is not an up-to-date list of all pesticides used on the FMU. Objective Evidence: Two litres of the prohibited chemical pesticide Ambush (Permethrin: Dimethylo, 3-Methyl-4- Nitropheyl Phosphorothiate) was used for the spraying of pests in the nursery and no list that documents trade name and active ingredient was available. Close-out evidence: Inspections at Kapkwata showed that no chemicals of any kind are kept in stores. It was confirmed that the stock of Ambush was depleted and that the container had been appropriately disposed of.

13 7.1.10 Date Next 18/04/2007 Due Date> Date Closed> 10 July 2008 Recorded> surveillance

Non-Conformance:

Lack of appropriate maps indicating access roads that are important to forest management.

Objective Evidence:

The access roads outside MENP to the various parts of the park are not mapped, resulting in wrong roads being taken to access certain areas, and vehicles getting stuck on poor sections of roads, which staff are not aware of. Close-out evidence:

Most of the access roads have been mapped (see MENP Road Map) and these maps are computerised. In field, roads are being signposted and named. Conditions of the roads are being assessed and new roads are also planned in some areas. This CAR is closed. AD 36-A-04 Page 43 of 58

14 7.2.5 Date Next 18/04/2007 Due Date> Date Closed> 10 July 2008 Recorded> surveillance

Non-Conformance:

The current Management Plan for MENP is outdated, and the timetable for the revision has not been adhered to. Objective Evidence: The current Management Plan is dated December 2000, and specifies a review period of every five years. There has not yet been any revision. Close-out evidence: The process has begun with the Reconnaissance survey which was carried out 27 November 2007 to 7 December 2007. Results of this survey have been documented in terms of physical data as well as comments and recommendations. There has also been a series of workshops (26-29 May 2008) for data collation and a Draft Management Plan is available. This CAR is closed.

15 8.1.3 Date Next 18/04/2007 Due Date> Date Closed> 14/08/2007 8.1.5 Recorded> surveillance 4.2.9 Non-Conformance:

Water Quality is not consistently monitored and results are not acted upon. Objective Evidence: Water quality monitoring is only carried out on three river systems, and the choice of these rivers is not justified other that being “main” systems. Such monitoring has only been carried out once in October 2005. Results indicate that water quality may present a health risk. Close-out evidence: Training of staff on water quality was conducted. Some 8 rivers were identified for water quality monitoring, based on the bio-assay asseesment of the river’s invertebrate fauna, similar to SASS5 that is widely used in Southern Africa. The central Planning unit in Kampala has been told to include an analysis of the hydrology of the park in the review of the General Management Plan that is due to start in September 2007. M16 8.5.1 Date 18/04/2007 Due Date> 17/07/2007 Date Closed> 14/08/2007 Recorded>

Non-Conformance:

There is no publicly available summary of the results of monitoring. Objective Evidence:

Despite the fact that there is an annual report for UWA where monitoring is addressed at a very broad level, no specific information is presented on MT Elgon National Park. Close-out evidence: A file, that is publicly available, is kept where results from the MIST system is summarised. These represent the analysis of ranger patrols showing areas covered; sites of poaching, resource harvesting, fires and encroachment (this is further analysed to show monthly occurrence); bird and mammal sightings. This evaluation and report is viewed as a first attempt and progress in developing the system into a more comprehensive management monitoring system will be closely assessed in future. 17 10.2.3 Date Next 18/04/2007 Due Date> Date Closed> 10 July 2008 Recorded> surveillance

Non-Conformance:

Buffer zones in the softwood plantation areas have not adequately been indicated on the maps, and the size of such buffer zones is not adequate in some places. Objective Evidence:

Maps only show compartments and do not overlay the rivers and streams within these compartments. Some buffer zones in Kapkwata are inadequate, where trees are planted to the edge of the watercourse. Close-out evidence: The above problem has not yet been resolved. This CAR is closed and replaced with Major CAR 19. AD 36-A-04 Page 44 of 58

18 10.8.2 Date Next 18/04/2007 Due Date> Date Closed> 10 July 2008 Recorded> surveillance

Non-Conformance:

Potential biophysical offsite impacts are not monitored on a regular basis. Objective Evidence: No monitoring records of potential offsite impacts are available, e.g. accumulation of harvesting debris at bridgehead walls on a public road. Close-out evidence:

There was no evidence of any harvesting debris or any other negative off-site impact as a result of the softwood areas, which were both visited. The management plan review has identified issues that will be included and monitored in the new GMP. This CAR is closed. M19 10.2.3 Date 10 July 2008 Due Date> 10 Oct 2008 Date Closed> 3/2/2009 Recorded>

Non-Conformance:

Buffer zones in the softwood plantation areas have not adequately been indicated on the maps, implemented in field and respected. See Minor CAR 17 Objective Evidence: At Kapkwata, in some places the buffer zones were adequate, while in other places the trees were planted to the edge of the stream (at Kapkwata, near guest house). A greater problem, however was that with the implementation of the Taungya system (community tends to the plantation trees and in return they can intercrop with maize, beans etc) practised by local people within Kapkwata softwood plantation was not adequately monitored because local people planted crops close to the stream (within the buffer zone) and signs of erosion runoff into the stream were visible. Close-out: The management team is in the process of updating the management plan, which takes into account the management of the softwood plantation areas. This plan is currently in draft form and the Mt Elgon management team have requested an extension period of 5 months to close out this CAR since their current focus is on the new 10 year management plan. The close out of this CAR will necessitate a field visit which will be scheduled before the end of the year 2008. Follow-up Nov. 2008: There was not enough objective evidence to close this CAR. The practice of cultivating the buffer zones continues. It is not only against FSC principles but also against Ugandan legislation. UWA has withdrawn their trees from the buffer zones, but are still the custodians of the land and should prevent the practices of cultivation the buffers. The issue of intercropping also raises the question of sustainable plantations and is addressed through two further CARs. Close-out evidence: The following steps were taken in closing the CAR and were verified in field. It was found that all was implemented. • UWA had strategic planning meetings on the 22/12/2008 to investigate the root causes of the non-conformance and to plan appropriate action. Definite actions were assigned to identified staff. • All relevant staff attended an in-house FSC workshop and refresher training on the FSC principles and criteria. • The illegal cultivation was stopped and law enforcement patrols were increased in the area. • Streams were mapped and delineation was done along the water courses. • Delineation was marked in field with pegs to demarcate the stream and buffer zone area. . • Awareness meetings were held in all the relevant parishes to get cooperation from the local farmers. Attendance registers and minutes are kept on file. • Sign boards were erected along the streams to create further awareness of the importance of the conservation of the riparian zones. • A farming permit was introduced to register all the farmers that cultivate fields in the park. Conditions are stipulated in the permit and local government also sign each permit to confirm that the particular individual is from that community. • There is a management decision to leave the trees that are currently not complying until they can be harvested and to withdraw the plant line above the delineation mark with the next planting. This CAR is closed. 20 6.3.3 Date Next 10 July 2008 Due Date> Date Closed> 14 July 2009 Recorded> surveillance AD 36-A-04 Page 45 of 58

