Report 2

A Report on tourism in Lake Mburo National Park and its potential contribution to the local economy Inception and Recommendations Report

Submitted by: Adriana Cerdena Calderon, Naoko Hashimoto, Tahirah Ismail, Hiroshi Kuwata, Simon Ogden and Anesa Terza Development Planning Unit University College London 9 Endsleigh Gardens London WC1H 0ED

1st June 2007

Word count: 5,487

1

INTRODUCTION

This report has been compiled by six students of the Development Planning Unit

at University College London. The report is based on both desk research carried

out in the United Kingdom and a two week field trip to Uganda. The terms of

reference on which the report is based state that the primary purpose of the

project is to identify the principal contributory factors to the success and failure

of poverty reduction in Uganda, with a specific focus on Mbarara town and

district.

Our team focused on tourism in Lake Mburo National Park and its potential

contribution to the local economy (UCL, 2007).

2

Part 1 Workload has been distributed as follows:

Section 1: Adriana Cerdena Calderon

Section 2: Simon Ogden (Project Manager)

Section 3: Naoko Hashimoto and Tahirah Ismail

Section 4: Hiroshi Kuwata

Section 5: Anesa Terza

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………. 6

Acronyms…………………………………………………………………. 7

PART 1: INCEPTION REPORT

1. General Background………………………………………………… 9

1.1 Overview……………………………………………………………… 9

1.2 Uganda’s Economic Background….………………………………….. 9

1.3 Tourism ………….……………………………………………………. 9

1.3.1 General Perspectives………………………………………... 9

1.3.2 Tourism in Uganda………………………………………….. 10

1.3.3 Lake Mburo National Park………………………………….. 10

2. Theoretical Framework……………………………………………… 12

2.1 The Sustainable Livelihoods framework……………………………… 12

2.2 Pro-poor Tourism?…………………………………………………….. 12

3. Mission Scope and Objectives………………………………………. 16

3.1 Mission Scope…………………………………………………………. 16

3.2 Mission Objectives……………………………………………………. 16

4. Methodology………………………………………………………….. 19

4.1 Research Background…………………………………………………. 19

4.2 Research Questions…………………………………………………… 19

4.3 Research Strategy……………………………………………………... 19

4.3.1 Primary Data……………………………………………….. 20

4.3.2 Secondary Data……………………………………………... 20

5. Institutional Landscape……………………………………………… 22

4

PART 2: RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

6. Research Findings…………………………………………………….. 25

6.1 Identification of Communities………………………………………… 25

6.2 Identification of possible positive and negative impacts of tourism….. 25

6.2.1 Financial Capital……………………………………………. 25

6.2.2 Human Capital……………………………………………… 27

6.2.3 Social Capital……………………………………………….. 28

6.2.4 Physical Capital…………………………………………….. 28

6.2.5 Natural Capital……………………………………………… 29

6.3 The Sustainability of Tourism………………………………………… 29

6.3.1 Tourist numbers…………………………………………….. 29

6.3.2 Sustainability of natural environment………………………. 31

7. Recommendations……………………………………………………. 32

7.1 Areas for Further Research……………………………………………. 32

7.1.1 Local Communities………………………………………….. 32

7.1.2 Sport Hunting……………………………………………….. 32

7.1.3 Community Involvement in Decision Making………………. 33

7.1.4 Ugandan Wildlife Education Centre (LMNP)……………… 33

7.1.5 National Park Sustainability………………………………... 33

7.1.6 Plans and Strategies………………………………………… 34

7.1.7 Private Sector Development………………………………… 34

7.2 Strategy guidelines to enhance the effectiveness of the PEAP………... 35

7.2.1 Improving the Links between Communities and Tourism…… 35

7.2.2 Education and Training……………………………………... 35

7.2.3 Tourism Development……………………………………….. 36

8. Appendices…………………………………………………………… 37

8.1 Appendix 1 - Stakeholder Analysis…………………………………… 37

8.2 Appendix 2 - List of Parishes Surrounding Lake Mburo National Park. 44

8.3 Appendix 3 - Animals Utilised Under Sport Hunting Project June 2001

-June 2006…………………………………………………………………. 45

8.4 Appendix 4 - CPI Projects Implemented in 2005-2006………………. 46

5

8.5 Appendix 5 - LMNP Visitor Statistics for 2001-2006……………….. 47

8.6 Appendix 6 - Questions for Stakeholders……………………………. 48

8.7 Appendix 7 - List of Interviews Conducted and Meetings Attended... 54

9. Bibliography…………………………………………………………… 55

LIST OF FIGURES, CHARTS AND GRAPHS

Figure 1. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework.....………………... 15

Chart 1. Distribution of Animal Fee…………………………………… 26

Graph 1. Visitor Statistics 2001-2006…….…………………………….. 30

6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are extremely grateful to Meshach Ampwera, our guide in Mbarara, for all his

help and hard work both prior to our research trip and during our time in Mbarara,

without which this report would not have been possible. We would also like to

thank Michael Walls, Julio Dávila, Zeremariam Fre, and Le-yin Zhang for the

support, advice and guidance they offered throughout this research project. We

would also like to thank; Emmanuel Tumusiime-Mutebile - Governor of the Bank of

Uganda; Richard Edwards – Deputy Director, Department for International

Development (Uganda); Dr. Dominic Byarugaba – Senior Lecturer at Mbarara

University of Science and Technology; Noel Abaho – Park Ranger employed by the

Ugandan Wildlife Authority; George Mwebaze – Community Preservation Ranger

in Lake Mburo National Park; Adonia Bintora – Chief Warden of Lake Mburo

National Park; Musinguire Jeconious – the Mbarara District Natural Resource

Officer; Wilson Tumwesigye – Treasurer of the Community Protected Area

Institution; William Kayumbu – Mbarara Community Development Officer;

Beatrice Kyomuhangi – Ugandan Bureau of Statistics (Mbarara Office), John

Barisigara – from the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry; Stephen Kanyesigye

– the local government Vice Chairman; the staff at Montana Lodge, and the

Ugandan Tourist Board for the time they gave to meet with us, and the invaluable

information they were able to provide us with.

Special mention must also be extended to the members of the three communities;

Rwamukuku, Rwenjeru, and Rurambira - on which much of our research was based

- who kindly gave their time and agreed to be interviewed for this report.

We would also like to thank Moses Tukwasiibwe and Yukiko Fujimoto for all there

efforts in organising and arranging not only our guides, but also our accommodation

and transport for our time in Uganda, without which this report would not have been

possible.

Finally, we would like to thank all those at Mbarara University of Science and

Technology for their generous hospitality both on a professional and social front.

7

ACROYNMS

ADB African Development Bank

CPI Community Protected Area Institution

CMA Community Wildlife Association

DFID Department for International Development

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEF Global Environment Fund

GoU Government of Uganda

ICRT International Centre for Responsible Tourism

LMNP Lake Mburo National Park

MTTI Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry

NEMA National Environment Management Authority

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

ODI Overseas Development Institute

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PAMSU Protected Area Management and Sustainable Use Project

PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan

PPT Pro-Poor Tourism

SL Sustainable Livelihoods

SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

SSA Sub-Saharan Africa

UBOS Ugandan Bureau of Statistics

UCOTA Uganda Community Tourism Association

USh Ugandan Shillings

USTD Uganda Sustainable Tourism Development Program

UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority

UWEC Uganda Wildlife Education Centre

WTTC World Travel and Tourism Council

8

PART 1

INCEPTION REPORT

9

1. GENERAL BACKGROUND

1.1 Overview

Uganda, a landlocked country in East Central Africa, has a population of almost 27

million, 87% of whom live in rural areas (UBOS, 2002). The country is divided into

districts, each of which are sub-divided into counties, sub-counties, parishes and

villages.

