DOCUMENTING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH NATIONAL PARK TO THE

SOCIO- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES A CASE STUDY OF

LAKE KATWE-

KABATORO TOWN COUNCIL

TUMUHAIRWE MADINA

11/BSU/BDS/177

A RESEARCH REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND DEVELOPMENT

STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF A BACHELOR'S

DEGREE IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES OF

BISHOP STUART UNIVERSITY.

APRIL, 2014

DECLARATION

I TUMUHAIRWE MADINA declare to the best of my knowledge that this

dissertation presented is original and based on the personal findings

and has never been presented before to any university or institution

for the award of a bachelor’s degree.

Signed...........................................

Date..........................................

TUMUHAIRWE MADINA

1

SUPERVISOR’S APPROVAL

I the undersigned supervisor hereby acknowledge that this research

report is adequate for the award of the degree of Bachelor of degree in

Development studies of Bishop Stuart University.

Signature……………………………….Date…………………………………….

MR. NUWAGABA ELIAS

UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR

2

DEDICATION

To my beloved mum Ndeje Jalia, my late Dad Hamis Seshave (the dead are

not dead) big brother Angesaveri, Haruna, Sisters Aisha, Mbabazi,

Mwajumahamis, my friends Masika Patience, Muranjira Jonan, Kabami ,

Hariet Philo, Twaha, Reagan,Aliganyira Florence whose

determination, love, hard work, and steady guidance have enabled me

to reach this level. I actually cannot imagine how life would have

been without you. Mummy, God bless you.

3

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I am sincerely grateful than I can express to my supervisor MR.

NUWAGABA ELIAS for his advice and encouragement during my research.

His close supervision, efforts and guidance at all stages enabled me

to accomplish this dissertation.

My sincere gratitude and heartfelt thanks go to my beloved mum Ndeje

4

Jalia, my late Dad Hamis Seshave (the dead are not dead) big brother

Angesaveri, Haruna, Sisters Aisha, Mbabazi, Mwajumahamis, for their

moral and unfailing support, encouragement and material assistance

that enabled me with financial assistance to compile this

dissertation. You are the base of my education. Thank you so much.

Special thanks go to my Lecturers for his importunate assistance

during the course of my Research and studies in general. Thanks a lot.

With great love I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to my

beloved friends; my friends Masika Patience, Muranjira Jonan, Kabami ,

Hariet Philo, Twaha, Reagan, Aliganyira Florence. You may not have the

slightest ideas of how you have been a blessing to me but for sure you

have made my life at campus very interesting and meaningful in all

aspects. I pray and hope I will always be there when you need me.

I am very grateful to my respondents (Lake Katwe community) who

provided information/ data that formed the basis for my research that

has enabled me compile this information.

Above all, I thank the wonderful lord for the ways he passed me.

Through thick and thin, he groomed and modeled me to what I am today.

The ways were not simple but with his care, mercies, love and

protection here I am finally.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION.....................................................i

SUPERVISOR’S APPROVAL..........................................ii

DEDICATION....................................................iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.................................................iv

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................ix

LIST OF TABLES...................................................x

LIST OF ACRONYMS................................................xi

ABSTRACT......................................................xii

CHAPTER ONE.....................................................1

1.0 Introduction................................................1

1.1 Background of the study.......................................1

1.2 Problem statement............................................3

1.3 Purposes of the study.........................................4

1.4 Objective of the study........................................4

1.5 Research questions...........................................4

1.6.1 Geographical Scope.........................................4

1.6.2 Time scope.................................................6

1.6.3 Content Scope..............................................6

1.7 Significance of the Study.....................................6

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW...................................8

