1.

Introduction

Uganda is a relatively small country in east Africa with a rapidly growing and ethnically
diverse population. The economy of the country is heavily dependent on farming which
employs 83 % of its workforce. While rainforests have extraordinary global significance,
conservation efforts in Uganda clearly need to take into account the needs of both the local
communities and the national economy as a whole. Management of their forest reserves has
moved toward meeting social, economic and conservation needs within the country. In
Kibale National Park, for example, the protected area is surrounded by 7 “parishes” (areas
of local government with strong family and tribal ties) where approximately 150 000 people
live. These boundary communities extract more than 20 different products from the park to
meet some of their subsistence, commercial, cultural and medicinal needs.

Figure 1 Map showing the location of Kibale National Park in Uganda

SUDAN

KENYA
Kitgum
Arua
ZAIRE
Gulu Morolo

t
er Masindi
lb UGANDA
A
Kibale ke Holma
La
National
Park FortPortal Mbale
Kampala Jinja equator
Entebbe
Masaka
Mbarara Lake
Victoria
Kabale
Kabale TANZANIA
RWANDA

[Source: www.usu.edu. Reproduced by permission of Utah State University]

1
Figure 2 Map of Kibale National Park and surrounding parishes

2
Figure 3 The model on which the original proposal for the Kibale National Park was based

The Uganda strategy for managing their tropical forest was started by the World Bank Forestry Rehabilitation
Programme and the original proposal for Kibale National Park was based on their “Man and the biosphere
model” shown below.

Production zone 50%

Buffer zone 30%

Strict reserve 20%

Key:
Strict reserve – (0 % of the forest area) where all direct human impact is prohibited

Buffer zone – (30 % of the forest area) managed for ecotourism, education, research
and controlled harvesting by local community of minor forest products
e.g. wild coffee

Production zone – (50 % of the forest area) managed for sustainable forestry and local
community use

[Source: adapted from D Earl, (1992), Wise Management of Tropical Forest for Timber Production, Tourism and
Wildlife, Wise Management of Tropical Forests, Oxford University Press, Oxford]

3
Figure 4 Data showing diameter and abundance of Ficus* species in logged and unlogged
Ugandan rainforest

Forest Type Number of Ficus species trees / km2 by diameter class (cm)
10 – 20 21 – 30 31 – 50 51 – 70 71 – 90 91 – 110 > 110
Unlogged 40 20 0 0 0 4 4
Logged 153 77 101 8 4 0 2

* Ficus species are fig trees that grow by attaching themselves to the main trunks or stems of
other forest trees. The trees that they grow against are very often those that provide timber for
the loggers. In a typical rainforest they provide abundant food for many fruit-eating birds and
insects, particularly at times when there are very few alternative food sources available. Many
other trees and shrubs depend on these bird populations for dispersal of their seeds. Because so
many species depend upon Ficus species, they are frequently referred to as “keystone species”
in a forest ecosystem.

[Source: adapted from D Alder, (1991), Uganda Forestry Rehabilitation Project Data Processing for the Budongo
Forest Inventory, report DA-UG-4]

Figure 5 Figure showing relative abundance of seven primate species in adjacent areas of
mechanically logged and undisturbed forest at Kibale National Park

Mechanically logged forest Undisturbed forest

Red colobus
Red tail monkey
Blue monkey
Chimpanzee
Black and white colobus
Mangabey
L’Hoest’s monkey
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Index of abundance (number of primate groups/km)
(number of individuals/km in case of chimpanzees)

[P Howard (1991) Nature Conservation in Uganda’s Tropical Forest Reserves, IUCN Publishers.
Reproduced by permission]

4
 Figure 6 Conservation and indigenous peoples

The removal of people in establishing protected areas in Africa is the most basic form of
ecological restoration, and is based on the idea that human occupation is “unnatural”. In
some instances this may be true, but in most it is not, and serious questions of human rights
are raised by the imposition of “wilderness conditions” through the eviction of farmers,
hunter-gatherers or pastoralists. Many institutional and legal problems arise, but are
typically met through various forms of community outreach programmes, sometimes with
revenue sharing, development aid and access for resource use.

[M Penrow and A Davy, Handbook of Ecological Restoration, (2002).

Reproduced by permission of Cambridge University Press.]

Figure 7 Sample letters received by the Kibale chief warden from parish members around
the park

“This is to tell you that when we went in the park we saw four people pit-sawing timber
around Lake Kiribwato. We are therefore calling you to come and patrol the area. The
resource users reported to me of that illegal activity.”

General Secretary, LC II, Nyabweya Parish, 6 June 2000

“There are five people who are in the park, hunting. We saw them while we were checking
coffee areas. Bring rangers and we will arrange to catch them. Come quickly before they
come out of the forest.”

Resource User, Nyakarongo Parish, 2 March 2000

“Madam, we are informing you that people are burning charcoal in the park. Please arrange
to send rangers for patrolling. We shall guide you to show the areas and the people
involved.”