1.2 Uganda’s Economic Background

Since the mid 1980s, Uganda has undergone a process of economic adjustment and

reconstruction, introducing a series of reforms to lower inflation and liberalise trade,

resulting in economic stability and increases in investments. Uganda’s Poverty

Eradication Action Plan (PEAP), first drafted in 1997 and revised in 2004, has

provided an overarching framework to guide public policy to eradicate poverty, and

transform Uganda into an industrialised middle-income country (GoU,

2004). Despite rapid reductions in poverty between 1992 and 2006 1 , Uganda

remains heavily dependant on external borrowing and international aid (World Bank,

2007).

1.3 Tourism

1.3.1 General Perspectives

Tourism has the potential to stimulate both economic and social development. In

2007, 10.4 percent of the global GDP will come from the travel and tourism sector,

accounting for 231 million jobs and generating US$7,060 billion worth of economic

activity (WTTC, 2007a). Indeed, it is estimated that over the next ten years global

travel and tourism will grow on average by 4.3 percent per annum (WTTC, 2007a).

1 Between 1992 and 2006 poverty levels fell from 56% to 31.5% (World Bank, 2007)

10

The African continent has great potential to promote economic growth through

travel and tourism - increasing countries’ GDP, job opportunities, exports, foreign

exchange earnings, and capital investments. In 2007, tourism in Sub-Saharan Africa

(SSA) is expected to be worth approximately US$ 90,113,8 million, and is expected

to rise to US$ 187,461.8 million by 2017 (WTTC, 2007b).

1.3.2 Tourism in Uganda

The potential for tourism in Uganda to contribute towards economic growth and

poverty alleviation has been acknowledged by the Government of Uganda, (GoU) in

the country’s Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP). Under the second pillar of

the PEAP – enhancing production, competitiveness and incomes – tourism, and its

development are recognised as an essential element of the Government’s efforts to

alleviate poverty (GoU, 2004). Indeed, “…wildlife based tourism has an annual

economic value of US$163 million, employing around 70,000 people directly”

(GoU, 2004:83).

In 2002, 254,000 tourists visited the country and foreign exchange earnings

accounted for US$185 million, an increase of around US$83 million since

1999. Approximately 32,400km2 of land in Uganda is assigned to the tourism

industry in the form of 10 National Parks, 12 Wildlife Reserves, and 5 Community

Wildlife Areas, all of which are managed by the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)

and the Uganda Wildlife Education Centre (UWEC) (GoU, 2004).

According to the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), in the next ten years,

tourism in Uganda is expected to increase by 4.8 percent per annum, and by 2017,

one in 13 jobs will be related to the travel and tourism industry.

1.3.3 Lake Mburo National Park

Lake Mburo National Park (LMNP), created in 1982, is located in Southern Uganda,

close to Mbarara, and on the road leading to both Bwindi and Mgahinga National

Parks from Kampala. Between 1964 and 1982, the area surrounding Lake Mburo

was classified as a game reserve, and was habited by wildlife and local populations

11

(Emerton, 1999). In 1983 the local communities in the Park, who’s livelihoods are

predominantly obtained through agricultural and pastoral activities, were evicted and

relocated to the surrounding area.

Since the 1990s communities surrounding LMNP have been encouraged to

participate and benefit in the preservation of the park. Ugandan law states that 20

percent of all entrance fees be assigned to the parishes neighbouring parks and

reserves. In 2000, the population of the communities surrounding the LMNP was

estimated at 51,000 (Emerton, 1999).

12

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 The Sustainable Livelihoods framework

The Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) framework can be used to help explain and

analyse the relationship between poverty reduction and tourism. The framework

(see Figure 1) identifies that household livelihood outcomes are influenced at both a

macro and micro level. At the macro level both the ‘vulnerability context’ –

uncontrollable trends (declining soil fertility and population growth), shocks

(economic, natural and health) and seasonality (weather, employment and prices) -

and ‘transforming structures and processes’ - government and private institutions

and policies that affect and determine economic opportunities open to households,

influence households’ livelihoods. While at the micro level, livelihoods are the

result of; ‘livelihood assets’ (physical, human, financial, natural and social capital)

and ‘livelihood strategies’ (the combination of economic activities that household

choose) (DFID, 1999a; 1999b).

A direct lack of, or lack of access to capital, whether it be physical (production

equipment, infrastructure), human (skills, extension services, health and wellbeing),

financial (credit, cash base), natural (land, soil fertility), or social (social networks,

associations and affiliations) restricts livelihood strategies and in turn impacts on

livelihood outcomes (Scoones, 1998, DFID, 1999a).

Tourism can positively and negatively impact on individuals’ access to each of these

determinants of household livelihoods, and consequently has the potential to

promote or hinder poverty alleviation.

2.2 Pro-poor Tourism?

The idea that tourism can be pro-poor, has been advocated by Harold Goodwin of

the International Centre for Responsible Tourism (ICRT) and Caroline Ashley of the

Overseas Development Institute (ODI) (Ashley et al., 2000). However, tourism also

has the potential to not only by-pass the poor but also to hinder efforts to reduce

poverty levels.

13

Tourism can help improve households’ access to capital and in so doing both

directly and indirectly contribute towards poverty alleviation. Tourism provides

employment opportunities for locals - both directly through hotels, tour operators,

and airports, and indirectly through increased demand for local goods and services

(food, handicrafts, and restaurants) – and as such improves households’ access to

financial capital (Lea, 1998; Goodwin and Robson, 2004; Roe et al., 2002). An

increase in financial capital can in turn improve households’ access to both physical

capital such as cattle and light machinery, and human capital through increased

access to education; as a consequence livelihood strategies can be enhanced and/or

diversified to the benefit of poverty reduction (Ashley et al., 2000).

Tourism can also directly encourage the development of human capital through the

training of hotel staff and guides. Tourism can also improve households’ physical

and human capital as a result of state, private or community based investment in

improved roads, schools, waste disposal, telecommunications, electricity and water

supplies, and health clinics (Ashley et al., 2000; Goodwin and Robson, 2004; Roe et

al., 2002). Natural capital maybe enhanced as a result of the introduction of

sustainable resource management practices and education. Furthermore, the

involvement of local communities in decision-making and the creation of

community organisations to manage local funds (accruing from tourism) can

enhance social capital which in turn can compliment poverty reduction strategies

(Ashley et al, 2000).

However, tourism has the potential to erode the assets of locals, and in so doing,

hinder attempts to alleviate poverty. For example, tourism may restrict locals’

access to natural resources such as sources of water and areas for grazing cattle;

social capital maybe eroded if conflict over tourism undermines social and

reciprocal relations; whilst physical capital maybe undermined if the local

infrastructure becomes over-burdened (Ashley et al., 2000, DFID, 1999c).

Likewise, whilst tourism may reduce households’ vulnerability to shocks by

diversifying the economic opportunities available to communities through the

creation of employment and small business options (and in so doing better place

14

them to escape from poverty), such activities may conflict with existing livelihood

activities (agricultural or pastoral) and consequently hinder efforts to alleviate

poverty. Furthermore, vulnerability may be increased if communities become too

heavily dependant upon tourism, which itself is a volatile and highly seasonal

industry. Similarly, tourism can be disempowering in that locals may well be

excluded from decision-making processes that affect them. Furthermore, the

benefits of tourism may well be unequally distributed both among local

communities and between local communities and the private sector. Consequently,

tourism may simply act to promote inequality both within communities and between

communities, and in so doing have little affect on efforts to reduce levels of poverty

(Ashley et al., 2000).