2.1 Introduction................................................8

6

2.1 The services offered by the national park to the surrounding

communities....................................................8

2.2 The local people’s attitudes and perceptions on the services

offered to the local community and to the surrounding areas.........13

2.3. Challenges faced by the surrounding communities due to the

presence of the national........................................16

2.4 To suggest possible ways of improving community attitude and

benefits in relation to QENP.....................................20

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................26

3.0 Introduction...............................................26

3.2 Research Design.............................................26

3.3 Study Population............................................27

3.4 Sample Size.................................................27

3.5 Sample Selection Method.....................................27

3.6.2 Secondary Data............................................28

3.7.4 Source of Secondary data...................................30

3.7.5 Discussion...............................................30

3.8 Research Procedure.........................................30

3.9 Data processing and Analysis.................................30

3.10 Ethical Considerations.....................................31

3.11 Limitations faced during the study..........................31

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FIELD

FINDINGS......................................................33

4.0 Introduction...............................................33

7

4.1 Biographic Information of Respondents........................33

4.1.1 Sex Composition of Respondents.............................33

4.1.2 Education Levels of Respondents............................34

4.1.3 Occupation of the Respondents..............................35

4.1.4 Period Spent in and Around the Park.........................36

4.1.5 Land holdings.............................................37

4.1.6 Main sources of cash income................................38

4.2 To Establish Services Offered By the National Park to the

Surrounding Communities........................................39

4.2.1 Community involvement in national park to the surrounding

communities....................................................39

4.2.2 Relationship between Queen Elizabeth National Park and the

Neighboring Community in relation to trust and Support............41

4.2.3 Negative relationship between Queen Elizabeth National Park and

the neighboring Community.......................................46

4.3 To Investigate The Local People’s Attitudes and Perception On The

Services Offered To The Local Community And To The Surrounding Areas 48

4.3.1 Community Attitudes toward Local Tourism...................48

4.3.2 Programs Promotion of Local Tourism........................51

4.3.3 Strategies put up to harmonize Queen Elizabeth National Park and

the Neigbouring Communities.....................................54

4.4 To Assess Challenges Faced By the Surrounding Communities Due To

the Presence of the National Park................................57

4.4.1 Challenges faced by local community around Queen Elizabeth

National Park..................................................57

4.4.2 Challenges faced by Queen Elizabeth National Park from the

Neighboring Community..........................................58

8

4.5 To suggest possible ways of improving community attitude &

benefits in relation to QENP.....................................60

4.5.1 Possible solutions to the challenges faced by Queen Elizabeth

National Park and the Neighboring community......................60

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF THE FINDING, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................62

5.0 Introduction..............................................62

5.1 Discussion of the Finding....................................62

5.1.1 To establish services offered by the national park to the

surrounding communities........................................62

5.1.2 To investigate the local people’s attitudes and perceptions on

the services offered to the local community and to the surrounding

areas..........................................................63

5.1.3 To assess challenges faced by the surrounding communities due to

the presence of the national park................................63

5.1.4 To suggest possible ways of improving community attitude and

benefits in relation to QENP.....................................64

5.2 Conclusions................................................64

5.3 Recommendations of the study.................................65

5.3.1 To the Government.........................................66

5.3.2 To Local Authorities......................................67

5.3.3 To Uganda Wildlife Authority...............................68

5.4 Suggested areas for further research.........................70

REFERENCES.....................................................71

WORK PLAN......................................................82

BUDGET.........................................................83

9

APPENDIX A: AN INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR PEOPLE AROUND QUEEN ELIZABETH

NATIONAL PARK..................................................84

APPENDIX IV: QUESTIONNARE FOR LOCAL LEADERS......................88

10

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Showing the Sex Composition of Respondents..............33

Figure 2: Showing Education Levels of Respondents.................35

Figure 3: Percentage of respondents with different Land size holdings

..............................................................38

Figure 4: Showing Community Involvement in Local Tourism..........39

Figure 5: Showing a herd of cattle feeding from the park............40

Figure 6: Showing one of the schools that are partially facilitated by

Queen Elizabeth National Park (Lake Katwe Primary School).........42

Figure 7: Showing Community responses on the presence of local Tourism

..............................................................52

Figure 8: Showing strategies put up to harmonize Queen Elizabeth

National Park and the neighboring communities....................54

Figure 9: Showing a cultural shop found at Lake Katwe Women

Recreational centre............................................55

11

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Showing Occupations of the Respondents...................36

Table 2: Main sources of income..................................38

Table 3: Showing positive Relationship between Queen Elizabeth

National Park and the Neighboring Community in relation to Trust and

Support.......................................................41

Table 4: Showing negative relations between Queen Elizabeth National

Park and the Neighboring Community and their causes...............46

Table 5: Showing Challenges faced by local Community around Queen

Elizabeth National Park.........................................57

Table 6: Showing Challenges faced by Queen Elizabeth National Park

from the surrounding communities................................59

Table 7: showing possible solutions to the challenges faced by Queen

Elizabeth National Park and the neighboring community.............60

12

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CCU Community Conservation Units

CCUWA Community Conservation for Uganda Wildlife Authority Project

CWAs Community Wildlife Areas

FR Forest Reserve

LKCCP Lake Katwe Community Conservation Project

NEMA Uganda, National Environment Management

Authority

NFA National Forest Authority

NGOs Nongovernmental Organizations

NP National Park

PAs Protected Areas

13

PMAC Park Management and Advisory Committee

QECCP Queen Elizabeth National Park Community Conservation Project

QENP Queen Elizabeth National Park

STCRC Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research

Center

STCRC Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research

Center

TRS Tourism Revenue-Sharing

UTA Uganda Tourism Association

UWA Uganda Wild Life Authority

WR Wild Reserve

WTO World Trade Organization

WTO World Trade Organization

WUR Wildlife Use Rights

ABSTRACT

Direct participation in socio economic development of surrounding

communities is still lacking among particular category of

stakeholders. This is of concern because the local communities are the

custodians of the natural resources on which most of the tourism

activity is based and therefore should be motivated to conserve this.

Protected Area managers have attempted this through the collaborative

management arrangement, but potential still exists for further

14

participation awareness and equitable sharing of benefits (Barrow,

1993).