Non-Conformance:

Weed control within the park has not been documented or scheduled. See Observation 07. Objective Evidence: On the Sasa Trail, between Mudange Cliffs and Sasa River Camp, there was a localized population of black wattle (Acacia mearnsii) trees that need to be scheduled for eradication. Weed control within the park is not included in the management plan. The weed control plan is limited to the restoration zone areas. Close-out evidence: The wattle on the Sasa trail was mapped by GPS along with other weed infestations (map available with infestation locations) and the porters were paid to cut the trees and monitor any regrowth. The cut trees were left on site to be used for firewood for the camps. This CAR is closed. M21 5.6.3 Date 10 July 2008 Due Date> 10 Oct 2008 Date Closed> 03/02/2009 8.2.3 Recorded> Non-Conformance:

It is not known whether the harvesting of NTFP (non-timber forest products) exceeds their replenishment rates over the long term. See Minor CAR 11 Objective Evidence: See Minor CAR 11. Quantitative inventories are still lacking. UWA staff at Bushiyi Ranger post accepted that it was difficult to monitor harvesting of bamboo shoots because local people use different routes to access the bamboo zone. At Suam, the UWA staff confirmed that no inventory had been done on resource harvesting to assess the quantities available. It was further stated that due to the expiry of the resource use agreements, it was becoming increasingly difficult to establish the quantity of the products extracted by local people from the park.

Close-out evidence: UWA has developed stakeholder interaction through the local community structures. There are 56 parishes, each has a committee that controls and records the resource use and communicate with UWA. It was confirmed by some of the community leaders during interviews. All people that do harvesting on the mountain are registered in the different parishes. Resource collection is limited to two days per week. This was confirmed by community leaders and monthly reporting records. UWA has also initiated a research program to establish the baseline resource inventory. Research is still being done and the project not completed. The project progress is within the planned timeframe. Correspondence between researchers and UWA as well as the budget allocations made for the project, were verified and confirmed the current status. The CAR is closed. 22 10.1.2 Date Next 13/11/2008 Due Date> Date Closed> Recorded> Surveillance

Non-Conformance:

Achievement of sustainable plantation management can not be clearly demonstrated.

Objective Evidence: At Suam, Compartments 4, 6 & 7 had very poor stocking ratios and the trees appeared dwarfed for their age. Intercropping with maize and beans are allowed, but seems to be interfering negatively with the tree growth. Although the management plan indicates that beating up will only be done at 30% mortality, these compartments appear way above that. The achievement of the objective of sustainable forests was not clearly demonstrated. 2009 Update: Compartments 4, 6 and 7 constitute 270ha. The average age of the softwood plantations is 5-6 years and they are ready for their first thinning which will commence in November 2009 as documented in the AOP (Annual Operations Plan) for Plantation Management 2009/10. It is recommended that this CAR remain open until November 2009 or next surveillance after which the scheduled inventory has been conducted and accurate stocking figures have been assessed and accurate percentages calculated. Close-out evidence:

23 8.2.2 Date Next 13/11/2008 Due Date> Date Closed> Recorded> Surveillance Non-Conformance:

A timber resource inventory appropriate to the scale of the plantations is not conducted. AD 36-A-04 Page 46 of 58

Objective Evidence: Refer to CAR 22. No documentation could be obtained for the poor performance of the plantations in compartments 4, 6 & 7 at Suam. Visually the compartments appeared under stocked and with a poor growth rate but it could not be confirmed against compartment documentation. 2009 Update: The average age of the softwood plantations is 5-6 years and they are ready for their first thinning which will commence in November 2009 as documented in the AOP (Annual Operations Plan) for Plantation Management 2009/10. It is recommended that this CAR remain open until November 2009 or next surveillance after which the scheduled inventory has been conducted. Close-out evidence:

24 6.3.1 Date Next 14 Jul 2009 Due Date> Date Closed> Recorded> Surveillance

Non-Conformance: The status of the FMU with regard to certain species is not known Objective Evidence: 1. It was not possible to identify a small dead mammal encountered (mouse/shrew) despite the fact that the forest rangers reported common such mortalities with unknown reason. The only Mammal ID book available was for large mammals of Africa, which was inadequate to identify this small Ugandan mammal. Mammal sitings only include 13 mammals and descriptions are not specific e.g. Baboon, Hyaena, but not which type? 2. The biodiversity study that was carried out is dated 1996 and does not include reptiles. 3. Only 10 bird species were recorded from sightings dated Jan 2008 to Jan 2009. Potential alien invasive weed species are not known and have not been further investigated e.g. Bugweed (Solanum mauritianum from S. America) found at Kapkwai Education centre and Rubus spp (which could be the American bramble species) found in the tourism zone from Kapkwai and widespread within the FMU. Close-out evidence:

25 6.1.3 Date Next 14 Jul 2009 Due Date> Date Closed> Recorded> Surveillance

Non-Conformance: Potential environmental impacts have not been adequately considered to ensure that adverse impacts are avoided or mitigated. Objective Evidence: On the Kapkwai circular trail it was very evident during rain that there was no drainage on the hiking trail paths. Sediment laden water was draining directly from the paths into the streams, with visible discoloration of the stream. Even after the rain had stopped the hiking trail paths served as water conduits and the hiker is faced with the hazardous task of slipping in running water. This is an environmental and safety hazard. Sediment is getting deposited into streams from the paths and the paths are gradually eroding. Drainage of the paths is necessary, so that water leaves these – paths as soon as possible. Close-out evidence:

26 8.2.5; Date Next 14 Jul 2009 Due Date> Date Closed> 8.2.10 Recorded> Surveillance

Non-Conformance: Monitoring of Rangers posts and of waste disposal is inadequate Objective Evidence:

At Tangwen Rangers post the waste disposal was not adequate. There was mixing of biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials, contrary to the Waste Procedure. The first aid kit was empty and there was no provision of running water. Close-out evidence:

AD 36-A-04 Page 47 of 58

12. RECORD OF OBSERVATIONS

OBS # Indicator Observation Detail

01 4.2.3 Date Recorded> 18/04/2007 Date Closed> 10 July 2008

Observation:

Skills certificates are not issued on the completion of training courses. Follow-up evidence:

Skills certificates were checked and were available. 02 4.3.3 Date Recorded> 18/04/2007 Date Closed> 10 July 2008