15

in order to achieve

F

N

H

S

P

VULNERABILITY

CONTEXT

TRANSFORMING

STRUCTURES AND

PROCESSES

LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES

• More income • Increased well-being • Reduced

vulnerability • Improved food

security • More sustainable use

of natural resources

LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES

LIVELIHOOD ASSETS

Key H = Human Capital S = Social Capital N = Natural Capital P = Physical Capital F = Financial Capital

Figure 1. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Influence & access

Source: Adapted from DFID (1999a, 1999b) Sustainable Livelihood Guidance Sheets.

Tourism in Lake Mburo National Park and its potential contribution to the local economy ___________________________________________________________________________________

16

3. MISSION SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

3.1 Mission scope

As stated in the terms of reference, this research project focuses on assessing tourism

in Lake Mburo National Park and its potential contribution to the local economy

(UCL, 2007). In quantifying this it is important to establish what one understands by

the ‘the local economy’. For the purpose of this research project it will refer to the

economy of the parishes immediately surrounding the national park.

The reasons for focusing on the parishes instead of focusing on Mbarara District as a

whole (where the national park is partly located) are two fold. Firstly, owing to the

time constraints placed upon this project, it was felt that an analysis of the wider area

would be impractical and unlikely to result in sufficiently detailed analysis. Secondly,

initial research into Lake Mburo National Park, its impact on the local economy, and

in turn poverty reduction, suggests that it is among the parishes immediately

surrounding the national park that the most tangible direct and indirect affects of

tourism have been felt. Furthermore, owing to time constraints this project will

primarily look to assess how tourism has affected the livelihood assets of the parishes

surrounding the park.

In assessing the potential contribution that tourism in LMNP can make to the local

economy it is also necessary to for the projects’ scope to incorporate an assessment of

the sustainability of tourism within the national park.

3.2 Mission objective

The objective of the mission is to evaluate the potential for tourism in LMNP to

benefit the local economy of the parishes surrounding the park, and in so doing assess

its potential to contribute to poverty alleviation. In order to assess this, and in line

with the analytical framework outlined in Section 2, it is necessary to set four sub-

objectives. These are as follows;


17

Objective 1:

To identify the parishes within the immediate vicinity of LMNP. This will involve

identifying the number and names of the parishes that immediately surround LMNP.

Objective 2:

To identify the possible positive and negative impacts on the livelihood assets of the

local communities resulting from tourism in LMNP. This will involve identifying the

impacts (both positive and negative) that tourism has had on the physical, financial,

natural, human, and social capital of the communities surrounding LMNP. In doing

this we will also attempt to assess how any impacts have been distributed within the

community2 (i.e. how have the impacts of tourism been distributed in terms of; sex,

class, ethnicity, religion and age).

Objective 3:

To assess the sustainability of tourism within LMNP. This will involve assessing the

sustainability of tourism within LMNP with reference to; i) the number of tourists

visiting the park – are visitor numbers increasing/ decreasing? And ii) are current

tourist activities within the park sustainable – are they undermining the wildlife

resource base (the natural environment and the wildlife) upon which tourism within

LMNP is reliant? This will enable us to assess whether or not tourism has the

potential to continue to impact upon the livelihoods of the communities surrounding

the park.

Objective 4:

To make recommendations for further research and possible institutional

modifications. This will involve identifying future areas of research needed to fill

the gaps in information as well as collecting information on current institutions. This

2 It is recognised that communities are not homogenous units within society; as such our research will attempt to disaggregate the community and assess how tourism has affected each aspect of the community.


18

will enable us to assess whether or not institutional modifications are required in order

for the PEAP to more effectively contribute to poverty alleviation.


19

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1 Research Background

According to the main objective of this project (as set out above and in the terms of

reference), the research focus will be on the potential contribution of tourism in

LMNP to the local economy. The results from our analysis and research will give

some ideas on strengths and weaknesses of the current policy framework and how

tourism impacts on the local area.

4.2 Research questions

In line with our objectives our research will be based around five key research

questions, these are as follows;

Q1. Which communities immediately neighbour LMNP?

Q2. What are the positive and negative impacts of tourism on the parishes

immediately neighbouring LMNP?

Q3. Is the current use of LMNPs natural resources sustainable?

Q4. What are the recent trends in the number of tourists visiting LMNP?

Q5. Are current institutions sufficient to ensure that tourism in LMNP can

contribute to the PEAP objective of poverty alleviation?

These five questions will represent the basis for more detailed and specific questions

which the team will ask during the research trip. The questions will also help us to

understand the interactions between the various stakeholders and the local economy.

4.3 Research strategy

Throughout the research process the SL framework will be used to structure our

research. In this project, primary and secondary data will be collected and analysed.


20

4.3.1 Primary data

In order to collect primary data, our team will mainly use structured and semi-

structured interviews, discussion-groups and transect walks. This will allow for

deeper analysis of the impacts of tourism on the local economy and its linkages with

poverty reduction.

Structured interviews: These will allow us to gather specific information regarding

tourism in LMNP and will be mainly used during more formal meetings, for example

with the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry (MTTI) (see Appendix 6 for

questions asked).

Semi-structured interviews: The majority of our research will be carried out through

semi-structured interviews. These will enable us to gather detailed information from a

cross section of the communities we visit without the restrictions of a fully structured

interview (see Appendix 6 for details of questions posed to stakeholders).

Discussion-groups: These will enable us to collect detailed information regarding the

impact that tourism has had on various aspects of the local economy and the parishes

as a whole. Discussion-groups will attempt to involve a cross-section of the local

communities (in terms of; sex, class, ethnicity, religion and age).

Transect walks: We intend to carry out a transect walks through the parishes

surrounding LMNP in order to observe and assess the overall impact that tourism has

had on the local economy and its linkages with poverty alleviation.

4.3.2 Secondary Data

A considerable amount of secondary data has already been collected and analysed

during our initial research. Sources of secondary data include statistics, journals,

textbooks, annual reports, and e-mails from our guide in Uganda, Meshach Ampwera.

Nevertheless, we intend to gather, where possible, further secondary data during the

field trip from the organisations and institutions we intend to visit.


21

Analysis of the secondary data collected so far has enabled us to complete a

preliminary stakeholder analysis (see Appendix 1).


22

5. INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE

Tourism in Uganda has the potential to be a major engine for economic development.

The stakeholder analysis (see Appendix 1) has identified both primary and secondary

stakeholders, including; governmental institutions, semi-autonomous government

organizations, the private sector, and the communities in the parishes surrounding the

park .

In Uganda, wildlife tourism falls under the remit and management of the Uganda

Wildlife Authority (UWA). The UWA was established in 1996 as a semi-autonomous

government agency following the merging of the Uganda National Parks and the

Game Department. The creation of the UWA preceded the ratification by Parliament

of the Uganda Wildlife Statute in 1996 (becoming an Act in 2000). The law mandates

the UWA and the UWEC to manage the country’s wildlife and wildlife-protected

areas. The UWA, who’s mission statement is “…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” (UWA, 2005:i) is responsible for ensuring that Uganda’s wildlife

resources are managed in a sustainable fashion. The UWEC is responsible for

educating local communities on matters of natural resource conservation (UWA, 2005;

UWEC, 2007).

In recent years changes in attitudes amongst the institutions involved in developing

the tourism industry have taken place. Recent meetings coordinated by the UWA

between Ugandan businesses, conservationists and the MTTI have focused on

achieving sustainable development and developing the tourism industry in Uganda in

order to promote economic growth and poverty reduction.

The parishes surrounding LMNP have been identified as key institutions. It is

recognised that these communities are not homogenous units within society; rather

they include households and individuals who differ in terms of their; sex, class,

ethnicity, religion and age.