The study was carried out at Lake Katwe-Kabatoro Town Council and the

neighboring community. The study will be about the documenting the

contributions of Queen Elizabeth National Park to the socio economic

development of surrounding communities . The objectives of the study

are to establish services offered by the national park to the

surrounding communities, to investigate the local people’s attitudes

and perceptions on the services offered to the local community and to

the surrounding areas, t o assess challenges faced by the surrounding

communities due to the presence of the national park and to suggest

possible ways of improving community attitude and benefits in relation

to QENP

Analytical research design will be used more although descriptive and

observation techniques will also be employed. The sample size of 50

respondents will be interviewed. The study population will include

park wardens, pastoral communities/ local people living adjacent to

the park. Data will be collected from both primary and secondary

sources. The researcher will first carry out a pilot study to determine

the validity of research tools to be used.

The study is expected to come up with people’s attitude towards local

tourism through gathering community members opinions about local

tourism, programs put up to promote local tourism, challenges faced in

implementing local tourism as well as the strategies to be put in place

to promote local tourism in QENP.

15

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 Introduction

This chapter presents the background of the study, statement of the

problem, purpose of the study, objectives of the study, research

questions, and scope of the study and significance of the study.

1.1 Background of the study

Global population has grown from 3 billion in 1959 to 6 billion in 1999

at a doubling time span of 40 years. The human population is growing

more than 79 million per year within an existing world population that

exceeds 6.75 billion (US Census Bureau, 2009). In their effort to find

new living areas, humans have continued to encroach on natural

wildlife habitats, resulting in global forest loss and contraction of

wildlife habitats. This problem is more acute in the developing world.

In Africa, where the human population grew by 200 million in the past

decade, the rate of forest loss stands at 0.6% per year. In particular,

with 6.8 births per woman, Uganda has one of the highest fertility

rates in the world (US Census Bureau, 2009). It also has one of the

highest rates of forest loss. At a 2% forest loss per year, Uganda will

lose the majority of its forest areas within the next few decades.

The increase in the extent of protected area coverage highlights the

attention that biodiversity conservation has received in the past few

decades. But conserving biodiversity by setting aside large tracts of

land for strict protection necessitates that other land use options

are sidelined (Johannesen; 2007), which affects land based

16

livelihoods. Over the years, global conservation strategies have

shifted in nature (Tumusiime; 2006), mainly to respond to pressures

that natural resources face in an ever dynamic world. Earlier,

challenges such as declining biodiversity populations and habitat

transformation (Adams, William M. et al. 2004), attracted attention

and support to the creation of protected areas that separated humans

from nature (Adams, W. M. 2004). It appears however to have been only a

quick fix to the problem. While protected areas have proved to be

largely effective in stemming species extinction (Hutton et al. 2005),

evidence suggests that they may be negatively affecting human survival

(de Sherbinin; 2008).

Implementation of revenue sharing policies in various CC programs is

based on this assumption. Accordingly, portions of park entry revenues

are often allocated for a variety of community development projects,

ranging from the construction of health clinics and schools to

establishing protective trenches and improving local

infrastructures. One objective of the Revenue Sharing Program is to

offset the economic encumbrances that result from limitations imposed

on the usage of PA natural resources by local communities. Another

purpose is to demonstrate the visible benefits of wildlife

conservation to beneficiary communities and encourage their

participatory role in PA conservation efforts. The overall objective

of CC programs is to improve community attitudes toward PAs and

generate more tolerance for the burdens of human-wildlife conflict.

Success of these programs in achieving the intended objectives relies

on how well the development projects are implemented in recipient17

communities and whether locals view them as a tangible benefit of

living in proximity to PAs.

The negative effects of protected areas on people's livelihoods

undermine local support (Adams, William M. et al. 2004; Kiss 1990;

Wells, P. M. & McShane 2004). Most notable of these negative effects

arise from crop raiding and foregone access to resources (Adams,

M.William & Hutton 2007; Archabald & Naughton-Treves 2002; Cernea, M

Michael 2006). Incompatibility of the development aspirations of

local populations and the preservationist objectives of park

authorities is usually a breeding ground for animosity and serves to

increase the challenge of conservation. According to Scherl, Wilson et

al. (2004:2), “to survive, protected areas in the poorer nations must

be seen as a land-use option that contributes as positively to

sustainable development as other types of land use”.

To counteract the negative effects of protected areas, a number of

approaches have been formulated to reduce tensions between local

communities and protected areas management. Allowing for access to the

park has to be incorporated into park management plans to cater for the

interests of local communities. Legal extraction of park resources,

revenue sharing (for instance of tourist gate fees) and community

representation on park management advisory committees were observed

for instance in Uganda (Adams, William M. & Infield 2003), to enable

benefits of managing protected areas to be realized by both government

agencies and local communities (Mugisha 2002).

18

While reduction of poverty is a secondary goal of protected areas with

respect to conservation of

biological diversity and provision of ecosystem services (Scherl et

al. 2004), examination of the

linkages between protected areas and issues of poverty is not only a

practical issue but an ethical

necessity. The participants in the Workshop Stream on Building Broader

Support for Protected

Areas stated that “ protected areas should not exist as islands, divorced from the

social, cultural

and economic context in which they are located ” (Recommendation V.29, Vth IUCN

World Parks Congress) (IUCN 2005). This has further emphasized the

need for an increased role for local people in management of national

parks (Inamdar et al. 1999; Namara 2006).