Observation:

The mechanism to enable the participation of workers in decision-making where this affects their working terms and conditions, is not always effective. Despite receiving the lack of uniforms and raincoats as a complaint on 15/11/2006 via the workers consultative meeting, management has not yet acted on this request. Follow-up evidence: These issues were all dealt with during the reconnaissance survey in preparation for the new management plan, which involved extensive consultation. Workers interviewed did not have any complaints about their uniforms. The rangers who accompanied the team up the mountain were well very equipped with PPE (raincoats, boots backpacks etc) and received special glucose rations and other food to keep up energy needed for ascent. 03 6.2.1 Date Recorded> 18/04/2007 Date Closed> 10 July 2008

Observation:

Although RT&E species have been identified, no information is available on the ecology and biology of these species and management prescriptions for their conservation is not available. Follow-up evidence:

In the new management plan there is a list of RT&E fauna and flora as well as a description (document dated 22 June 2007). 04 6.7.1 Date Recorded> 18/04/2007 Date Closed> 10 July 2008 6.7.2 Observation: 4.2.9 Disposal of waste is not done in an environmentally friendly manner at all sites. At the Bumbo Ranger Post plastics, bottles and other synthetics were dumped together with the biodegradable materials into a pit that was previously a pit latrine. Uganda legislation prescribes the burning of non-biodegradable materials. There is no evidence of recycling or effort to recycle. Follow-up evidence: The disposal of waste was checked at the Sasa River Camp, the Sasa Ranger’s patrol hut and the Mude Cave Camp. In all cases, organics were separated and placed in a pit and the recyclables and non-biodegradable material was kept and carried out by porters employed, or by the rangers themselves. 05 7.1.3 Date Recorded> 18/04/2007 Date Closed> 10 July 2008

Observation:

The adjacent Kenya side of the NP is not adequately described in the management plan (there is only a brief description of problems in Chapter 3.4.7). Follow-up evidence:

A profile of the adjacent land is included in the reconnaissance survey and the new Draft management plan. 06 6.1.2 Date Recorded> 18/04/2007 Date Closed> 10 July 2008

Observation:

Poor quality of access roads outside the park. UWA needs to be more pro-active in terms of working together with the government and the local communities to upgrade the roads. Despite the fact that the roads are outside the National Park, UWA makes use of these roads to access the park. Erosion and lack of proper drainage on the roads has a severely negative environmental impact. AD 36-A-04 Page 48 of 58

OBS # Indicator Observation Detail

Follow-up evidence: UWA has co-operated with the local community in terms of the upgrade of the Kapkwai road and reached an agreement that the locals would be paid to maintain about 6km of this road. There is also a letter of request from the Soranko District Administration to improve the road, indicating that the communication is good. 07 6.3.3 Date Recorded> 18/04/2007 Date Closed> 10 July 2008

Observation:

Weed control within the park. Evidence was found of bramble within the park, and staff was not aware that this is an alien invader. No monitoring or control of bramble (although this is in small localised pockets, and not very widespread). Follow-up evidence: The weed plan only focuses on the restoration zones and not within the actual park itself. This was raised as Minor CAR 20.

08 10.6.2 Date Recorded> 18/04/2007 Date Closed> 10 July 2008

Observation:

Three landslides occurred in the softwood plantation zone during 2006 and there was no plan to rehabilitate them. Follow-up evidence:

These areas were inspected and found to be stable after rehabilitation. 09 10.7.1 Date Recorded> 18/04/2007 Date Closed> 10 July 2008

Observation:

The diseases affecting the seedlings in the nursery and for which a chemical pesticide Ambush was used in 2006 are not known. Follow-up evidence:

There has been no further chemical use in the seedling nursery due to lack of necessity. This is no longer an issue, but UWA are aware of the need to record any chemical use and reasons for use. 10 10.7.4 Date Recorded> 18/04/2007 Date Closed> 14 Jul 2009

Observation:

MENP has no fire-fighting equipment at all (e.g. beaters, water dispensing equipment) thus severely limiting their ability to effectively combat any fire. 2008 Update: Fire breaks have been prepared and traditional fire fighting methods are used (branches with leaves as beaters) since the trees are still very small. The general assessments for the new GMP identified the need for equipment as listed above. This should be further monitored. Follow-up evidence: Alarm gongs, water tanks (backpacks) beaters have been purchased as well as other tools. The sites of fire towers have been located (two sites in Kapkwata and two in Suam) and building has been approved and will commence in 2009. 11 3.3.1 Date Recorded> 18/04/2007 Date Closed> 10 July 2008

Observation:

Within MENP there are many sites associated with traditional ceremonies, particularly circumcision. Sabiny women visit certain caves after the birth of twins to perform rituals. Mt Elgon also has a significant place in Bagisu folklore concerning the creation and origin of man. A number of burial sites are present inside MENP that are important to nearby villages. Examples of significant sacred sites are the Sayuni area which is sacred to the Bagisu (Bulucheki sub-county) and Khauka cave on Wanale Ridge. These cultural sites are not all recorded on the official list of sites of significance and should be included. Follow-up evidence:

The Khauka cave has been listed and described, and more sites have been added to the list of sites in line with the new management plan data assimilation. See CAR 14 close out details. 12 4.2.5 Date Recorded> 10 July 2008 Date Closed> dd MMM yy AD 36-A-04 Page 49 of 58

OBS # Indicator Observation Detail

Observation:

Lack of PPE for softwood plantation workers. Workers were only issued with gumboots, no overalls or raincoats were issued. 2009 Update: There is a plan and a budget for the new financial year July 2009- June 2010 to provide overalls, raincoats and gumboots. This still needs to be followed up on. Follow-up evidence:

AD 36-A-04 Page 50 of 58

13. RECORD OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS AND INTERVIEWS

Nr Comment Response

Main Evaluation

A large number of accusations were levelled against UWA-FACE through a single independent news report. These allegations were never submitted to SGS as part of the evaluation process and SGS would not normally respond to such, however UWA-FACE requested that these be investigated and specifically that the results be produced in the evaluation report. An ENGO raised a public complaint about the handling of the resettlement of the Benet tribe. The Benet Community had customary use rights of the heath and moor land vegetation belts within the park. In 1983, the Government excised 6 000 ha of the (then) Mt Elgon Forest Reserve to re-settle the Benet Community. Unfortunately, the resettlement exercise was not successful due to numerous reasons, and people from the Benet area have continued to live and practice agriculture within the park. Various meetings were held between UWA and Kapchorwa District Leadership. The park boundaries were surveyed again. The option for purchasing land for this re-settlement was also documented, and Government must still make a decision on this. Two separate land use issues have been identified here: 1. General encroachment onto the NP along the lower boundaries by agriculturists for land and other natural resources.2. The use of high-lying moorland/forest by a subgroup, the Benet, who claim historical/traditional rights to the area as people indigenous to this part of Mt Elgon. A number of ENGOs visited communities living around MENP in July 2006. Their resultant allegations have been grouped into four categories, i.e. UWA conservation policy works against local people; the physical eviction of local people has violated human rights; allegations of mistreatment and killing of local people; and planting of boundary pillars are done without the consent of local people – refer below.