23

Ugandan law states that the parishes immediately neighbouring national parks are

entitled to receive 20% of the receipts from park entrance fees3. These funds are

intended to be spent within the parishes surrounding national parks on development

projects such as improving schools, health services, water supplies, and employment

generation. Community Protected Area Institutions (CPI) were first formed in 1997

(UWA, 2002) and now play a key role in linking local communities to national parks.

It is through CPIs that funds raised through park admission fees are dispersed to

parish based development projects. With regard to LMNP, each parish surrounding

the national park elects a member of the community to represent the parish’s interests

at CPI, these representatives are then responsible for both selecting which

development projects are funded, and implementing the development projects (GoU

2004). The creation of CPI has helped established a direct link between tourism, local

communities, and protected-area authorities in an attempt to ensure that all interest

group are equally represented (Numara, A. 2006).

Ugandan law also states that, under the supervision of the UWA; the private sector

and tourists are permitted to participate in sport hunting in LMNP as a means of

wildlife management and income generation for the local communities (GoU, 2004).

It is within this context and institutional landscape that our research will be carried out.

3 Between 2000 and 2004 this raised US$516,288 for local communities to invest in development projects (GoU, 2004).


24

PART 2

RECOMMENDATIONS

REPORT


25

6. RESEARCH FINDINGS

Following two weeks of research in Uganda into the potential for tourism in Lake

Mburo National Park to contribute to the economy and in turn to contribute to poverty

alleviation, the following findings have been made.

The findings are set out in line with our original objectives and theoretical framework.

6.1 Identification of communities:

Our research found that following the recent creation of new districts in Southern

Uganda, LMNP (which was previously located within the district of Mbarara), now

borders three districts; Mbarara, Isingiro, and Kiruhura, with the majority of the park

bordering the district of Kiruhura.

The number of parishes surrounding LMNP remains unclear as figures we obtained

from various sources ranged from 16, to 17, to 20 (see Appendix 2 for list of twenty

parish names).

6.2 Identification of possible positive and negative impacts of tourism:

Research carried out in three of the parishes surrounding LMNP; Rwamukuku and

Rurambira (Kiruhura Dist.), Rwenjeru (Mbarara Dist.), found that tourism has had the

following impacts on the livelihood assets of the communities surrounding the

national park.

6.2.1 Financial capital:

Sport hunting4 has directly improved the financial and human capital of households

within the parish of Rurambira. Sport hunting has generated significant sums of

money for the parishes surrounding the national park, this money is generated through

two means; 4 Sport hunting is one of the activities available to tourists. It refers to the legal hunting of game outside the boundaries of the park.


26

1: A US$300 entrance fee (the fee paid to the parish to enter their private land)

goes directly to the Community Wildlife Association and is invested in community

development projects.

2: An animal fee – this is the fee paid by the hunter/tourist to kill an animal

(see Appendix 3 for further details on animal fees). This fee is then divided as

follows:

Since 2001 the communities surrounding LMNP have earned approximately 400

million Ugandan Shillings5 (USh), whilst landowners have benefited to the sum of

USh20 million. Within the parish of Rurambira the income earned as a result of sport

hunting has been used to fund numerous projects including; the building of a school,

the building of school dormitories, as well as wells and dams which are utilised by all

members of the community.

Employment linkages between the parishes and tourism in LMNP are very weak.

Not only does tourism generate relatively few employment opportunities, those that it

does create (in hotels, as park rangers) are often filled by people from further a field

(Mbarara town and Kampala). The few jobs that have been filled by members of the

parishes have been filled almost exclusively by men; as such financial gains from

5 Of which 313m USh came directly from animal fees, whilst the rest came from entrance fees.

Chart 1. Distribution of Animal Fee

Local Communities

65%

UWA15%

CPI5%

Local Government

5%Land Owner10%


27

employment are not only very limited, but the gains are concentrated almost entirely

amongst the men of the parishes.

Links between the lodges within the park, tourists, and the parishes are very weak.

The parks’ hotels only purchase fresh fruit and vegetables from local communities

and this is only on an irregular and informal basis. Consequently, agricultural and

pastoral activities remain the main source of income for the parishes surrounding the

national park.

Handicraft production is cited by the PEAP as a key source of income generation

for communities surrounding national parks. However, there is only one handicrafts

stall within, and none outside, the park. Production of crafts sold within the park

provides employment for 10 women from the surrounding parishes.

6.2.2 Human capital: –

Community Protected Area Institutions (CPI) provide a mechanism through which

parishes can channel the 20% of park entrance fees that they receive into development

projects. Since 1995 these funds have amounted to USh511 million (approximately

US$296,000) which have funded the construction of;

For details of projects implemented in 2005-2006 please see Appendix 4.

The Education Centre located within LMNP is currently implementing a scheme

that trains and educates men, women and children from neighbouring parishes on

• 35 classrooms in 14 schools

• 3 health units

• 1 bridge

• 2 water-tanks

• 1 water scheme providing water to 3 villages

• 1 fishing village

• 4 fuel saving stoves schemes


28

issues regarding the protection and conservation of the natural environment and in

doing so has improved these participants access to education.

6.2.3 Social capital:

CPI has provided an opportunity for members of parishes to organise and mobilise

themselves and their thoughts regarding what development projects would be most

beneficial to their individual community. However, when asked about their

involvement in the CPI process, villagers (both men and women) in the parish of

Rwenjeru said that they had had very little involvement in the process.

The Community Wildlife Associations (established in each of the parishes

surrounding LMNP, and to which every member of the parish can become a member)

provide communities with a means through which conflicts between the parishes and

the park can be resolved. The associations are also responsible for determining where

revenues from sport hunting are allocated.

6.2.4 Physical capital:

CPI investments have resulted in improvements in local infrastructure. Aside from

individual projects (see above) CPI funds have also been used to maintain and repair

the road between Sanga and the park on an annual basis.

However, access routes through LMNP including Kagoogo-Rwamuhuku, Kihangi-

Katengyeto-Rwehongyera and Masha-Biharwe, which existed before the area was

gazetted as a park, and which provide short, convenient routes to markets for local

people are now only accessible to locals following payment of park entry fees ranging

from 2,000-5,000 USh.


29

6.2.5 Natural capital: –

Access to natural capital has been negatively affected as a result of tourism in LMNP6.

For example, pastoralists (predominantly the reserve of men within the communities)

are now only able to use the parks lakes to water their cattle during the dry season,

whilst use of park-land for grazing cattle is strictly prohibited. Similarly, women in

two of the three parishes we visited mentioned that their agricultural activities around

the homestead had been negatively affected by park wildlife frequently damaging

both crops and fences. Nevertheless, the Problem Animal Management and Control

Strategy, formulated by the UWA attempts to address and minimise problems

associated with wild animals.

CPI funds have also been used to construct a fishing village; in conjunction with this

33 fishing boats have been given permission to fish Lake Mburo. However, all 33

boats are owned by comparatively wealthy business/ fisherman from Mbarara town.

All those employed to work the boats are men; women’s involvement in the activities

of the fishing village is minimal with just a few women involved in the drying of fish

and repair of fishing nets.

6.3 The sustainability of tourism

6.3.1 Tourist numbers

As the graph below highlights the number of tourists visiting LMNP increased year

on year between 2001 and 2005. However, figures for 2006 suggest a small decrease

in the number of visitors to the park (see Appendix 5 for detailed breakdown of visitor

statistics). Nevertheless, owing to a shortage of accommodation in the park there is

currently no capacity to increase the number of tourists staying overnight in the park.