1.2 Problem statement Queen Elizabeth National Park (QENP) has provided various goods and

services to local communities around it, and therefore has contributed

to improvement of livelihoods; this is true for all protected areas

(Blom 2001, Kibirige 2003, Scherl et al. 2004). Parks do not only

provide food, medicine, fodder, building poles to local communities

but also parks offer job opportunities, educative programs, and other

community services (Blom 2000; Kibirige 2003). A gorilla park like

BINP can have enormous money streams due to the appeal gorillas have on

tourists (Adams, William M. & Infield 2003). While there is a general

change in conservation doctrine to involve communities more as a means

of soliciting their cooperation and support (Wells, P. M. & McShane

19

2004), local communities are allocated large responsibilities under

the resource-use programs (Namara 2006) yet reciprocal benefits

remain minimal (Wilkieet al. 2006).

As a source of fuelwood, medicinal herbs, forest foods, fish, building

poles and other subsistence

products (Archabald & Naughton-Treves 2002), QENP had always been

important in the livelihoods of the local communities, till its

elevation to park status which henceforth disenfranchised local

people by making access illegal. Without doubt, the change in the

status of the park greatly changed the way local people relate with the

park and the resources therein. Whether or not the change has been to

the advantage of local people is uncertain. This study seeks to find

some answers by investigation the effect that park proximity has on

people’s livelihoods. In addition, revenue sharing and direct funding

has been implemented in QENP (Archabald & Naughton-Treves 2002;

Kazoora 2002), to increase benefit flow from the park. The park is also

expected to have multiplier effects that will positively affect

people’s incomes and therefore livelihoods. It is important to make an

assessment if QENP actually contributes to the livelihoods of the

local people surrounding it.

1.3 Purposes of the study The main purpose of the study was to documenting the contributions of

Queen Elizabeth National Park to the socio economic development of

surrounding communities.

1.4 Objective of the studya. To establish services offered by the national park to the

surrounding communities20

b. To investigate the local people’s attitudes and perceptions on the

services offered to the local community and to the surrounding

areas.

c. To assess challenges faced by the surrounding communities due to the

presence of the national park

d. To suggest possible ways of improving community attitude and

benefits in relation to QENP.

1.5 Research questionsa. What are services offered by the national park to the surrounding

communities?

b. Do local people’s attitudes and perceptions on the services offered

to the local community and to the surrounding areas?

c. What are the challenges faced by the surrounding communities due to

the presence of the national park?

d. What are the possible ways of improving community attitude and

benefits in relation to QENP?

1.6.1 Geographical Scope

The study was carried out in Lake Katwe-Kabatoro found at Kasese

District .It is about 30 minutes drive from either gate to QENP park

headquarters. Queen Elizabeth Protected Area (QEPA) is comprised of

QENP with an area of 1,978 km2, and two adjoining wildlife reserves:

Kyambura with 157 km2 and Kigezi with 256 km2. QEPA is situated on the

equator (between latitudes 0◦15’N and 0◦35’S and longitudes 29◦35’W

and 30◦20’ E) within the Albertine Rift Valley and forms part of an

extensive trans boundary ecosystem that includes Kibale National Park

to the northeast and Ruwenzori Mountains National Park to the

northwest (both in Uganda) and the Park National des Virunga in the21

Democratic Republic of Congo (Olivier, Op. Cit.). QENP was first

established as a game reserve in 1934 and was granted national park

status in 1952. It is a semiarid area with typically two dry and two wet

seasons annually. The dry seasons are approximately from December to

February and from June to August. The wet seasons are from March to May

and September to November. The annual precipitation varies widely

within the Park. It averages 1,200 mm near the rift wall. Around Lakes

Edward and George it averages about 500 mm.

The PA territory comprises a range of diverse habitats, including open

grassland, grassland with thickets, thick bush, forests, wetlands,

and 250 km of lakeshore. It borders lakes Edward and George and

contains, Kazinga Channel, a range of crater lakes, and a wetland. A

general and vegetation map of QENP is presented in Appendix 1. QEPA

supports 556 recorded bird species and several large carnivores

represented by lion, leopard, and spotted hyena. The Park’s notable

primates are chimpanzee and red-tailed colobus monkey. There are also

elephants, buffalos, hippopotamuses, Uganda kobs, waterbucks,

topies, and warthogs. The boundaries of the QEPA have never adequately

been marked on the ground. In many instances, legal descriptions are

either missing or poorly or inaccurately described. Many of the PA

boundary markers have been shifted or removed completely by the

settlers, exacerbating land use problems with livestock, settlement,

and cultivation encroachment.

QENP Villages

In 1964 four fishing villages were legally established (locally

referred to as “gazetted”) as wildlife sanctuary inside QENP public22

enclaves: Hamukungu, Kasenyi, Katunguru-B (Bushenyi Sub-county), and

Katwe-Kabatoro. The boundaries of these villages were legally

described but not adequately marked on the ground (Olivier, 2000).

