A presentation by Medard Twinamatsiko, social research leader, Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation (ITFC)- Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST)
 This presentation was given at the Expert Workshop on Equity, Justice and Well-being in Ecosystem Governance, held at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) in London, March, 2015.

1. Equity in Protected Area (PA) Conservation. Lessons
from Bwindi Impenetrable National Park-Uganda
Expert Workshop on Equity, Justice and Well-being in Ecosystem Governance
March 26-27, 2015 IIED, 80-86 Gray’s Inn Road, London
Medard Twinamatsiko -Social Research Leader
Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation (ITFC)-Mbarara University
of Science and Technology (MUST)
www.itfc.org

2. A brief history…1989 ILO on rights of indigenous people
1992 – Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) article 8(j) and 19(2)-fair and equitable
distribution of benefits
1998 Aarhus convention on environmental procedural rights
2000+ – Millennium Development Goals “Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger”
“Ensure environmental sustainability”
2003 – IUCN World Parks Congress
“protected areas should strive to contribute to poverty reduction at the local level, and at
the very minimum must not contribute to or exacerbate poverty”
2004-CBD programme on work of PAs on equitable sharing of costs and benefits
2010 – UN General Assembly
“Preserving biodiversity is inseparable from the fight against poverty”
2011-2020 Strategic Plan for the CBD

3. Bwindi Impenetrable National Park
Was gazetted as a:
• Forest Reserve 1942
• Game Reserve 1961
• National Park 1991
The forest covers 330.8 km2
A home of about 400 gorillas- half
the world’s population of mountain
gorillas (CR)
Border is densely populated, 350
people per km2
>95% rely on subsistence farming
Conflict between Park and people-
inequitable distribution of benefits

4. What are the key costs conservation at Bwindi
and other PAs?
Costs
1. Historical costs of no access..
• Loss of a ‘home’ and identity (Batwa)
• Loss of livelihoods (especially socio-economic aspect)
• Loss of rights -no resettlement and no compensation• Loss of rights -no resettlement and no compensation
2. Emerging costs after gazettement
• Limited alternative livelihoods (350 people per sqkm)
• Crop raiding-triggers Human Wildlife Conflicts (HWC)
• Inequitable distribution of benefits e.g. Revenue sharing, jobs
• Governance deficits (Procedural and recognition)
• Tourism social impacts

5. Conservation benefits
High investments with many ICDs, e.g.
Revenue Sharing, the Multiple Use
Program (MUP), Tourism development,
the Trust, NGOs, research…
… The mountain gorilla population is
increasing hence more revenue generation
(20000 visitors in 2013)..(20000 visitors in 2013)..
… But the greatest threat
remains poaching, which
still continues…why?

6. Poaching dilemma for PA managers
Increase law enforcement
Improve Integrated
Conservation and Development
policy- practice
Less unauthorised activity? ?
Win-Win situation: Does this enable equity in PAs in terms of;
• Benefits distribution to and governance and by local communities?
• Conservation of the PAs?
Reduced threats to Bwindi and gorillas

7. Dilemma in achieving equity at Bwindi
Property rights
Contradictory laws and
legislations
PA ‘owners’
PA managers
Customary
Conventional
Bye-laws/ordinances
Conservation costs Vs benefits
Illegal resource access
Targeting the right people
Making a trade-off
Distributive equity
Who?
Why?
Theory and practice!
Decision making
Definition of
equity
Procedural context

8. Property rights and Legislations
Property rights Access Benefit
1. Who has the rights? (formal and customary, rights Vs privileges,
substantive Vs procedural)
2. Who can access resources and who determines access?
3. Who benefits and how does the community define benefits?
• Batwa ancestral rights as forest people (Kabananukye & Wily,
1996; Kidds, 2008)
• Rights of access and use -EX-pit sawyers and miners (R2P, 2013)
• Agrarian rights (Ribot and Peluso, 2003)
International national customary laws
• Theory and application