6 LMNPs’ main function is to attract tourists; in order to do this the lakes, animals and vegetation within the park are protected. Therefore, whilst it is accepted that the wildlife would be present regardless of the parks existence we have made the assumption that the negative effects associated with the parks’ existence are the result of tourism.


30

(Source: UWA, 2007b)

LMNP is the only park within Uganda where impala can be viewed and that offers

sport hunting. It is also had a world renowned reputation for its bird and plant-life,

and is en-route from Kampala to Uganda’s most popular tourist attraction, the gorillas

in Bwindi National Park and Mgahinga National Park. There are also plans in place

to re-introduce a ‘pure’ breed of Ankole cows.

The area of Greater Mbarara also possesses a number of other tourist attractions

including Lake Nakivale, River Ruizi, Lake Kachera, and Sanga cultural village.

Plans are in place to combine the two current national sustainable tourism plans; the

Uganda Sustainable Tourism Development Program (USTD), and the Protected Area

Management and Sustainable Use Project (PAMSU), into one coherent national plan.

There are also plans to replace the current airstrip in Mbarara with a new international

airport, a move that could potentially be of huge benefit to the district and LMNP in

particular.

Graph 1. VISITOR STATISTICS 2001-2006

10000

10500

11000

11500

12000

12500

13000

13500

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

No.

of V

isito

rs


31

6.3.2 Sustainability of natural environment

Sport-hunting within LMNP is carried out to a quota system to ensure that wildlife is

hunted in a controlled manner, as part of this quota system only hunting of elderly,

male animals is permitted (see Appendix 3 for further details on animal quotas).

Since 2002 LMNP 60% of LMNP’s funding has come from internally generated

income, with the remaining 40% coming from the World Banks’ Global Environment

Fund (GEF). Prior to 2002 80% of the parks funding came from the GEF.


32

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Areas for further research

The following areas of research have been identified in order to fill gaps in the

information currently available.

7.1.1 Local communities

Further research is needed into the parishes immediately neighbouring Lake Mburo

National Park.

This will look to identify the exact number of parishes surrounding the park. It will

also look to assess the effects (both positive and negative) that tourism has had on the

different social and economic groups within the communities (i.e. how the impacts of

tourism have been distributed in terms of; sex, class, ethnicity, religion and age).

A further aspect of this research will include an assessment of the impact that projects

implemented through CPI have had on the parishes surrounding the park.

7.1.2 Sport hunting

Further research is needed into the practices and processes of sport hunting around

LMNP.

With regards to practices this will look to identify which parishes surrounding the

park are involved and which are not involved in sport hunting. Furthermore, it will

aim to gather additional information on the costs and benefits associated with sport

hunting for these parishes and how these are distributed amongst parish members.

In terms of processes, an assessment of how revenues from sport hunting are

distributed to the communities and Community Wildlife Associations will be required.

7.1.3 Community Involvement in decision making


33

Further research is required into the extent to which members of the parishes

surrounding LMNP are involved in decision making processes.

This research will look assess both to what extent parish members participate in the

decision made by CPI with regards to where funds are allocated (i.e. what are the

criteria for allocating funds to specific parishes and development projects

respectively), and who within the parishes participates (men, women, the poor, the –

less-poor).

It will also look to assess how accountable CPI is to the local communities, and what

measures are in place for members of the communities to challenge decisions made by

CPI.

The research will also look to assess to what extent local communities are consulted

on policies regarding natural resources within the park and their ability to influence

these decisions.

7.1.4 Ugandan Wildlife Education Centre (LMNP)

Further research into the impact that the education centre’s training scheme has had

on the behaviour of the communities.

This will involve assessing the degree of involvement and inclusion of members of

the local community in the activities of the education centre. Furthermore, it will to

assess to what extent the educations centre’s training scheme (regarding natural

resource conservation and management) has resulted in a change of attitudes amongst

participants.

7.1.5 National Park Sustainability

Further research into the economic and environmental sustainability of the activities

carried out in LMNP.


34

This research will look to identify the number of hotels and tourists that the park can

economically and environmentally sustain. This information will enable us to assess

the extent to which the development of the tourism industry within the park is

possible (i.e. are current tourist numbers too high or is there capacity to increase

them).

Research on the effectiveness of existing conservation practices within the park with

regards to wildlife and endangered animals and plants is also needed.

Research will also look to assess the sustainability of current practices with regards to

sport hunting and whether or not the quota system presently in place is sustaining the

existing animal populations and whether or not such quotas are respected. .

7.1.6 Plans and Strategies

Further research into the extent to which national and district level plans and

strategies regarding the development of tourism are pursued.

Initial research identified the existence of both national and district levels plans,

however, further research is needed to identify the extent to which these are

implemented. It will also look to identify possible reasons as to why plans may not be

implemented.

7.1.7 Private Sector Development

Further research into the barriers facing private sector investors wishing to invest in

the national park and the conditions necessary to attract investors.

This research will look to identify any barriers currently in place that may deter

private sector investment in the national park. Such information will enable the

research team to assess whether or not the promotion of private sector development

within the park is a viable recommendation or not.

7.2 Strategy guidelines to enhance the effectiveness of the PEAP


35

Under the second pillar of the PEAP – enhancing production, competitiveness and

incomes – tourism, and its development (in terms of encouraging private investment

and enhancing its competitiveness and increasing incomes of local communities), is

recognised as an essential element of the Government’s efforts to alleviate poverty

We have identified 3 areas of recommendations that we believe will increase the

effectiveness of the PEAP

7.2.1 Improving the Links between Communities and Tourism

Policies are currently in place to ensure that semi-skilled and unskilled labour is

recruited from the communities surrounding the park. We recommend that a similar

policy be introduced to ensure that where possible hotels and lodges within the park

source agricultural goods from the parishes surrounding the park.

As mentioned previously, the PEAP acknowledges that handicraft production offers

an effective way to reduce poverty amongst communities surrounding national parks.

It is therefore recommended that policies be introduced that encourage and support

the production and sale of such goods within the community. These policies will

hopefully contribute to increasing the income and employment opportunities amongst

the local community.

7.2.2 Education and Training

Currently Lake Mburo National Parks’ Education Centre is utilised to educate the

locals on matters of conservation and sustainability. However, it is recommended that

the education centre be further utilised to educate local communities on other areas

such as tourism and tourism-related skills. This will improve the local communities’

access to education and in turn enable them to take advantage of income-generating

opportunities arising from tourism within the park.

7.2.3 Tourism Development


36

We recommend that support and advice be offered to the local communities in order

to develop a broader range of tourist activities, such as cultural tours, dance/ music

and drama activities. This will help increase the attractiveness of LMNP as a tourist

destination, while also directly helping to increase the incomes of local communities

through tourism.


37

APPENDIX 1 - Stakeholder Analysis The stakeholder analysis below has been based on the fact that our research has been implemented independently and its objective, as already mentioned under the section of mission scope, is comparatively different with interests of stakeholders. Therefore unless the findings of our research project are implemented, there is no direct benefit to the stakeholders. In this context, the importance of the project for stakeholders is relatively low as shown in the table below.