Even where boundary demarcations exist, trespass with livestock

occurs frequently. Six other nongazetted villages exist within QEPA:

Kahendero, Kasenyi, Katunguru-K (Kasese District), Kayanja, Kazinga,

and Rwenshama. A seventh non gazetted village, Kashaka, lies inside

the Kyambura Wildlife Reserve. The absence of legal status of these

seven villages makes the role of UWA in managing activities within

these villages vague (Id .).

According to figures reported in 2000 the population of these 11

villages was 30,000. An additional 50,000 people lived in 52 parishes

bordering the QEPA (Id .). With an average annual population growth rate

of more than 3.5%, the 2009 population size of the communities within

QENP is estimated to be more than 100,000. PA natural resources

commercially exploited or used for subsistence purposes include lake

fish, firewood, salt and metal mining, timber, thatching grass,

papyrus, sand, murram, and pasture. Under a semiformal arrangement

with UWA, a limited number of activities, including subsistence levels

of fishing and firewood harvesting, are allowed, but the current scale

of QEPA resource extraction seems to have exceeded sustainable levels

of resource exploitation (Id.).

The living standards of people living in and around QENP are

predominantly low and, in the absence of alternative livelihood

options, there is a tendency to turn to unsustainable exploitation of

the Park resources. Such activities include over-fishing, grazing23

livestock, and exploitation of game meat, firewood, and timber.

Coupled with increasing population pressure and inefficient land use,

resource extraction in the Park has led to further degradation of

natural resources in the areas within and outside QENP. Consequences

of living within and along the boundary of QEPA are similar to those

borne by local communities living next to PAs elsewhere in Africa. As

people encroach into land designated as wildlife habitat in the

national parks, their crops are eaten or trampled by wildlife,

livestock are predated by large carnivores as lions and leopards, and

people are injured and in some cases killed by wildlife. In the absence

of effective human-wildlife conflict control, families living within

or near the PA have taken to poaching and retaliatory elimination of

the carnivores, particularly the QENP lions.

1.6.2 Time scope

The study covered the period of 6 months that is from December 2013– May

2014 so as to come up with correct and up to date data.

1.6.3 Content Scope The study was on to establish services offered by the national park to

the surrounding communities, to investigate the local people’s

attitudes and perceptions on the services offered to the local

community and to the surrounding areas, To assess challenges faced by

the surrounding communities due to the presence of the national park

and to suggest possible ways of improving community attitude and

benefits in relation to QENP .

24

1.7 Significance of the Study The study may help other researchers to acquire more skills in research

that will enhance future performance and conservation of gazetted by

the neighboring communities.

Data collected in this study may beneficial in guiding future policy

makers, well fare officers, national planners, researchers and

related persons dealing with coexistence of protected areas with

people. Therefore, a source of information in future as it was

available as a documentation reference.

The information from study may be used in libraries for academic

purposes by students, in widening their knowledge on conservation of

gazetted areas and suggest possible recommendations to the policy

makers and government on how to deal with such areas.

The study may help the researcher to fulfill the requirements for the

award of degree in Development Studies Bishop Stuart University.

25

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter helps the research to refer to the past reading, giving

meaning for the study. Therefore this section was classified past

reading according to the themes as derived from the study objectives.

2.1 The services offered by the national park to the surrounding

communities

Involvement and support of local people is paramount in natural

resource management (Ferraro 2001). Variants of collaborative

management are being used in Uganda to boost local involvement in park

management (Mutebi 2003; Namara 2006). As with any other change, there

are winners and losers. Community-based natural resource management

is intended to cater for both the needs of the national government or

its conservation agency and the local people. The benefits to the

government include lower administrative costs by reduction in work

force used in conservation. The effect of adopting community-based

natural resource management on local people needs to be investigated

26

by assessing their level of involvement, their attitude towards park

management and their perceived effect of the park on their livelihoods

compared to the pre community-based management era.

While small scale tourism development may arrest economic dependency,

it may be vulnerable to something more menacing identified by Erisman

(1983) as cultural dependency. Erisman developed the theory of

cultural dependency to explain the adoption of Western norms and

values among residents at tourist destinations in the West Indies.

Erisman’s work is based on Frank’s (1967) original dependency theory

but adds a cultural twist. The logic is simple. Tourism between the

center and the periphery creates a subservient periphery. Erisman

argues subservience has a cultural dimension. It manifests itself when

residents in the periphery perceive their own culture as inferior to

that of the center. In such a case, it is the tourists’ norms and values

which define society.

Relating a completely different experience, Urbanowicz (1989)

reported tourism’s effect on the small island state of Tonga. Tonga

receives thousands of tourists at a time from cruise ships. Tourists

briefly tour the island and then return to the ship. When disembarking

for just a short visit, tourists expect to see Tongan culture

prominently on display as if the island were an anthropical zoo. As a

result, Tongans present an easily manageable but fake culture for the

tourists, leaving their real culture off display. While tourism’s

commoditization of culture in Tonga resulted in a fake or watered down

version being sold, in the Basque country of Spain it defiled a

centuries old festival and alienated residents from participating in

27

it (Greenwood, 1989). In Fuentearrabia, Spain, the Alarde festival

commemorates the union of the town to resist French invasion in the

year 1638. In 1969, the municipal government declared the ceremony

open to tourists. Slowly, local participation dropped as tourism grew.

