The World Bank/WBI’s CBNRM Initiative

Case Received: February 5, 1998

Author: Agrippinah Namara and Mark Infield

Tel:256-41-554582/532830/7

Fax:256-41-532821

Email: misrlib@imul.com

The case being examined is from South Western Uganda in East Africa. The natural resource under question is a national park, namely Lake Mburo National Park (LMNP). It is in an area thought to have one of the richest bio-diversity (both flora and fauna) in Uganda. The important contextual factors that are relevant to this case are;

• The political situation under which the creation of the national park occurred;

• The economic importance of the gazetted area to the surrounding community which led to a strained relationship and negative attitudes resulting from the protection of the area from local communities;

• The efforts of governmental and non-governmental bodies to initiate programs that are geared to forge co-operation between park managers and local communities for the successful conservation of the natural resources. These efforts have taken the form of a Community Conservation Program called the Lake Mburo Community Conservation Program (LMCCP) which was initiated in 1991 by Uganda National Parks [UNP; now renamed Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)], with the assistance of the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF).

As the LMCCP was beginning, a baseline survey was carried out in 1991/92 to establish the socio-economic situation of the communities surrounding the park and their relationship with and attitudes towards the national park. The survey revealed that the relationship between the park managers and the local community was very strained and people viewed the park as a waste of resources which they needed. There was clearly a need to institute programs to involve the people in parka management and benefit sharing. The reform process thus started.

Six years later in 1996-97, a partial replication of the survey carried out in 1991-1992 was carried out in the same area by the Community Conservation for Uganda Wildlife Authority (CCUWA) project to;

• to examine selected variables from the 1991/92 survey so as to determine whether they have changed since then, identify any trends in the changes, and attribute reasons for the changes.

• to analyze the communities' knowledge, attitudes and practices in relation to the LMNP and then try to gauge the impact of the Community Conservation Program (CCP) on these variables.

• to inform the LMNP authorities about the communities in which the CCP is being implemented.

This paper will be based on the findings of the replication survey. The first author of this paper (Agrippinah Namara) was contracted as a researcher by the Community Conservation for Uganda Wildlife Authority (CCUWA) to carry out both surveys. The Co-Author (Mark Infield) is the Technical Advisor of the LMCCP and CCUWA Projects. Note that due to time constraints, it was not possible for the second author to participate in drafting this first paper. However he will surely participate in drafting the main paper for presentation.

Lake Mburo National Park (LMNP) was created in 1983 by government in an area formerly gazetted as a game reserve. It was created in a very forceful manner. People who had legitimately lived in the Game Reserve for many years were evicted. No attempt was made to work with the local people and none of the people evicted were compensated in any way or given alternative land to settle. As a result of this, the local communities living around LMNP tended to be very negative towards the park. Resource access conflicts between the park authorities and the people increased the tendency for people to be negative as they viewed the park as a waste of valuable resources, which they needed and from which they had been wrongly excluded.

The negative attitude of people towards the park meant that it was very hard for the park managers to keep people out of the park and a lot of policing had to be in place. The people also felt excluded from use of a resource that they considered theirs traditionally. Without cooperation of the local communities, the efforts of the park management to conserve the resources was very difficult and bore minimal positive results. This situation lasted from 1983 when the park was created until the early 1990s when UNP together with AWF introduced community conservation as a park management strategy in LMNP. This strategy emphasises partnerships between park management and local communities. The new strategy was introduced because it was realised that the conservation status of the park was at stake and that unless communities got involved in the management and also realised benefits there from, protection of the resources would continue to be very difficult.

The reform Process

The Lake Mburo Community Conservation Program was initiated in 1991 by Uganda National Parks [UNP; now renamed Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)], with the assistance of AWF in order:

• to conserve the Lake Mburo ecosystem especially the flora and fauna of LMNP

• to promote sustainable development of the communities living around the LMNP; and

• to build harmonious, mutually beneficial relations between LMNP and the adjacent communities (AWF, 1990).

LMCCP supported the establishment of the Community Conservation Unit (CCU) which was operated with project support. The CCU aims to involve local communities in the conservation of LMNP. This is done through education and extension programs in surrounding communities, which stimulate community development related to conservation, increase knowledge about the park and conservation and create park-people linkages. All this is aimed at creating a perception among the people that the park has value and can bring benefits to the local communities.

In line with the UNP policy to provide a formal link between the park and the people around it, Park Management and Advisory Committees (PMACs) were created among local communities so as to allow local participation in natural resources management. The main role of the PMAC is advisory both to the community and the park in order to establish a harmonious relationship. PMAC membership is drawn from elected representatives from each of the parishes that borders LMNP, known as the "front-line parishes".

PMAC is supposed to represent the interests of the local communities at parish level in park management issues like benefit sharing, access to resources and provide communication between the park and the people. They are also supposed to be the avenue through which community projects are identified and funded by LMNP hence implementing the UWA revenue sharing policy. This is to demonstrate to the community that the park can provide economic benefits and improve the development of the area. It is hoped that through such benefits, the community attitudes will be changed positively. PMACs are also supposed to help monitor these projects to ensure accountability. The PMACs are therefore important avenues for building park-people relations and especially enlisting community support for park conservation objectives.

The replication survey revealed that community education and outreach activities have improved on the peoples knowledge not only about their environment but also about the park and its values. Areas where the CCU had worked extensively and supported development projects were compared with the areas where there were no such projects. The people in areas where CCU had worked extensively were more likely to be positive to the park and conservation than in areas where little community conservation work has been carried out. This seems to suggest that with wildlife education as well as provision of economic benefits, the attitudes of the people around national parks may be improved.

The study also revealed that ranger harassment, which is contrary to the goals of community conservation as being advanced under the LMCCP/CCUWA and which undermines these goals, was still reported among the community. This strains park-people relations through the hatred created between the park and the local community.