01 Allegation: UWA Conservation policy works against local people. • It is UWA policy to evict the encroachers and protect the forest without the involvement of the local communities. • The local communities are not seen as part of the solution and are not involved UWA Response: Employment of local people

MENP is a major source of employment to the neighbouring communities. Records available at MENP office shows that about 149 persons are employed on a four year contract basis. This was also confirmed from the staff payroll for January-March 2007. Of these 54 are Bagisu and 51 are the Sabiny. According to the Warden UWA-Face, between 45-75 persons are employed under the UWA-Face project on a regular basis depending on the amount of planned work for the month. During the actual planting period over 500 workers are employed. The payroll for January, February and March 2007 showed that about 54 staff recruited locally from the communities adjacent to MENP were employed on the UWA-Face project. MENP also offers employment to people who work with private companies involved in tourism as tour guides. Examples are Mt. Elgon Trekkers Association (META) operating in Budadiri, Kapkwai and Kapkwata), Elgon Tours and Travel and Crows Nest Campsite.

Training and extension services MENP, through the community conservation unit, offers training and extension to communities living adjacent to the park. Local people have been trained in conservation education and in particular primary school students and their teachers at the Mt Elgon Exploration Centre at Kapkwata, Kapchorwa District. The Islamic University of Uganda indicated that MENP serves as an outreach centre where they attach students to communities and UWA staff to get practical skills in nature conservation. UWA in collaboration with the Islamic University in Uganda with support from Mt.Elgon Regional Ecosystem Conservation Programme (MERECP) has plans under way to upgrade the centre into an international conservation centre (Biological Research Station), to offer training not only to primary schools but to people involved in ecological research. The Warden Community Conservation reported that local people are trained as tour guides and have established Banda’s (guest houses) outside the National Park for renting to tourists, particularly around Sipi falls, Mise and Dititimet caves in Kapchorwa District. Development of infrastructure and other income generating projects Section 69 (4) of the Wildlife Act Cap.200 mandates Uganda Wildlife Authority to pay 20% of the park entry fees collected from a Wildlife Protected Area to the local government of the area surrounding the Protected Area for economic development. Most stakeholders acknowledged UWA’s support to infrastructural development like schools, roads and bridges. This is part of the 20% share of the revenue from park entry fees that is remitted to Local Governments. Records at MENP indicates that about 50 000 000 Uganda Shillings (US$29 000) has been spent to develop local infrastructure since 2002. Among the areas supported are Kabelyo and Kapkwata Primary School and Secondary School in Kapchorwa District, Bushiyi Trail Project in Manafwa District, Chessower Environment Tree Project in Kapchorwa District and Mt.Elgon Beekeeping Community in Sironko District. About 10 777 050 Shillings have been approved to support two community projects around the park (Bushiuyo Diary Project, Wanale in Mbale District (5 044 050 Shillings) and Nabeeki Beekeeping Group in Bupoto, Manafwa District (5 733 000 Shillings). Local leaders from Buwabwala acknowledged receipt of about 50 pieces of timber from UWA to repair a bridge. Mr Masolo Sam from Bushiyi Parish reported that UWA gave out two trees that were sawn into timber to construct part of Bushubuye Primary School, Bulucheki sub-county, Bududa District. In May 2005, UWA provided 7 040 000 Uganda Shillings (US$4 140) to Kapchorwa Local Government to repair a 5.9 km Chema-Ngaisire feeder road. Furthermore, local communities make use of the park to develop some sites outside the park for attracting tourists e.g. Sipi falls, AD 36-A-04 Page 51 of 58