It became an obligation to the tourists and the spirit and meaning of

the ceremony was lost. In summary, Nunez (1989) notes a particular

irony evident in Hosts and Guests. The irony is that for many

developing countries perpetuating their cultural identity in an

increasingly homogenized world often requires the assistance of

tourists – a powerful source of cultural change.

Since Hosts and Guests, much has been written about tourism’s social

and cultural impacts. Brunt and Courtney (1999) offered an excellent

review of this literature. They found the literature identified the

key social impacts of tourism development to be: the concentration of

power among elites; the loss of local decision making power; erosion of

gender segregation and increased opportunities for women; and a shift

in demographics favoring young transients looking for work;

dependency; and over-crowding. They found the literature identified

the key social impacts of tourist-host interaction to be: changes in

perceived safety and security; a worsening attitude towards tourists;

the imitation of perceived tourist lifestyles; introduction of new

languages; erosion of local language; conflict; preservation of

historic sites; avoidance of tourist areas, resentment due to economic

inequality; and resentment over inflated prices. Lastly, they found

the literature identified the key cultural impacts of tourism to be:

commoditization of culture; revitalization of culture;

acculturation; destruction of culture; and temporary change in host28

behavior. These impacts are quite varied and reported from studies all

over the world. Nevertheless, they found evidence of most of them in

their study of a sea-side resort town in the UK. This opens the way for

some broader generalizations about tourism’s social and cultural

impacts.

Accordingly, many of the impacts identified by Brunt and Courtney

(1999) have been noted in Africa. Mansberger (1995) revealed that

tourism in Kenya has encouraged undesirable behavior among residents

such as begging and prostitution. Importantly, he notes this behavior

is reduced in communities with strong native institutions. Ebron’s

(1997) research in The Gambia found tourism attracted an abundance of

young local men who challenged elder authority and traditional values

by selling themselves to female tourists. Aziz (1995) found that many

of tourism’s excesses offended the religious sensibilities of

conservative African Muslims. Likewise, Sindiga (1996) observed

Muslims along the Kenyan coast resented the western values inherent in

tourism such as scantily clad women, alcohol consumption and public

displays of affection. As a result, most chose not to get involved in

the industry.

Gossling’s (2002) research reveals that in Zanzibar, local emulation

of tourists’ consumptive lifestyle has lead to the wasteful use of

natural resources and the disintegration of kinship ties. Jamison’s

(1999) research in Kenya found tourism development stimulated ethnic

conflict as people vied for particular identities favored by tourism.

Finally, Teye, Sonmez and Sirakaya (2002) found that packaged tours in

Ghana seldom met local expectations, were of foreign origin, excluded29

important local decision makers and sometimes led to undesirable

social behavior.

A socio-cultural impact of tourism not identified by Brunt and

Courtney (1999) but which has a long history in Africa is the

“othering” of African people. That is to say, tourism’s construction

of African people as a spectacle different and all together removed

from modern society. For example, Akama (1996; 1999), Mansberger

(1995) and Lepp (2002a) all suggest that tourism in Africa has

contributed to the construction of Africa as a wild and primitive land,

epitomized as the “dark continent.” Eastman (1995) noted tourism in

Kenya creates the image abroad that the entire country is populated by

Swahili speaking Masai herdsman. In reality, Masai are just one ethnic

group of many in Kenya and Swahili is not their native language. Mary

Louise Pratt (1992) in her book, Imperial Eyes, explores the origins of

Africa’s construction as wild and primitive through an analysis of

early European travel writings. In her analysis, Pratt coined the term

“contact zone.” In a limited sense, the “contact zone” refers to the

space in which the encounter between western travelers and native

people occurs. In a broader sense, it encompasses the space of all

interactions between people historically, culturally, and

geographically separated. It is in the “contact zone” that the western

traveler and the natives of distant lands first interacted, often with

an imbalance in power relations. As a result of this power imbalance,

the “contact zone” allowed the traveler to construct and classify the

image of the native or the “other.” As the literature shows, this

construction and classification of Africans as something “other”

continues to this day (Keim, 2002; Lutz & Collins, 1993).30

Such social and cultural impacts are likely to cause reaction among the

residents of a destination. Reaction can be considered an adjustment

to tourism’s impacts. Dogan (1989) identified five forms of

adjustment: resistance, retreatism, boundary maintenance,

revitalization and adoption. Resistance reflects extreme

dissatisfaction with tourism and residents act against it. Some acts

of terrorism committed against tourists in Egypt have been committed

for this reason (Aziz, 1995). Retreatism occurs when changes wrought

by tourism are not approved by residents and they retreat in on

themselves. They engage in their own traditions and reinforce pre-

tourism values. This is occurring along the Swahili coast of Kenya

where a devote Muslim population has retreated from tourism (Sindiga,

1996). Retreatism and resistance occur when only negative impacts are

perceived.