INTERESTS

IMPACT

IMPORT-

ANCE

INFLU- ENCE

COST

BENEFITS

PRIMARY

A1. Mbarara District Natural Resource Office

- Environmental sustainability of local areas - Improve employment, income and skills of local community

+ 2 4 - Time - Human resources

- Poverty reduction in local community - Economic sustainability - Enhanced reputation amongst local community

A2. Ugandan Wildlife Authority (LMNP)

- Wildlife conservation - Education of local communities regarding wildlife conservation - Increase budget - Poverty reduction


- Improved wildlife conservation - Poverty reduction - Improved skills and knowledge of local community


38

A3. Women in the local community

- Gaining employment - Income generation - Improve skills/ education - Improve infrastructure/ basic amenities

+ 1 4 - Time - Environmental costs - Social costs (loss of traditional culture) - Possible neglect of other responsibilities - Increased in inequality within community

- Increased income - Improved skills/ education - Improved livelihood security - Livelihood diversification

Local Community

A4. Men in the local community

- Gaining employment - Income generation - Improve skills/ education - Improve infrastructure/ basic amenities

+ 1 4 - Time - Environmental costs - Social costs (loss of traditional culture) - Possible neglect of other responsibilities - Increased in inequality within community

- Increased income - Improved skills/ education - Improved livelihood security - Livelihood diversification


39

A5. Community Wildlife Association

- Income generation for community - Increase decision making power for community projects - Sustainability of wildlife practices

+ 1 4 - Time (opportunity costs) - Environmental costs - Social costs (loss of traditional culture)

- Increased income - Improved community environment/ infrastructure - More prosperous community

A6. Handicraft shops/ stalls owners

- Income generation - Improve livelihood security

+ 2 3 - Time - Increased competition from other producers - Increased in inequality within community

- Increased income - Improved livelihood security - Expansion of market

A7. Community Protected Area Institutions

- Increase number of community development projects - Improve livelihood security of local communities

+ 3 5 - Time - Increase income - Improved livelihoods


40

A8. Mbarara Vice Chairman (local Government)

- Improve livelihood security of local communities - Poverty reduction - Re-election


- Improved livelihoods

A9. Uganda Community Tourism Association

- Encourage quality community based tourism - Represent members interests to government and other relevant organisations - Train/ skills development of locals - Increase donor support/ funding


- Increased community based tourism - Increased skills/ education of locals - Enhanced reputation and links with community

A10.Mbarara University of Science and Technology

- Further research


- Further research

SECONDARY

B1. Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry

- Promotion of tourism - Poverty reduction - Sustainability of tourism industry


- More developed tourism industry

B2. Ugandan Tourist Board

- Promotion of tourism in Uganda- Development of Ugandan tourism industry - Sustainability of tourism in Uganda

+ and - 2 3 - Time - Human resources - Environmental damage

- More developed tourism industry


41

B3.Ugandan Bureau of Statistics

- Gathering Information regarding to statistics


-Gaining information regarding to statistics

B4. Ugandan Wildlife Education Centre

- Wildlife conservation - Education of local communities regarding wildlife conservation - Increase budget


- Improved wildlife conservation - Improved skills and knowledge of local community

B5. Ministry of Foreign Affairs

- Promotion of tourism opportunities - Poverty reduction

+ 1 1 - Time promoting Uganda tourism - Human resources

- Increased tourism and national income

B6. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development

- Promotion and development of tourism industry - Poverty reduction

+ 1 1 - Time - Human resources - Budget allocation for developing tourism industry

- Economic development - Poverty reduction

B7 National Environment Management Agency

- Environmental sustainability + 2 2 - Time - Human resources

- Environmental sustainability


42

B8. Association of Ugandan Tour Operators

- Promote the interests of members (tour operators) - Increase tourism - Increase profits of member tour operators


- Improved profits for members - Increased tourism levels


43

Stakeholder Diagram

High Influence

High Importance

Low

Influence

Low Importance

A10

A7A2

B1

B7 A6A8

A1 B4B2

B5 B6 A9 B3 A3 A5A4B8


44

APPENDIX 2 - List of the Parishes Surrounding Lake Mburo National Park

1. Sanga

2. Akaku

3. Rwetango

4. Nyakahita

5. Rwenjeru

6. Kyarubambura

7. Kashojwa

8. Kamuli

9. Rugaaga

10. Rushasha

11. Rurambira

12. Masha

13. Nyakashashara

14. Biharwe

15. Nyabubare

16. Rwamuranda

17. Kabingo

18. Rwabarata

19. Nyamitsindo

20. Kyarugaju

Source: Obtained during an interview with Musinguire Jeconious, the Natural

Resources Officer, Mbarara, Wednesday 9 May, 2007.


45

APPENDIX 3 – Animals Utilised Under Sport Hunting Project June 2001-June 2006

Number of animals utilized per fiscal year Animal Price US$

(2006)7 Jun.2001/02 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/Jun. 06 Total Animals Amount of Money generated (US$)

Baboon 90(90) 0 0 0 0 1 1 90

Buffalo 600(650) 10 12 13 16 10 61 37,100 Bushbuck 250(300) 9 8 15 11 8 51 13,150 Bush pig 150(150) 1 0 2 0 0 3 450 Duiker 130(150) 1 4 1 3 4 13 1,770 Eland 600(650) 7 5 5 4 4 25 15,200 Hippopotamus 500(500) 3 2 2 4 2 13 6,500 Impala 250(300) 22 19 26 26 18 111 28,650 Oribi 150(150) 6 5 3 6 6 26 3,900 Reedbuck 250(300) 5 6 3 7 5 26 6,750 Topi 350(400) 4 4 6 7 3 24 8,550 Warthog 250(300) 14 8 6 14 9 51 13,200 Waterbuck 500(550) 10 10 9 10 6 45 22,800 Zebra 500(500) 5 7 7 17 11 47 23,500

Total (Quota) 97 90 98 125 87 497 US$ 181,610 Source: Uganda Wildlife Authority 2007a

7 The figures in brackets represent the amended prices for animals that were introduced in 2006


46

APPENDIX 4 – CPI Projects Implemented in 2005-2006

Five separate projects, costing 43 million Ugandan Shillings (USh), were

implemented through CPI in 2005-2006, they are as follows;

1. Water Supply Project – This project involved the construction of a 3.3km water

pipe in the parish of Rwenjeru in Mbarara District, costing 19 million USh. The

scheme supplies clean water to 3 villages within the parish; - Katerananga

- Kabucebebe

- Rwakaterere

2. Hydro-Electric Power Line – This project extended an existing hydro-electric

power line to Sanga secondary school and a church, costing 10 million USh.

3. School Classrooms and Store – This project involved the construction of a three

classroom school block and a store for Kaku Primary School in Kiruhura District,

costing 10 million USh.

4. Cement Water Tower – This project involved the construction of one cement

water tower at Kiguyende Primary School in Isingiro District, costing 2 million USh.

5. Cement Water Tower – This project involved the construction of one cement

water tower at Katuntu Primary School in Isingiro District, costing 2 million USh.

In addition to these individual projects CPI funds were used to finance the annual

maintenance and repair of the road from Sanga village to one of the parks main

entrances.


47

APPENDIX 5 – LMNP Visitor Statistics for 2001-2006

Year FNR FR CITZ Students VIP TOTAL 2001 1032 1677 2896 5394 209 11,208 2002 1949 1538 3607 4281 15 11,390 2003 3099 1975 2726 3882 0 11,682 2004 3844 1465 2927 3932 - 12,168 2005 4891 1436 2910 4069 - 13,306 2006 4879 1441 2747 3946 231 13,244

TOTAL 19694 9532 17813 25504 455 72,998 Source: Ugandan Wildlife Authority 2007b FNR Foreign non residents

FR Foreign residents

CITZ Citizens

VIP Very Important People


48

APPENDIX 6 – Questions for Stakeholders 1. Key Questions for the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry

1. Are there currently any National Plans in place regarding the development of

the tourist industry?

2. Who are the Government’s key partners/ agencies involved tourism

development?

3. Is there currently a development plan in place for LMNP?

4. Do you have statistics for the numbers of tourists visiting LMNP?

5. How many people are employed in tourism sector in Mbarara?

6. What is the current capacity of LMNP regarding the number of tourists it can

accommodate?

7. We are aware that 20% of park fees are invested in development projects

within the communities surrounding National Parks; can you explain how this

process works?