But despite the work of the CCU, most people still wanted to be allowed to enter the park to access resources that are perceived to be abundant (pasture, water, wood, fish, game meat, etc). Resource access is still an important issue around LMNP. Although parks are principally meant to prevent people from harvesting resources within, LMNP has done a commendable job in allowing controlled access to some resources within the park e.g. fish and water for livestock, but the people want more. The issue of resource access within the protected areas is one of the issues that has been the most difficult to handle or accept by the protected area managers.

Despite the efforts of the CCU , it was gathered from informal interviews that poaching seemed to be increasing, especially in areas outside the park. Most of the poaching being carried out in the area was done commercially, but mostly by people outside the parishes bordering the park. And though some of the local people were reported to be supporting anti-poaching efforts, many of the people saw poaching as a solution to problem animals. It was realised that the people are not fully mobilized against poaching. This points to the issue of vermin control which needs to be decisively solved for the people to appreciate the protected area. Otherwise if it continues to be a source of problems, it strains local support.

The people interviewed also complained about the role of PMACs. The PMAC members tended to see themselves as park representatives among communities rather than community ambassadors to park management. It was also realised that PMACs were functional, but needed some strengthening especially in the area of communication. There was still the need for PMACs to view themselves as representatives of the community, meaning that their efforts needed to be geared to lobby maximally for community benefits to flow from the park, rather than acting as park representatives in the community.

The Lake Mburo experience also shows that though direct benefits in the form of social infrastructure, communal and non income generating projects have began to flow from the park to the people, individuals do not necessarily perceive them as benefits to them. It was realised that LMNP needs to invest in community income generating projects that will yield not only benefits for the participants but also trigger off a multiplicity of other benefits like better participation by the people. With such projects, park management could start a revolving fund through the PMACs and LCs for the villages around it so as to spread the benefits further and maximize on the impact. This may also help provide funds for the PMAC operations and help them become more sustainable in their role as representatives of the local communities.

One thing that came out clearly in this survey is the open discussion of issues that used to be tagged 'sensitive' in the past. This was clearly manifested in the low number of 'don't know' responses received compared to the last survey. The questions dealing with the park were talked about with ease. During the 1991/92 survey, most of the respondents who answered þdonþt knowþ were probably negative and did not want to appear so probably because they feared that this could lead to conflict with park management. This can be accredited to the dialogue that has developed between the park and the local communities because of the link that the LMCCP/CCUWA has established with the community. There is less fear of appearing negative now.

Overall, the results show that the CCU has been successful in influencing the attitudes of the communities around LMNP towards the park and conservation and especially in the areas where the CCU has worked intensively. The results show that the people from areas where the CCU had worked extensively were more likely to be positive to the park and conservation than those from areas where CCU had not worked. This shows that the link the LMCCP/CCUWA has established with the community has been successful.

The Lake Mburo case shows that people were mostly positive towards the park because the park had supported development projects in their areas. Since this support seems to be driven by economic benefits from the park, it is uncertain if it will prevail beyond the donor-funded project which will surely end sometime.

The case study reveals that community development projects like schools, health units etc. initiated among communities by the protected area under Community Conservation Programs may improve the relations between the two, but may not erase the desire to access the protected resources especially if they are scarce outside the PA. This case shows that if people are allowed to access resources within PAs, this constitutes what people see as a þtangibleþ benefit. To meet the people's needs and also conserve the resource, not only should controlled resource access be allowed, but also mechanisms put in place for sustainable utilization of the same resources outside the PA should be strengthened. This will further help improve attitudes and cooperation of the people towards the PA.

Wherever collaborative management includes representation of communities, emphasis should be laid on the importance of community representatives giving feedback to the people so that people are informed and effectively participate in decisions made.

Ranger are usually trained in law enforcement and lack public relations skills. There a need to re-train rangers in community relations so as to improve their interactions with the people and enhance park-people relations.

The results of this study support the need to institutionalize community conservation as a PA management strategy in other protected areas in Uganda and other countries. However community extension activities like community education are investments whose benefits are received in the long run and LMNP has began to receive fruit from these investments. The problems still existing should not discourage LMNP or even other PAs that are implementing the similar strategies. Rather the PA managers should intensify their efforts to involve local communities in the conservation of valuable resources.

Community Conservation Programs also need to concentrate on supporting projects that are compatible with conservation as well as the PA's objectives. The community projects so far implemented by LMNP lacked conservation linkages.

There is also a clear need for CCPs to invest in high profile projects that will yield the greatest impact on the community and improve support for the PA and its objectives. In a pastoral area like some of the areas neighboring LMNP, investment in water and rangeland development programs can yield lots of support among cattle keepers.

Budgets of donor funded programs are not limitless. The LMNP example may be unique because the national park in quite small in relation to other PAs. It is actually has a total area of only 260 square kilometres. The donor funded CCP at LMNP may owe its achievements from the relatively smaller population of neighbours to deal with. With larger PAs and thus more communities to collaborate with, bigger budgets are necessary. In those cases the PA managers together with the PMACs need to devise ways of helping the communities to utilize the local revenue rather than providing the foreign funded benefits which is not feasible in the long run. In decentralized economies that is easier because collaboration can easily be laid with local officials to mobilise tax revenues for community development.

Many of the respondents identified the CCU activities as the park's work and the CCU as part of LMNP. Identification of the project activities as park activities is a positive mark for CCUWA because the park-people link has greater chances to persist when the project finally winds up. This should be a lesson to any organisation that seeks to implement the Community Conservation as a management strategy. The activities of the Community Conservation Units should feed into larger support for the respective PAs and the units should not have a higher profile than the park but should be seen as a new effort of the park to link with the people in partnerships.

_