An essential part of Dogan’s (1989) analysis is that all of these forms

of adjustment can eventually occur simultaneously in a single

community. As tourism develops in a community, various responses

emerge, some in conjunction with tourism and some in opposition. Thus,

in the case of small, isolated or rural communities with no prior.

Tourism experience, Dogan predicts the initial response to tourism’s

impact will be homogenous. However, as time passes and residents

develop their own understandings of tourism, responses will

increasingly vary. Thus, continued tourism development can create

heterogeneity in small, rural communities. This is in contrast to

models of tourism development that assume a unified reaction like

Doxey’s (1977) and Butler’s (1980).31

As Horn and Simmons (2002) noted, the economic importance of tourism

plays a role in determining residents’ attitudes. As economic benefits

increase, residents’ attitudes become more favorable. Lindberg and

Johnson (1997) found that even the perception of economic impacts is

very influential in determining favorable attitudes towards tourism

and outweighs most perceived disruptions. This reflects the simple,

but often overlooked, fact that as far as destinations are concerned,

tourism is primarily an economic activity. In the developing world,

most communities react positively to the stimulus it brings to the

economy.

When the needs of the tourism industry are not adequately supplied by

domestic sources then goods or services must be imported. Importing

goods and services for tourism sends tourism’s foreign exchange abroad

again. This is known as leakage. Several studies have estimated the

leakage of tourism revenue from developing countries easily exceeds 50

percent (Broham, 1996; Brown, 1998). Tourists from the first world

typically have standards for comfort far above the experience of most

in the developing world. As Smith (1989b) suggested, many tourists

require, if not demand, luxurious, western amenities.

Tourism investments which provide these amenities are typically

capital intensive structures that developing nations can least afford

to build and manage. As a result, multinational corporations like

Sheraton and Hyatt are often courted. While often necessary to

establish a high standard of tourism infrastructure, such foreign

investment is major cause of leakage (Britton, 1996; Honey, 1999). For

example, during the construction of Tanzania’s tourism

32

infrastructure in the 1970s, 40 percent of the government’s tourism

budget went toward importation of materials and expertise unavailable

in Tanzania (Honey, 1999). In the case of Fiji, Britton (1996) found 53

percent of hotel food purchases, 68 percent of standard hotel

construction and 95 percent of tourist shop wares were imported.

In Buhoma, Uganda a community cooperative competes successfully with

Abercrombie and Kent, a UK based tour operator, in supplying visitors

to a nearby national park with food and lodging (Lepp, 2002b). In

Zimbabwe, the now famous CAMPFIRE program that devolves the management

of land to the community level, has had success experimenting with

small scale, community operated tourism (Muzvidziwa, 1999). Ashley’s

(1998) research of tourism in Namibia showed that partnerships between

external investors and community co-operatives have proven

profitable for all parties involved and keep a larger portion of

tourism revenue in local hands. Studies such as these indicate that

well organized African communities can compete in the competitive

tourism industry.

Obviously, small scale investment cannot produce the level of luxury

that mass tourists demand. Therefore, such tourism development should

target tourists akin to Cohen’s (1972) drifter and explorer. Such

tourists adapt well to, or even search for, local food, culture and

accommodation. The money they spend typically remains in local hands.

Research by Hampton (1998) and Scheyvens (2002) validates this point.

Both researchers found that backpackers, typically explorers or

drifters by nature, make significant contributions to local economies

without triggering significant leakage. The money that backpackers

33

spend goes directly to local people who themselves are supported by a

network of local producers ranging from farmers to laborers to

artisans. Therefore, small scale, local investment in tourism has the

potential to take control away from the center and leave a higher

percentage of capital in the periphery.

2.2 The local people’s attitudes and perceptions on the services

offered to the local community and to the surrounding areas.

Uganda’s tourism sector less considers the role played by local

population in the development of the sector. Locals are taken as poor

people who cannot financially contribute to the development of tourism

sector (Adams et al, 1992). Uganda has adopted local tourism as part of

its strategy for continued economic development. Local tourism

development as a policy has added perceived advantages; it has

provided income for conservation projects and encouraged local

communities to become resource protectors as opposed to local resource

users. This research is to investigate local communities’ perceptions

of the change from   being resource users to resource protectors, which

is hypothesized to be a dramatic social, cultural and economic

impact  (Cleminson et al, 2000).

In a wider context local tourism has been recognized to act as a linkage

between development, conservation and the community at the grass root

level and hence make the development process more responsible to those

it intends to serve. Policies have been introduced  to make local

populations more responsible for the natural environment.  The link in

the relationship between conservation, conserved areas and their

future is proclaimed to be local tourism since local community members

can be the best agents for success (Mcshane, 1992).34

Proponents of community conservation present it as a means of

reconciling conservation and development objectives by ensuring that

the interests of local people are taken into account in making trade-

offs. Conservation critics see it as a challenge to the state-led,

scientific management that is necessary to guarantee the preservation

of biodiversity. The key questions about community conservation are

who should set the objectives for conservation policy on the ground and

how should trade-offs between the diverse objectives of different

interests be negotiated. Local tourism has to be both ecologically and

socially conscious. Its goal is to minimize the impact that tourism has

on an area through cooperation and management and in some case it even

encourages travelers to have a positive impact on their new

surroundings (Barrow, 1993)

Much of tourism’s impact in the developing world has resulted from

conflict over natural resources. The origins of this conflict date to

the colonial period. As described by MacKenzie (1998), during most of

the India’s and Africa’s colonial period, safari hunting by privileged

whites was pursued vigorously and with no regards for sustainability.