LC II Office, Kiziba Parish, 8 November 2000

“I hereby inform you that after Mweya coordination meeting we patrolled the park and found
that pit sawyers had split a tree in the park but upon seeing us they ran away. So, we
collected their tools and took them to the office of LC II. We wanted someone to come so that
we could hand them in to your office. But they never showed up. We still have in our
possession two machetes, one rope and one file for sharpening.”

User Group Member, Kakooga

[Adapted from P Chhetri, A Mughisa, and S White (2003), Community resource use in Kibale and Mount Elgon National Parks,
Uganda. In: G Borrini-Feyerabend and T Sandwith (eds) Conservation Partnerships in Africa, Parks journal, IUCN Gland,
Switzerland, 13:1, pages 28-38 – Box 1]

5
Figure 8 A selection of strategies employed to develop a cooperative partnership between the
local population and the management of Kibale National Park

Strategy 1 – allowing local people access to park resources

Cooperative resource management allows people access to selected resources under certain
conditions. In return the resource users undertake to monitor and regulate resource-harvesting
levels and to protect the resource use areas. Formal agreements are negotiated and signed by
Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) and by resource users. Kibale National Park has entered
into a number of agreements, involving 29 % of surrounding parishes. Of these, three
agreements were for harvesting wild coffee in the park by people in Mbaale, Kabirizi and
Nyakarongo parishes, one agreement allowed extraction of multiple resources such as
papyrus, craft materials, medicinal plants, grass for thatching and access to crater lakes for
fishing at Nyabweya.
Strategy 2 – problem-animal management
In Kibale National Park, the loss of crops to park animals is perhaps the biggest source of
conflict between local communities and park managers. UWA, working with local
communities, tested a number of deterrents to keep the park animals from entering the
farmers’ fields. They included digging a trench, live fencing with Mauritius thorn
(Caesalpinia decapetala), placing sharp objects, scare-shooting and growing buffer crops
such as tea and soybean that are not easily eaten by wild animals. Of these, the trench and
Mauritius thorn fencing were found to be the most effective measures to keep bush pigs and
elephants out of crops.
Strategy 3 – partnerships to reduce pressures on protected areas
Unsustainable development outside the parks forces people to turn to park resources for food,
other subsistence products and even to generate cash income. By cooperating with the district
authorities to promote environmentally sustainable development outside the parks, UWA is
helping to reduce pressures on the parks. These projects, which are also working with local
NGOs, include a variety of activities e.g. beekeeping (honey production) under managed
conditions within the park, domestic pig farming, coffee and fruit growing.
Strategy 4 – revenue sharing
UWA’s policy of allocating 20 % of the entrance fees to surrounding local authorities is a
good example of sharing benefits from conservation. However, the actual amounts shared are
small, as they are limited to gate fees only and do not include a wide range of other sources of
revenue such as trekking fees, camping fees, etc. For example, Kibale National Park earned a
total of US $116 300 in the year 2002 but only US $7800 was given to nearby communities.

[Source: adapted from P Chettri, A Mughisa, and S White, (2003), Community Resource Use in Kibale and Mount
Elgon National Parks, Uganda Parks, 13:1, pages 28–38]

6
Figure 9 Decentralization

Decentralization is the process whereby a central government gives up some of its

management powers to local government, local leaders or community institutions. Central
governments have often found it hard to enforce some policies – such as grazing allocations,
fishing quotas and forest use – because of resistance in local communities. Decentralization
can bridge this gap by creating ways for people to negotiate mutually acceptable
environmental goals with governments.

The first wave of decentralization was seen in developing countries in the late 1980s and
early 1990s, frequently resulting in some form of decentralized natural resource management.
Uganda tried to recreate its government in a way that was responsive to citizens and would
promote local governments after years of repressive rule. From the mid-1990s onward, a
second form of decentralization became popular thanks to the efforts of donor agencies
targeting aid toward specific environmental and social sectors. For instance, donor agencies
supported the establishment of forest and wildlife committees in Uganda.

[Source: adapted from World Resources 2002–2004, (2003), World Resources Institute]

7
 Figure 10 The roles of local organizations in the decentralization of forest management in
Uganda

A survey was carried out of local organizations and governmental bodies associated with forest
management in Uganda in order to identify the roles each played. The organizations were
considered in three categories – district governments, parish authorities and support
organizations (e.g. NGOs, research institutes). The table below records results of this survey
where the figures represent the percentage of responses from each category that considered
themselves to contribute to the given role.

Note: N = the number of organizations surveyed in each category.

District Parish Support

Roles governments authorities organizations
(N = 47) (N = 169) (N = 20)
Promotion of tree-planting 98 95 90
Promotion of energy conservation technologies 9 43 35
Monitoring illegal forest use 57 23 20
Promotion of bee-keeping 30 23 20
Formulation of policies and local laws 47 19 15
Promotion of ecotourism 17 10 15
Promotion of forestry research 9 4 35
Seeking funding for forestry activities 4 3 5

[Source: adapted from N Turyahabwe, C Geldenhuys, S Watts, and J Obua, (2007), Local Organizations and
Decentralised Forest Management in Uganda, International Forestry Review, 9:2, page 588]