9. Conservation costs Vs benefits
Villagers within 0.5km of the
national park boundary were
significantly poorer than
villagers living beyond 0.5km
• Frontline villagers are therefore the poorer members
of local communities neighbouring Bwindi
• They are also more likely to suffer from crop raiding
• Likely to receive fewer benefits and less involvement
compared to other villagers

10. Resource users
at Bwindi and
frontier villagers

11. Illegal resource access-Who and
why?
Compared to ARUs and the baseline sample, URUs:
• are poorer,
• live closer to the Park boundary,
• are more likely to live further from trading centres
Both ARUs and URUs have larger family sizes.
ARU Baseline URU
BasicNecessitiesSurveyScore
0.00.20.40.60.8
ARU Baseline URU
BasicNecessitiesSurveyScore
0.00.20.40.60.8
ARU Baseline URU
DistancefromParkboundary(km)
0.00.40.81.2
ARU Baseline URU
DistancefromParkboundary(km)
0.00.40.81.2
ARU Baseline URU
Proportionlivingover1hourfromcenter
05101520253035
ARU Baseline URU
Proportionlivingover1hourfromcenter
05101520253035
ARU Baseline URU
Householdsize
02468
ARU Baseline URU
Householdsize
02468

12. populationengagedinresourceuse
1015202530
populationengagedinresourceuse
1015202530
Bush meat hunting- for
food, medicine, culture
and social capital. Mostly
driven by poverty....
Firewood: Due to
land scarcity, no
Which resources and why?
Bushmeat Firewood Medicine Honey Poles
Proportionofp
051
Bushmeat Firewood Medicine Honey Poles
Proportionofp
051
land scarcity, no
alternative fuel for
subsistence needs
Medicine-Beliefs in
traditional
medicinal plants
compared to
conventional
Honey for eating,
sale and medicine
but also important
in Batwa culture
Poles: Scarcity of
building materials
in community. They
also support
farming

13. Our Aim Our Findings
Who?
What?
Poor and remote
• Close to Park boundary
• Far from markets and other vital social services
Important resources scarce or unavailable outside the Park
• Meat
• Firewood
Why?
• Firewood
1) Poverty - subsistence and minor income
2) Resentment – personal compensation for conservation
costs (crop raiding) and inequitable benefit sharing
Full report: http://pubs.iied.org/14630IIED

14. How then
do people
influence
choice and
distributiondistribution
of Revenue
Sharing
benefits?
(Community Based
Monitoring -RS
beneficiaries n=184, 12
villages)

15. Knowledge of RS guidelines
Policy statement -RS guidelines are availed to everyone and all RS projects will be
officially launched prior to implementation to give them visibility and to raise
awareness about them

16. Attendance of meetings
Policy statement -People should be made aware of RS guidelines before
benefit and to be followed during implementation

17. Grass root consultations and
involvement
Policy statement –The communities will meet every July of the year to
identify community needs and priorities and identify potential projects for
funding

18. Allocation of money to HWC
Policy statement - implementation of these guidelines will contribute significantly
towards reduction of human-wildlife conflict and improvement of livelihoods of
households in communities adjacent to wildlife protected areas

19. Accountability to the local people
Policy statement - Qualitative inquiries and studies like annual beneficiary assessments,
impact assessments…will be commissioned.. and local people will get feedback on project
outcomes

20. What does equity in PA Conservation mean to stakeholders?

21. How do we ensure that PAs are equitably
managed to address conservation and
development?
1. Ensure equitable share of costs and benefits of
conservation
Targeting those who bear conservation costs and
bring benefits direct to the people
2. Ensure equitable governance
Ensure there is collaborative (inclusive) decision
making and accountable/transparent systems in
procedural safeguards

22. Thank you!
CONTACT
Medard Twinamatsiko
Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation-MUST
email: twinamatsikomedard@yahoo.com
skype: medard.twinamatsiko
Phone: +256 751 892 953