Nr Comment Response Mise and Dititimet caves in Kapchorwa District. Resource use agreements with local people Local people have resource use agreements that enable them to collect resources on prescribed days of the week. These resources include: medicinal plants, water, firewood, bamboo shoots, vegetables, mushrooms, grass for thatching houses, banana stakes and siting of bee hives. Since 1996, resource use committees have been established following wider consultations with communities dating as far back as 1992 at time when evictions were made from the park. Since 2004, a total of 52 agreements had been signed around the park between local people and MENP. Of these, 26 are for integrated resource access involving access to bamboo shoots, bamboo stems, poles for construction, firewood, mushrooms, honey, water, grass for grazing and thatching, sand, ropes, green vegetables, while 26 are for specific access to a particular resource e.g. bamboo collection or siting of bee hives. In each of the above agreements, there is a resource use committee mandated to promote better management of park resources, set guidelines on resource access and utilisation by communities and prescribes punishments to offenders. In addition, UWA undertakes planning jointly with representatives from community groups. The development of the General Management Plan for MENP involves consultation with local communities so that their needs are integrated into UWA budgets. Planning also involves technical staff from local governments (forestry, environment and agricultural sectors). There is also a District Steering Committee (DSC) headed by Resident District Commissioners, of District Officials, UWA and other stakeholders that meets monthly to discuss park issues. The DSC also helps to bridge the gap between UWA and local people and communicate the decisions made to the local people. SGS response: This allegation is considered unsubstantiated as stakeholders interviewed from the areas visited in all the six districts surrounding MENP, appreciated the role of the park in improving the livelihoods of local communities in terms of employment, infrastructural development, training and extension, and controlled access to park resources. This is adequately explained in the evidence above. 02 Allegation: The physical eviction of local people has violated human rights. The Benet Case: The Benet people are traditional inhabitants who had previously lived in the heather and moorland vegetation belts of Mt. Elgon forest prior to its gazettment in 1938. In 1983, the government made a decision to excise 6 000 ha of land from the Forest Reserve to resettle the Benet following a concern that their population had increased and that their agricultural activities were inconsistent with conservation due to loss of forest and interference with regeneration. The resettlement exercise was also aimed at settling the Sabiny people displaced from the low lands of Ngege due to cattle rustling. However, the resettlement exercise had setbacks that included non-marking of the 6 000 ha and unfair distribution of the land. This lead to further encroachment on the forest area as rightful beneficiaries missed out. Most of the Benet also sold off their share of land to the Sabiny who were enlightened and knew the value of land. Instead the Benet were told to take their activities further in the Park since they were indigenous and had claim of traditional rights. In 1992, Uganda National Park marked off the 6 000 ha that brought the line to the present official gazetted boundary description. This left about 500 families inside MENP occupying an area of about 1 500 ha. With help of Uganda Land Alliance and support from Action Aid, the Benet decided to take the Attorney General and UWA to court for infringement of their traditional rights to MENP. A high court judge in Mbale in October 2005 ruled in favour of the Benet tribe regarding their rights to settle and farm in MENP. It recognised the Benet as an indigenous community. UWA respected this ruling and has not evicted the Benet from the park. However, UWA claims that many of the affected people are not actually the Benet, but are Sabiny who had bought the land as well as some who had settled in the area from Ngege claiming insecurity from the Karimajong warriors. They also claim that the elite Sabiny that benefited from the 6 000 ha of land were the brain behind the Benet to sue the government over wrongful eviction and denial of their traditional rights of access to the park resources. The Sabiny feared to loose land that they grabbed from the Benet. Following the court ruling, UWA has been in consulation with local leaders from Kapchorwa District Council on the possibility of excising 1 500 ha to accommodate the 500 families. They want to ensure that care is taken to avoid a repeat of the past, especially by ensuring that land is distributed equitably to the rightful beneficiates just before the degazettment. Furthermore, Kapchorwa District Local Government was given the task to map out the area and submit a report to the Parliament for approval so that an alternative piece of land outside the park is secured, or a part of the park is degazetted which they can legally occupy. This is seen as acting in the spirit of recognising and respecting legal or customary rights and accommodating or compensating any damages to the indigenous people. There is currently a stalemate situation, with “illegal settlements” in the Park, being accommodated at this time, with its concomitant negative effects on the integrity of the forest. However, during the stakeholder consultations, local leaders from Kapchorwa District noted that the government was in a dilemma on whether the Parliament was going to degazette more land for the Benet or seek land elsewhere. In response, an inter-ministerial committee consisting of local government officials from Kapchorwa District was formed to handle the Benet case. The Government gave the task to Kapchorwa District council to develop with a workable solution. On the 28th of December 2006, Kapchorwa District council made a resolution that the government should act on the judgement consent and allow the Benet to stay in the designated area. It was also resolved that the government/UWA and local people should come up with a boundary line agreeable to all parties. It is now more than a year after the court ruling in favour of the Benet, but the situation has not been resolved because the government has not yet met its obligations. Allegation: Eviction of other encroachers Encroachment in MENP started way back in the 1970s when there was total breakdown in law and order in Uganda. Communities took advantage of the confusion to encroach on the park. Since 1986, the government has made efforts to evict encroachers who had knowingly settled in the boundaries of the park. Evictions around the park were carried out from 1986 to 1991 except for the Benet Area. In addition, the upgrading of the then Forest Reserve to a national park in 1993 that changed its status and limited consumptive activities formerly allowed by the Forest Department did not go well the communities. When the Forest Reserve was upgraded into a Forest Park in 1990, the Forest AD 36-A-04 Page 52 of 58

Nr Comment Response Department conducted the re-opening of its boundaries and subsequent boundary marking with live markers (trees). At that time, all encroachers had been evicted (save for the Benet Area). During the boundary reopening in 1992- 1993, a number of omissions were detected as a result of inefficiencies in the survey team. For example, a notch in the area around Wanale where a sizeable chunk of the park was left out. When UWA discovered the error, it was corrected but the area has continued to be one of the major sources of conflict between UWA and local communities. The communities always refer to the resurvey as the 1993 boundary. Data provided by surveyors did not correspond with what had been marked on the ground, but the department of Surveys and Mapping did clarify this to the districts (refer to the letter dated 1st December 2003 by the Commissioner of Lands and Surveys) emphasizing the legality of the original 1964 boundary. UWA embarked on an exercise to clearly mark all boundaries and limit any confusion and conflict around MENP in 2004. Before the exercise commenced, a National Steering Committee composed of various stakeholder departments was formed with the mandate of overseeing and guiding the exercise. The District Steering Committee was also charged with the sensitisation of communities and addressing conflicts arising out of the exercise. UWA made progress with boundary marking and sorting out issues with families that were inside the park. A boundary line was identified with UWA and later followed with construction of concrete pillars and planting boundary trees in some areas. When the pillar construction exercise was nearing completion, a new wave of encroachment and boundary disputes cropped up at the on-set of Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Council Elections (January-March 2006), as communities misunderstood the President’s pronouncement that put a stop to fresh evictions on some Forest Reserves. The President had advised against harassment as people agitated for more land. This was followed by a message sent through the Inspector General of Police on his visit to communities adjacent to MENP shortly before the February 2007 Presidential and Parliamentary elections. UWA staff accepted the orders and this resulted in massive encroachment in the areas of Bumasifwa, Busuluni in Sironko District, Wanale and Bufumbo in Mbale District, Bududa, Busano, Bushika and Bulucheke in Bududa District, Bubita, Buwabwala and Bumbo in Manafwa District. In a period of three months, an area up to 3 928 ha representing 3.5% of MENP was affected. UWA Response: A series of meetings and consultations have been held between UWA and various stakeholders to resolve issues related to park encroachment and boundaries. Between 13 and 28th April 2006 a meeting was held in Mbale District between the Minister of State for Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities, UWA staff, District leaders and members of Parliament from the six districts bordering MENP. Local people were given a 3 month grace period effective April 28th 2006 to allow them to harvest all their crops planted in the park. It was also agreed that recent encroachers must immediately vacate the park. Local leaders and people were also requested not to provoke UWA staff or forcefully engage in activities that contravene the Wildlife Act or that were in breach of the agreed position. UWA staff were also requested to restrain themselves from evicting people from the disputed area and to continue working with local leaders to amicably work out a solution to park encroachment. On the 9th May 2006 a reminder letter by the Minister of State for Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities was written to the local leaders from the districts bordering MENP to adhere to the earlier agreed position by all the parties and to ensure that there is no more encroachment on the Park. The Minister of State for Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities visited the encroached area on 24-26th July 2006 and had meetings with UWA staff, local leaders, and local people from districts adjacent to MENP. During the visit, members agreed to extend the deadline for all encroachers for another two months (up to 28th September 2006). An ultimatum was also given to all people who invaded MENP, particularly those who had encroached on to the park from December 2005 to March 2006 (during the Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Council elections) to vacate the encroached areas by 28th July 2006. However, there was a turn of events when an Interim Order of injunction was issued at Mbale High Court (dated 23rd November 2006) stopping UWA from evicting local people after an application filed by more than 396 people from Bumbo sub-county, Manafa District. The court injunction was intended to maintain the status quo. However, misinterpretation of the court order against UWA incited local people in all areas adjacent to the Park to continue with illegal park encroachment. This was rampant in areas visited like Buwabwala, Bumbo, Wanale, Bufumbo and Bulucheki where construction of houses and fresh ploughing was visible in areas that had been vacated following the directive by the Minister in 2006. During the April 2007 re-assessment it was found that some encroachers had gone beyond the 1993 boundary. The case (application) was to be heard in Mbale High Court on 9th March 2007 but could not proceed as planned because the judiciary was on a country wide strike. At the time of the re-assessment by the SGS audit team (16-18th April 2007), the case had not yet been heard. Meanwhile encroachment on MENP continues due to misinterpretation of the court injunction against UWA. On 8 - 10th February 2007 the Minister of State for Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities again made a follow-up field visit to the encroached areas and held a meeting with district leaders (Members of Parliament, District Chairpersons, Local Councillors, Resident District Commissioners (RDCs), police, security organs and UWA) to resolve the park encroachment. It was again agreed that trespassers who had encroached and planted crops in the park must harvest such and immediately vacate. The meeting asked UWA to clarify the boundary maps to aid in verification of the actual park boundary. The Minister was also hosted on a local radio station (Open Gate Radio) on 9th February 2007 and the same message was aired. On 21 February 2007 UWA drafted a statement to clarify their position on the various allegations. The Executive Director: UWA admits the existence of some disputes about the boundary of Mt. Elgon in some areas, but denies harassment of local people. An investigation carried out between 17-18th January 2007 by the Criminal Investigations Department, Kampala found no case of harassment by UWA staff as alleged in the petition to the Prime Minster by local people from Bumbo sub-county. SGS response: The audit team noted that UWA staff have followed the right channels (i.e. approaching first local government structures and later on the political structures) to amicably address the encroachment and resettlement of encroachers and the indigenous Benet. Much of the current encroachment along the lower boundary is attributable to political interference over which UWA had no control. It further noted that resettlement of the Benet was a political matter that has to go through Parliament for approval to degazette a portion of the park or secure an alternative piece of land and AD 36-A-04 Page 53 of 58