8. Are the government aware of any positive or negative impacts that tourism has

had on the communities surrounding LMNP?

9. Has the government or the UWA carried out any research into the

sustainability of tourism in LMNP? If yes, what were your findings?

2. Key Questions for the Communities Surrounding LMNP

1. Have you always lived here, or did you use to live closer to the lake?

2. How do you feel about having the Park next to you?

3. Do you like that there is a National Park around Lake Mburo?

4. Do you think it would be better for you if you there was no Park?

5. Do you receive anything from the park?

6. Have you ever work for the Park?

7. Do you know anybody from your community that works in the Park?

8. Do tourists or hotels in the Park buy any of the products you grow/ produce?

9. Do you receive any financial benefits from the park? If so, what?

10. Are you aware of the activities of CPI? Has your community ever received

funds from it for development projects?

11. Who within the community is involved in the decision making processes


49

regarding CPI funds?

12. Is anyone in your community involved in the production of handcrafts? If so,

who?

13. Do you think the communities that do not neighbour the Park are better off

than your community?

14. Have you had any negative experiences with wild animals from the park? If

yes, have you been compensated for this?

15. Have you ever visited the Park? If yes, for what purpose?

16. Do you know what tourism is?

17. Do you think tourism is good for your community?

18. Has anybody from the National Park ever come and talk to you about the

benefits of the park?

19. Have you ever received classes from the education centre in the Park? If yes,

what were you taught?

3. Key Questions for the water pipe project village

1. How long have you had the water for?

2. What did you do before the water pipe was constructed?

3. What do you use the water for?

4. How many people come to collect water and how often?

5. How many litres are people taking per visit?

6. How much do they pay?

7. Is it expensive for them?

8. Does everyone in the surrounding villages use water from here? If not, then

where from?

9. Is the water supply ever cut off? If yes, when was the last one and for how

long did it last?

4. Key Questions for the Fishing Community

1. Do you live here?

2. Does your family live here?

3. Do you like that there is a National Park around Lake Mburo?


50

4. Do you think it would be better for you if you there was no Park?

5. Do you receive anything from the park?

6. Do you own the boat you are fishing from?

7. Do you have to pay to fish? If so, who do you pay and how much?

8. Does the UWA limit the amount of fish you can catch?

9. Where do you sell your fish?

10. Do you ever sell your fish to the hotels and/or restaurants inside the LMNP?

11. Do tourists buy fish from you?

12. Do you receive any financial benefits from the park? If so, what?

13. Do you know what tourism is?

14. Do you think tourism has had a positive impact on your life?

15. Have you ever received classes from the education centre in the Park? If yes,

what were you taught?

5. Key Questions for the Ugandan Wildlife Authority

1. How is UWA funded?

2. When was LMNP created?

3. How much funding do you receive from external donors (World Bank)?

4. How many people are employed in LMNP? Where are they from (Mbarara

town, Kampala, local communities etc)?

5. What kind of training do the employees receive?

6. What plans are in place regarding wildlife conservation?

7. How do you protect animals?

8. What is the capacity of the Park in terms of tourist numbers?

9. How many hotels and/or restaurants are there in the park?

10. What is the biggest potential for LMNP?

11. Does the park have any interaction with the communities surrounding the park?

12. Do you have any problems with the communities?

13. Are there any problems concerning wildlife entering the surrounding villages?

If yes, do the community get any compensation for this?

14. What are you doing so that the communities feel they need to take

responsibility for the park?

15. Is tourism in LMNP sustainable?


51

16. The government has established that 20% of park entrance fees are reinvested

in development projects for the communities surrounding the park. Who is in

charge of this money/ who decides how it is spent?

17. What has this 20% been used for over the last 5 years?

18. Do local communities participate in selection of projects being implemented?

19. Does UWA have any preference of employment towards the people from local

communities?

6. Key Questions for the UWA and the Community Wildlife Associations regarding Sport Hunting

1. Can you explain what sport hunting is?

2. Who is involved in this activity?

3. How is the private sector involved in sport hunting?

4. Who regulates how this activity takes place?

5. Who establishes what and how many animals can be hunted? Are the quotas

sustaining the wildlife population?

6. How do you make sure that this is followed?

7. What is your involvement in sport hunting?

8. Do you receive any money out of it?

9. Do local communities benefit from sport hunting? If yes, how?

10. How much does it cost to do sport hunting?

11. How much money was earned from sport hunting last year?

12. Do you think sport hunting is a good tourist activity?

13. Do you think it should be promoted more?

7. Key Questions for the Ugandan Wildlife Education Centre (UWEC) in LMNP

1. When was the UWEC created?

2. What are the functions of the UWEC?

3. Who funds the UWEC?

4. What is the capacity of the UWEC to train more members of the local

communities?

5. Who manages LMNP?


52

6. Is tourism sustainable in LMNP?

7. Which education programs do you run?

8. How much interaction is there between the UWEC and the communities

surrounding LMNP?

9. Who are the beneficiaries of the education programmes you run?

10. Do you know of any problems between the local communities and the LMNP?

If yes, what do think can be done to resolve these problems?

8. Key Questions for the Local Government

1. Are the local government involved in promoting tourism in LMNP? If yes,

how?

2. What is your relationship with the UWA?

3. What is the importance of the LMNP for the local government?

4. Do you think tourism could benefit the community?

5. Has tourism improved economic growth within the District of Mbarara?

6. Do you have any say over the management of LMNP in relation to local

communities?

7. We understand that 20% of park entrance fees are reinvested in development

projects in communities surrounding the park. Can you tell us any more about

how this process works?

8. Is CPI independent? How is it funded?

9. How many CPI members are there? How are they elected to the CPI?

10. Who controls the funds of the CPI?

11. Do local communities complain to the Local government regarding the LMNP?

12. In your view what could be improved to ensure that the local communities

benefit more from tourism in LMNP?

13. How many parishes directly border the LMNP?

9. Key Questions for the Natural Resource Officer


53

1. Is there a management plan for Mbarara/ LMNP?

2. What impacts has tourism had on the natural environment of LMNP?

3. How are CPI funds being distributed between parishes?

4. What projects have been implemented so far?

5. How many parishes border LMNP?

6. Are local communities involved in the creation, development and

implementation of projects? If yes, how?


54

APPENDIX 7 – List of Interviews Conducted and Meetings Attended Thursday 3 May- Kampala a.m. Prof. Emmanuel Tumusiime Mutebille (Governor, Bank of Uganda) p.m. Dr Lawyer Kufureeka (Center for Basic Research) Friday 4 May- Kampala a.m. Mr Richard Edwards (DFID) Mr John Barisigara (Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry) Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency Eunice Nyiramahoro Duli (Uganda Wildlife Authority) Dr Marios Obwona and Lawrence Bategka (Economic Policy Research Centre)p.m. Dr Yasin Olum (Head, Political Science and Public Administration

Department, Makerere University) Dr Augustus Nuwagaba (Reevconsult & Makerere University) Uganda Tourist Board Saturday 5 May- Nkozi Robert Esuruku (Deputy Dean, Institute of Ethics and Development Studies,

Uganda Martyrs University, Nkozi) Monday 7 May- Mbarara Dr Dominic Byarugaba (Senior Lecturer at Mbarara University of Science and

Technology) Tuesday 8 May- Lake Mburo National Park a.m. Noel Abaho (Park Ranger LMNP) George Mwebaze (Community Preservation Ranger LMNP) p.m. Adonia Bintora (Chief Warden of LMNP) Staff at Montana Lodge, LMNP Visit to Rwamukuku village, Kiruhura (located on main road out of the park) Wednesday 9 May- Mbarara a.m. Beatrice Kyomuhangi (Ugandan Bureau of Statistics, Mbarara) Stephen Kanyesigye (Local Government Vice Chairman, Mbarara) p.m. Musinguire Jeconious (Mbarara District Natural Resource Officer) William Kayumbu (Mbarara Community Development Officer) Thursday 10 May- Mbarara and Ciruhura a.m. Wilson Tumwesigye (Treasurer of the Community Protected Area Institution) Visit to Rwenjeru villages, Mbarara (site for water pipe project) p.m. Visit to Rurambira village, Kiruhura (Sport-hunting village)


55

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ampwera, M., ([email protected]). “Uganda Background Information”. Email

to Simon Ogden ([email protected]). 26 April 2007.

