bwindi impenetrable national park’s multiple use programme
TRANSCRIPT
BWINDI IMPENETRABLE NATIONAL PARK’S MULTIPLE
USE PROGRAMME Robert Bitariho and Emmanuel Akampulira
PRESENTATION BREAKDOWN
What is the multiple use progamme? Bwindi’s multiple use programme Pre-resource harvest assessment Implementing the MUP Post-resource harvest assessment Further investigations Research to policy meets MUZ
WHAT IS THE MULTIPLE USE PROGAMME?
The term “Multiple use" initially meant multiple land-uses of Bwindi forest (Wild 2001)
Biodiversity conservation, tourism and low impact forest resource use
It later evolved to only low impact forest resource use (Wild, 2001)
Under the programme local people access non-timber forest products and beekeeping at the park periphery
BINP’s MULTIPLE USE ZONES
Prior the Multiple use ProgrammeIn 1991 when Bwindi wasmade a national park:
Local people were stopped from accessing the forest for their livelihood requirements
The people protested this by setting up numerous forest fires and harassment of park staff
5% of Bwindi forest park was burnt between 1991 and 1992
Bwindi’s Multiple Use Programme
In 1994, UNP (now UWA) together with its partners such as CARE, ITFC and IGCP started a CFM in Bwindi called MUP
This led to the integration of NTFPs harvest into park mgt in Bwindi
The main objective of the MUP was to involve local people in park mgt as they help in policing the park like reporting illegal activities
Bwindi’s Multiple Use Programme
The programme has now been in existence for 20 years
Local people access plants for basketry & medicinal uses and place beehives in the park
In the past couple of years Batwa have been allowed to harvest wild yams
Restricted; fishing, wild honey, poles, stakes, timber cutting, firewood and hunting
“Pre-plant harvest resource assessment
We use PRAs to list plants desired by the local people
Herbarium specimen collections of the desired plants are then made
Forest inventories made in the proposed multiple use zone
Recommend plants to be harvested basing on their stem density, distribution and 1% of available stock
An example of recommended lianas/shrubs based on stem density/ha (Cutt-off = 10 stems/ha)
Lianas/shrubs (10m x 10m plots-cutoff/threshold=10 stems/ha)
36.7
0 0 0
46.7
33.3
0 0 0
106.7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36.7
0 0 0
46.7
33.3
0 0 0
70
0 0 0 0 0 0 00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Sa
lacia
ele
ga
ns
Loesenerie
lla
apocyn
oid
es
Trium
fett
am
acro
ph
ylla
Ure
raH
ypse
loden
dro
n
Pristim
era
gra
cifo
lia
Securidaca
welw
itsch
ii
Pham
nus p
ren
oid
es
Go
unnia
longis
pic
ata
Hib
iscu
s g
raci
folia
Ryt
igyn
ia k
igezie
nsi
s
Hib
iscu
s f
uscu
s
Cla
use
na a
nis
ata
Rytig
ynia
bug
oye
nsis
Ruka
mbura
Brid
elia
sp.
Dra
cean
aafr
om
onta
nea
Adenia
re
ticula
ta
Plant species
Ste
m d
en
sit
y p
er
hecta
re
Total Stems
Harvestable stems
An example of recommended weaving plants annual offtakes (1% of available stock)
Plants Species Part Used Estimated stems in whole zone (available
stock)
Recommended maximum annual harvest stems (1% of
available stock)
Draceana
laxissima Stem 270,900 2,709 stems
Smilax
anceps Stem 28,000 280 stems
Salacia
elegans Stem 25,900 259 stems
Pristimera
Gracifolia Stem 32,900 329 stems
Securidaca welwitschii
Stem 23,100 231 stems
Post-plant harvest(harvest impact monitoring)
ITFC has set-up PSPs in the plant harvest zones and non zones to monitor plant harvest impacts
Presently three highly demanded plants are being monitored
The plants: Rytigynia kigeziensis, Ocotea usambarensis and Loeseneriella apocynoides
The plants that are monitored in the PSPs
A mature A mature LoeseneriellaLoeseneriella apocynoides stem apocynoides stem (>30years)(>30years)
Bark harvest from Bark harvest from Ocotea usambarensisOcotea usambarensis
Bark harvest from Bark harvest from Rytigynia kigeziensisRytigynia kigeziensis
Harvest impact monitoring results
Results show no negative harvest impact of the two medicinal plants (R. kigeziensis and O. usambarensis)
The commercially utilized weaving plant L. apocynoides, appears to have suffered a negative harvest impact
Results further show a decline in the amount of medicinal bark harvested annually by local people
Probably coinciding with government health outreach programmes around Bwindi (almost every parish around BINP has a health facility)
Other questions that have been investigated
1. How are resource use programs conducted elsewhere in Uganda (WILDWEST PROJECT -2011)
2. What are the sustainable harvest levels (yields, regeneration and mortality rates) of the monitored plants (UTRECHT UNI MSc STUDENTS-Else & Suzanne-2011)
3. Socio-economic contributions of the MUP to the local people? (BITARIHO R PHD -2012)
4. Does the Multiple Use Programme help reduce illegal activities? (BITARIHO R PHD -2012)
5. Is the Multiple Use Programme worthwhile given the costs involved? (BITARIHO R PHD-2012
6. How can we improve the MUP (WILDWEST PROJECT-2012)
Other questions investigated or being investigated
Simple and participatory plant harvest monitoring tool for local community use in Bwindi’s MUZ(BMCT-2013)
Annual Plant harvesting impact monitoring in the MUZ and Non MUZ of BINP 2014-2017(BMCT)
Monitoring: Rytigynia kigeziensis, Loeseneriella apocynoides , Ocotea usambarensis and Prunus africana
More research needed on other highly demanded plant species especially in the south of BINP
Recommendations
Need to enforce the ban on the harvest of Loeseneriallaapocynoides (Omujega) from BINP
Another plant to be considered for harvest ban is Maratochloamannii(Ebitatara) used to make small baskets
Harvest off takes for Octoteausambarensis, piperguineese(Rukokota),Rytigyniakigeziensis(Nyakibazi),Draceanalaxssima (enchenche )and Smilax anceps(enshuri) increased from 1% to 5%
Annual plant harvest frequencies be increased from twice year to six times a year for all resources
On farm substitution be encouraged
CTPA’s R 2policy meets MUZ
Following CTPA’s recommendations on increasing local benefits.
One of the programs considered was MUZ
And already we had recommendations from years of research, on how the MUZ program can be more beneficial to local communities
CTPA’s R 2policy meets MUZ
Basing on that foundation ITFC and ACODE met 7 resource user groups around BINP
The objectives were to:-Disseminate results from CTPA and MUZ research
-Facilitate resource users to request UWA follow up on the recommendations of MUZ research. If they wanted
CTPA’s R 2policy meets MUZ-Observations
Local people generally happy that we shared our research findings with them.
Some of recommendations do not cater for resource users in the south. Eg Octoteausambarensis piperguineese(Rukokota) and Rytigyniakigeziensis harvest off takes from 1% to 5%
Resource users in the south more interested in species like Dombeya and Bamboo( Bamboo not allowed). More research need??
Increment on the harvesting frequencies not helpful if harvesting zones are not extended(>2km)
Thank you, to all the partners , funders and well-wishers