Nr Comment Response was thus out of UWA’s mandate. This process is on-going at the moment. UWA staff do not own the land but are merely the custodians of the public land and responsible for implementing government policy. 03 Allegation: Mistreatment and killing of local people. Isolated incidents involving the death of people were recorded during stakeholder meetings. Stakeholders from Soono Village, Bumbo sub-county reported that on the 12th February 2007, a 10 year child was beaten and in trying to escape from UWA rangers fell off a cliff and died. They also alleged that there was no compensation and apology from UWA to the bereaved family. On 25th March 2007 UWA rangers shot dead a man found burning charcoal from his garden in Buwabwala sub-county, Manafwa District. In Kapchorwa, an Opinion Leader did indicate that rangers do not respect the community at all and act like soldiers. He reported that towards the end of November 2006, UWA rangers shot several bullets at his farm but his Headman escaped unhurt and was planning to pursue the case in the courts of law. UWA response: According to MENP management the child was in a wrong place. It is a National Park and any activity to be undertaken in the Park has to be authorised and/or need permission to enter. Secondly, children are not allowed in the park unless they are in a company of an adult. It was out of fear that the child realised that she was in a wrong place and decided to run away and fell off the cliff given the terrain around MENP. The incident was not reported to the UWA office, instead UWA received information about the child’s death through the Media and Police. The police has, since then, has exonerated UWA from any wrongdoing. The Chief Warden also accepted that a person was shot dead. He however, refuted claims that the man was shot dead in his garden. The incident took place whilst the UWA rangers were busy mapping the encroachments. An individual approached and attacked them with a panga, seriously injuring one of the rangers who then shot in self defence. SGS response: The claims about sexual harassment, sodomy and rape of local people at the hands of park rangers could not be substantiated and none of the stakeholders testified to this effect. None of the local people interviewed in the areas visited (Bumbo, Buwabwala, Bufumbo, and Bushiyi) mentioned sexual harassment, rape and sodomy by UWA staff. Investigations carried out by the Criminal Investigations Department (CID office Kampala) on 17-18 January 2007 also found that allegations were baseless (a report is available in the Prime Minister’s Office). The Director: Field Operations UWA made a public statement that they will not entertain harassment of any kind, and any errant staff will be dealt with in terms of their disciplinary procedures or handed to the police as appropriate. However, should isolated incidences of the violation of human rights by UWA staff occur, they are handled in terms of disciplinary and due legal processes. MENP office handed over the ranger who shot and killed a man in self defence to the police for prosecution. He is still in police custody. He will have to defend himself in court. Acts of such nature are beyond the control of UWA and have to be handled by the legal system. Furthermore, cases of destruction of crops and property by UWA staff arising from the disputed boundary are also handled by the courts. It is court rulings that will indicate whether UWA violated human rights, and no such verdict has yet been recorded. 04 Allegation: Planting of boundary pillars are done without the consent of local people. In most of the sub-counties visited (Buwabwala, Bufumbo and Bumbo, Mbale District) local people alleged that planting of pillars by UWA surveyors was not done in collaboration with local people. Meetings with stakeholders revealed that surveyors were brought in and could not listen to people and were heavily guarded by gun wielding UWA rangers and officials. Stakeholders further claim that some of equipment used (Hand held GPS) by surveyors were faulty and liable to errors. UWA Response: UWA indicated that planting of pillars was done by surveyors that are assigned by the Ministry of Lands (Department of Lands and Surveys) in Kampala and not UWA as alleged (letter dated 20th August 2004 from Commissioner of Lands and Surveys). Surveyors are sent with specifications (coordinates) provided by the Department of Lands and Surveys that they follow in tracing the boundary. UWA has no capacity to bribe surveyors and also wondered how UWA would benefit from bribing surveyors since the park was a public resource, which they manage on behalf of the government. UWA embarked on an exercise to clearly mark all boundaries and limit any confusion and conflict around MENP in 2004. Before the exercise commenced, a National Steering Committee composed of various stakeholder departments was formed with the mandate of overseeing and guiding the exercise. The District Steering Committee was also charged with the sensitisation of communities and addressing conflicts arising out of the exercise. It is not true that local people were left out in the process of planting pillars. A letter dated 16th July 2004 introducing the Geomaps surveyors to all sub-county chairpersons in Mbale District to liaise with team during the pillar planting was available. SGS response: All the available evidence show that local government structures (LC 3) were informed of the surveying and planting of boundary beacons and if any breakdown of communication occurred, it happened between this level of local government and their respective communities. SGS general response to all the above allegations: According to the Wildlife Policy (1999), UWA is mandated to promote the long-term conservation of the country’s wildlife and biodiversity in a cost effective manner which maximises benefits to the local people of Uganda. UWA encourages a range of participatory approaches such as empowering the people to participate in the conservation and management of the park resources, and related decision-making processes that affect their lives. A number of strategies are used to achieve this e.g. by allowing people from the neighbouring communities controlled access for the sustainable harvest of products for traditional use. However, the Wildlife Policy also mandates UWA to evict illegal settlers from the National Parks and Wildlife Reserves, and restrict livestock access in Wildlife Reserves. Furthermore, Section 34 of the Wildlife Act 2000 empowers UWA to revoke the wildlife use rights when there is no AD 36-A-04 Page 54 of 58