Ashley, C., Boyd, C., and Goodwin, H., 2000. “Pro-Poor Tourism: Putting Poverty at

the Heart of the Tourism Agenda”, Natural Resource Perspectives No. 51.

ODI: London.

Ashley, C., Goodwin, H., McNab, D., Scott, M., and Chaves, L., 2006. “Making

Tourism Count for the Local Economy in the Caribbean: Guidelines for

Good Practice”, Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership and the Caribbean

Tourism Organisation. Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership: London.

Ashley, C., Goodwin, H., and Roe, D., 2001. “Pro-Poor Tourism Strategies:

Expanding Opportunities for the Poor”, Pro-Poor Tourism Briefing No. 1,

April 2001. Overseas Development Institute, International Institute for

Environment and Development, and Centre for Responsible Tourism.

DFID, Department for International Development, 1999a. Sustainable Livelihoods

Guidance Sheets: Introduction Overview [online]. DFID: London.

Available from:

http://www.livelihoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_pdfs/section1.pdf

[Accessed 26 April 2007].

DFID, Department for International Development, 1999b. Sustainable Livelihoods

Guidance Sheets: Framework Introduction [online]. DFID: London.

Available from:

http://www.livelihoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_pdfs/section2.pdf

[Accessed 26 April 2007].

DFID, Department for International Development, 1999c. Tourism and Poverty

Elimination: Untapped Potential [online]. DFID: London. Available

from: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/tourism-brocure.pdf [Accessed 16

March 2007].

Emerton, L., 1999. “Balancing the Opportunity Costs of Wildlife Conservation for

Communities around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda” [online].

Evaluating Eden Series: Discussion Paper No. 5. Available from:

http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/7798IIED.pdf [Accessed 15 May 2007].


56

Emerton, L., and Muranira, E., 1999. “Uganda Biodiversity: Economic Assessment”

[online]. National Environment Management Authority: Kampala.

Available from:

http://www.foodnet.cgiar.org/scrip/docs&databases/ifpriStudies_UG_nonS

crip/pdfs/more_reports/Economic%20assessment%20of%20biodiversity,%

20Emerton%20and%20Muramira%2099.pdf [Accessed 27 April 2007].

Goodwin, H., and Robson, S., 2004. “Tourism and Local Economic Development:

How can businesses in travel and tourism increase the contribution of the

industry to local economic development and pro-poor growth?” Seminar

prepared for the Tourism and Local Economic Development event, August

2004. The International Centre for Responsible Tourism: University of

Greenwich.

GoU, (Government of Uganda), 2004. Poverty Eradication Action Plan (2004/5-

2007-8). Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development:

Kampala.

Laws, S., Harper, C., and Marcus, R., 2003. “Seven Key Research Techniques”. In:

Laws, S., Research for Development: A Practical Guide. Sage Publications:

London.

Lea, J., 1988. Tourism and Development in the Third World. Routledge: London.

Namara, A., 2006. “From Paternalism to Real Partnership with Local Communities?

Experiences from Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (Uganda)”. Africa

Development, 31(2), pp.39–68, Council for the Development of Social

Science Research in Africa.

NEMA, (National Environment Management Authority) 2007. “Welcome to NEMA”

[online]. Available from: http://www.nemaug.org/ [Accessed 27 April

2007].

OECD and African Development Bank, 2005. “African Economic Outlook

2004/2005: Uganda”, OECD Emerging Economies, Number 5, pp. 425-

437, OECD Development Centre: Paris.

Roe, D., Goodwin, H., and Ashley, C., 2002. “The Tourism Industry and Poverty

Reduction: A Business Primer” [online]. Pro-poor Tourism Briefing No. 2,

March. Available from: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/tourism-

PPTbusiness%20brief.pdf [Accessed 16 March 2007].


57

Scoones, I., 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis [online].

IDS Working Paper No. 72. Available from:

https://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/wp72.pdf [Accessed 29 March

2005].

UBOS, (Ugandan Bureau of Statistics), 2002. The 2002 Population and Housing

Census, [online]. Available from: http://www.ubos.org/ [Accessed 27

April 2007]. Government of Uganda: Kampala.

UCL, (University College London), 2007. Terms of Reference. UCL: London.

UWA, (Ugandan Wildlife Authority), 2007a. “Animals Utilised Under Sport Hunting

Project June 2001-June 2006”. UWA Database. Ugandan Wildlife

Authority: Lake Mburo National Park.

UWA, (Ugandan Wildlife Authority), 2007b. “Lake Mburo National Park Visitor

Statistics for 2001-2006”. UWA Database. Ugandan Wildlife Authority:

Lake Mburo National Park.

UWA, (Ugandan Wildlife Authority), 2005. Annual Report for 2004-2005 [online].

Available from: http://www.uwa.or.ug/Report2004-2005.pdf [Accessed 29

April 2007]. UWA: Kampala

UWA, (Ugandan Wildlife Authority), 2002. “Bwindi Community Initiatives that

have contributed to poverty reduction within the local community

populace through conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity”, A

proposal submitted for the Equator Initiative Award on innovative

partnership efforts for sustainable development in tropical ecosystems,

April 2002 [online]. Available from:

http://www.equatorinitiative.net/files/2002-

0139_Nom_BwindiImpenetrableNationalPark_Uganda.doc [Accessed 30

May 2007].

UWEC, (Ugandan Wildlife Education Centre), 2007. “About UWEC” [online].

Available from:

http://www.uweczoo.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=

15&Itemid=26 [Accessed: 24 May 2007].

Williams, E., White, A., and Spenceley, A., 2001. “The Uganda Community Tourism

Association: A Comparison with NACOBTA”, [online] Available from:

http://www.propoortourism.org.uk/uganda_cs.pdf [Accessed 27 April

2007] Pro-poor Tourism, Working Paper No. 5.


58

World Bank, 2004. “Investment Climate Assessment 2004”, Competing in the Global

Economy: An Investment Climate Assessment for Uganda, [online]

Available from:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAFRSUMAFTPS/Resources/ICA0

02.pdf [Accessed 27 April 2007]. World Bank: Washington

World Bank, 2007. The World Bank in Uganda - Country Brief 2005 – 2006, [online]

Available from:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICA

EXT/UGANDAEXTN/0,,menuPK:374947~pagePK:141132~piPK:14110

7~theSitePK:374864,00.html [Accessed 27 April 2007]. World Bank:

Washington.

WTTC, World Travel and Tourism Council, 2007a. “Progress and Priorities

2007/2008” [online]. Available from:

http://www.wttc.travel/bin/pdf/original_pdf_file/finpp_2007.pdf [Accessed

15 May 2007].

WTTC, World Travel and Tourism Council, 2007b, “Uganda: Travel and Tourism,

Navigating the Path Ahead. The 2007 Travel and Tourism Economic

Research” [online]. Available from:

http://www.wttc.travel/bin/pdf/temp/uganda.html [Accessed 22 May 2007].

Documents

Report 2