Nr Comment Response compliance from local communities regarding the use of wildlife resources. UWA officials have adhered to the law (Wildlife Policy, 1999 and the Wildlife Act, 2000) in handling illegal activities. People have been given time to harvest their crops. Management had evidence showing the correct boundary (Gazette, maps, coordinates are available at MENP office) and UWA could not be compromised into ignoring transgressions. Isolated incidences of the violation of human rights by UWA staff cannot be denied and they are handled in terms of disciplinary and due legal processes. The situation was also exploited by interest groups who are not interested in the conservation objectives and are pursuing their own agendas. Various meetings and discussions have been held between local people, UWA, local leaders, Police, Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry to resolve the boundary issues. Negotiations are on-going between UWA, local government officials and the Ministry of Tourism and Trade to solve the problem by redesigning the boundary. It is believed that UWA is acting in the national interest of Uganda to preserve some of the natural environment that still remains relatively undisturbed, whilst going to significant lengths to accommodate the needs of local communities. This statement must also be viewed against the following background: Much of the current social problems are in the political arena and solution will only be found at that level The rights of indigenous people have been respected (admittedly only after a court ruling) Consultations are held between UWA and various stakeholders regarding park management on a continuous basis Local people have benefited and continue to benefit from UWA initiatives UWA has followed the guidelines provided under the Uganda Wildlife Policy of 1999 and the Wildlife Act of 2000 in the management of MENP SGS therefore summarizes the situation as follows: 1. It is clear that conflict exists between UWA and both the neighbouring communities along the lower boundary of MENP and the Benet tribe on higher-lying areas. This is impacting negatively on the conservation management of MENP. 2. A legal ruling allowed members of the Benet tribe with a historical claim to the area to stay in MENP. The current position is that the Benet tribe will stay in the area until such time as either an alternative area for settlement is found and they are resettled or when a degazettement is done. It is not however possible to give any indication of when this will happen. 3. A number of human rights complaints have been raised regarding the treatment of local people by employees of UWA. Investigations could not substantiate these complaints. However, even the rumours of such treatment of local people by UWA employees demands the immediate attention from senior UWA management. 4. The situation was further complicated by an apparent political decision to allow people back into the area during the period leading up to the 2006 elections. 5. Whatever resolution is finally reached, it must follow due legal process, have full political support and be conducted in a transparent, consultative process where consideration is given to reasonable compensation where justified. SGS does not regard this as major failure in terms of Principle 3 and Criterion 2.3 of the FSC standard for the following reasons: UWA has accepted the court ruling in the case of the Benet tribe and undertook not to act against them unless alternative land can be found (thus recognizing and respecting their rights). Much of the current encroachment along the lower boundary is attributable to political interference over which UWA had no control. It is also the subject of political debate that must still be resolved at the highest level of political decision-making in Uganda. UWA has put a number of actions in place to amicably address this situation inter alia at Ministerial level, District level and Park level. Parliament is in the process of discussing the repeated encroachment in protected areas in Uganda and UWA is in dialogue with the President of Uganda to address the situation. The above efforts have yielded results as there is evidence of some communities that have harvested their crops and abandoned the park voluntarily. Both the Benet and the general encroachment situations require the full attention from UWA to come to an acceptable resolution for all parties. This will be closely monitored during the FSC surveillance process. The following areas were visited during the above stakeholder consultation process, over and above telephonic and other communication prior to and during the re-assessment: Soono Village in Bumbo sub-county Bunekesa and Bunambale in Buwabwala sub-county Kapchorwa Kirayi, Bumadanda and Bunamboli in Bufumbo sub-county Bushiyi and Parish in Bulucheke sub county Surveillance 1 AD 36-A-04 Page 55 of 58

Nr Comment Response

1 Stakeholder Issue: An article in the WRM (report 131) once again raised the issue of the eviction of the Benet communities. The article stated that in February 2008, UWA together with the defence force evicted over 4000 people from the Benet and Ndorobo communities living in Mt Elgon National Park. This eviction took place after the death of a Belgian tourist, who was shot and killed in the park. The article stated that the Benet had a legal right to live in Mount Elgon National Park. In October 2005, the Ugandan High Court in Mbale ruled that the Benet were the "historical and indigenous inhabitants" of parts of Mount Elgon National Park. The ruling stated that the Benet should be allowed to "carry out agricultural activities" in the areas to which they have historical claim. UWA is being criticised for disregarding the court’s decision, and SGS has been criticised for allowing continued certification. It was also stated that “by evicting the Benet from Mount Elgon National Park, UWA has shown that it has no interest in complying either with FSC's Principle 3 or the significantly weaker statement from SGS Qualifor that UWA would only evict the Benet if "alternative land can be found". UWA booted the Benet out of the national park and left them without neither land nor homes. The article also quoted the “Action Aid” statements of criticism against the government, for disregarding the court order and saying that the government should provide relief for evicted people. The article also states “Next month, SGS Qualifor is due to carry out an audit of Mount Elgon National Park. This time SGS Qualifor has no choice other than to admit that the eviction of the Benet from Mount Elgon National Park is in breach of FSC's Principle 3. For the simple reason that the management of the national park is not in compliance with FSC's Principles on Indigenous Peoples, the certificate must be withdrawn.” AD 36-A-04 Page 56 of 58

Nr Comment Response

SGS Response: The Benet issue is being closely monitored by SGS, and at this first surveillance visit, a local social specialist spent 3 days interviewing local people and collecting objective evidence. The facts are as follows: In 1983, 6000 ha of the park was excised to accommodate the Benet people. This resulted in a scramble for land and numerous non-Benet people gaining from this, and people claiming to be Benet in an effort to legitimise their own land claims. At this time there was already encroachment beyond the degazetted line, as the Benet people moved higher into the mountain. In 1992 the degazetted area was re-surveyed and found to be less than the promised 6000 ha, so a new “Red line” was created, which increased the degazetted or excised area further up into the mountains, and accommodated more of the Benet people, thus legalizing their settlement. A very important fact is that the 6000 ha (up to the new red line) excised from the Park was supposed to be allocated to the Benet communities, but in reality was grabbed by individuals and groups to the detriment of the Benet people. Indeed, there were incidents of individuals buying the land from the Benet communities. UWA has a map and list of individual beneficiaries of the degazetted area. Personal enrichment was never the aim of excising a portion of a National asset, yet this has clearly been the case, as is evident from the above mentioned map and list of beneficiaries. The fact remains that, beyond the red line is Mt Elgon National park, and within the red line is Benet area. The local communities are still given access rights ABOVE the red line, but may not settle there or graze their cattle there. The 4000 people that were evicted were from the area above the red line, in the area that was clearly part of the Mt Elgon National Park, and NOT part of the excised area that was allocated to the Benet people. UWA has a letter from the Kapchorwa District Local Government to the Minister of State, Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities dated 8 November 2007 strongly endorsing that the government should recognise the 1983 “Red Line” as the acceptable boundary line and that the government should technically handle people above this red line for resettlement. In addition, SGS reviewed a letter from the Indigenous Ndorobos Benet Lobby Group (in Kapchorwa) to the Minister of State, Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities (dated 8 November 2007) which states that the Benet people “..only want the land declared in parliament for us which is 6000 ha well marked and we agree.” They want the government to come and resettle them in the same area that was first allocated to them. The letter also states that “Action Aid” are expanding their business in the area and come with cameras and ask for people’s stories, yet provide little help. Of the 4000 people who were evicted (Benet and others), UWA has made an effort to find other alternative areas to re-settle the people, as described below: There are two groups of the Benet (Ndorobo of Kapsegek and the Yatui Ndorobo of Kwosir and Kwoti). For the Ndorobo of Kapsegek, efforts were being made by UWA to resettle them at Amanang, in Bukwa District. A total of 318 ha of land has been set aside in the national park at Amanang to resettle this group of 150 families (400 people) of the Ndorobo of Kapsegek. The mapping processes took place between 28th May and 17th June and thereafter the allocation was completed on 3rd July 2008. SGS visited this site and confirmed the demarcated area. Another group (130 families) of the Yatui Ndorobo (112 from Kwosir and 18 from Kwoti) are to be resettled at Kisito and Chemuron where they have earmarked 192 ha. A series of meetings have been held between Kapchorwa District Steering Committee, the UWA staff and the Benet representatives (Ref. to Minutes of meeting held on 15th April 2008, 23rd May 2008 and 25th June 2008) available at UWA, Mbale Office.FSC certification also takes into account the protection of the forests, which seems to be ignored in the scramble for land for the ever growing human population. To quote facts once again, only 4.6% of the total area of Uganda (235796 km2) has been dedicated to National Parks in an effort to conserve what little is left of the natural areas of the country. These are National Assets and the value of tourism and job creation was evident as SGS participated in a hike up to Wagagai Peak in Mt Elgon. Here locals were employed as porters and guides and the locals were contracted to provide all of the food, thus providing a sustainable source of income for the local communities. It was also verified that access to the mountain was allowed, as the locals were seen within the National park with head-loads of bamboo. In terms of Principle 6, Uganda is ecologically very significant in that it is the country where the eastern savannah meets the west African tropical forests. Mt Elgon is unique in its microhabitats of Montane forest and high grassland (heath-land), and supports a spectacular birdlife as well as numerous rare, threatened and endangered fauna and flora. If unabated encroachment by humans is allowed, with continued forest destruction, then biodiversity will be lost. If unabated encroachment by humans is allowed then the sustainable income generated from the mountain for the locals will be lost. 2. Follow-up visit February 2009: Representatives of the community parishes and the land care NGO were interviewed during the audit. The NGO “Action Aid” was visited, but both their offices in Kapchorwa and in Mbale were closed down. From former employees it was learned that the offices had moved to Kumi and the new contact details were obtained. Others joined other NGO’s in town. AD 36-A-04 Page 57 of 58

Nr Comment Response

Follow-up March 2009: During this visit SGS attempted to include as many NGOs into the consultation process. A total of 20 individuals representing various organizations 14 NGOs, one Workers’ Union, Kapchorwa District Local Government and UWA were interviewed. All these contact details have been added to the stakeholder list. A special attempt was made to make contact with the NGO Action Aid who had relocated from Mbale to new offices in Kumi, as well as their head office in Kampala. Responses from the NGOs interviewed were varied: Some were openly against all actions UWA takes and continued the unsubstantiated allegations against the park management and staff. No new issues were raised. Some NGOs were concerned that the process of resettlement of the Bennet people is taking too long. The process at the moment is with parliament and an area has to be de-gazetted for permanent settlement. All negotiations are taking place in cooperation between UWA and the Local government structures. They also acknowledge the fact that the issue has been hijacked by non-Bennet people and complicate that matter. Agricultural encroachment and illegal resources harvesting like timber and bush meet were also reported by some NGOs Other NGOs were unaware of UWAs operations and the opportunity was opened for collaboration and networking between UWA and these NGOs. They were added to the list of stakeholders. The workers union of the, Uganda Hotels, Tourism and Allied Workers Union were consulted. All UWA workers are members. The objectives of this Union are to help and support so that they are treated fairly at place of work (preventing unfair dismissals). It also provides a revolving fund for extending loan facilities to its members. Surveillance 2

1 The Kisito Temporal Resettlement Area where The Progress noted to date is as follows: UWA has made efforts to resettle the Benet was visited and people interviewed to confirm progress (i) About 180 families (1500 people) were given 201 ha to date. of land (approximately 2-5 acres per family depending on the family size. (ii) UWA has also made resource access agreements with the Benet to access firewood, bamboo stems and herbs from the park at least twice a week (Saturdays and Sundays) (iii) UWA has temporary gazetted part of the area for social services to the Benet (e.g. Body of Christ Kisito Church and Yatui Primary School which goes up to Primary four).

2 The Benet people indicated that: The re-settlement process is running its course with the 1) Temporal land resettlement process was ultimate culmination of the permanent re-settlement of the fairly conducted by UWA people. Both UWA and the people want this as soon as 2) They were aware of the park boundary possible. 3) The land allocated to them was small and temporary and their population was UWA will investigate the access to the Chesikak cave and increasing assess the potential impacts before making a decision on the 4) Wanted to be permanently resettled so that access to this cave. This will be followed up on by SGS at the like other Ugandans also access next surveillance visit. government programmes and social services like health centres, schools, and agricultural extension services as well as also concentrating on putting permanent structures. 5) UWA to allow them access Chesikak cave which they had traditionally used for their animals to access salt

Surveillance 3

14. RECORD OF COMPLAINTS

Nr Detail

Complaint: Date Recorded > dd MMM yy

All complaints relate to the encroachment situation and are dealt with under stakeholder consultations above.

Objective evidence obtained: AD 36-A-04 Page 58 of 58

Detail

Close-out information: Date Closed > dd MMM yy

End of Public Summary