These early safaris, coupled with the advance of colonial settlers,

took a tremendous toll on wildlife. For example, President Roosevelt

alone shot over 3000 specimens of wildlife in Kenya in 1909 (Roosevelt,

1910). Ironically, colonial authorities blamed indigenous people for

the decline in wildlife. Consequently, indigenous people were forced

out of ecologically rich land in order to create game parks for the use

of white hunters. These game parks eventually became the national

parks and wildlife reserves of today (MacKenzie, 1998).

35

In many places across the developing world, the wounds inflicted

during the creation of the early game parks still fester today and the

conflict continues. The modern conflict is characterized by two

diverging value systems. The dominant value system is epitomized by

Western style conservation (Del Gizzo, 1998; Lepp, 2002a). In the

West, it is a common belief that protecting the world’s remaining

natural areas is a moral duty (Alcorn, 1993; Neumann, 1998). On the

contrary, across the developing world it is a common belief that

everyone has a moral right to subsistence. In other words, everyone

should have access to the basic requirements of a healthy life –

nutritious food, drinking water, adequate shelter, etcetera. Yet, as

resources are removed from local use by parks, and crops are destroyed

by protected wild animals, the moral right to subsistence is violated

(Guha, 1997; Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Neumann, 1998). The result is that

people living near national parks in the developing world still have

very negative views about them.

Conflict also stems from disregard for local connections to the land.

It (1996) found that the creation of Nigeria’s Cross River National

Park severed residents’ historic ties with the land. This fostered

negative attitudes among locals despite a high level of local

awareness regarding natural resource conservation issues. Similar

results have been found for parks in Ecuador (Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995),

China (Jim & Xu, 2002), and Cameroon (Weladji et al 2003). Neumann

(1998) found the creation of Mount Meru National Park in Tanzania

separated people from both economically and culturally significant

resources. In response, local people used social networks

36

inaccessible to park staff to access resources and befuddle consequent

investigations by park authorities.

Despite the successes of protected areas like Annapurna, including

local people in park management still has its hurdles. A major obstacle

is an attitude among some park managers that local people are not

qualified to participate in resource management decisions. The value

managers place upon their technical training discounts local

knowledge (Gillingham & Lee, 1999; Jim & Xu, 2002; Weladji et al.,

2003). Community based conservation is an idea often purveyed by parks

to overcome this perceived deficit in local understanding. Community

based conservation is simply teaching environmental ethics and

sustainable conservation practices at the community level (Hulme &

Murphee, 2001). It is intended to promote a bottoms-up approach to

conservation as opposed to a top-down approach originating within a

park. The irony is that most community conservation programs are

initiated by government agencies with

Western donor support (Honey, 1999). This makes the idea essentially a

centrally directed top-down approach. In Uganda, the success of

community based conservation has recently been tested. Focusing on

communities neighboring national parks, Mugisha (2002) compared

seven communities that had participated in community based

conservation programs with nine communities that had not. Despite over

ten years of community based conservation, his results showed no

difference in the communities’ attitudes towards the national parks.

Attitudes towards parks and conservation were negative and indicated

communities were interested in utilitarian uses of natural resources

37

as opposed to their exclusive conservation. Other studies from Africa

indicate utilitarian values for natural resources are regarded more

highly than the western conservation values promoted by parks (Bauer,

2003; Gillingham & Lee, 1999; Hill, 1998; Songorwa, 1999). This is more

proof of the ideological divide separating western conservationists

and local people (Neumann, 1998).

Ecotourism is one possibility for bridging this ideological divide.

Properly defined, ecotourism is low-impact travel to protected

natural areas that educates the traveler and local people, funds

conservation efforts, economically benefits and empowers local

people and fosters respect for cultural differences (Honey, 1999). In

places like Uganda where community based conservation has failed to

improve local attitudes about national parks, ecotourism may succeed

by generating immediate utilitarian value from the protected

resources. In fact, in Uganda’s Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National

Park, local involvement in the park’s ecotourism is beginning to shift

attitudes about the park from negative to positive (Lepp, 2002b).

Similar studies from around the world confirm ecotourism’s ability to

involve local people and improve their attitudes about protected areas

(Mehta & Heinen, 2001; Picard, 2003; Sekhar, 2003; Walpole & Goodwin,

2001).

Whether this translates into local conservation practices that are

more in line with the park’s objectives is another question. Research

by Stem et al., (2003) has found that Costa Rican communities

participating in ecotourism have largely abandoned environmentally

destructive practices. However, participation in ecotourism has not38

necessarily led to a conservation ethic. Respondents indicated that

when fully employed by ecotourism they no longer had time to hunt or

harvest timber. This partly explains the change in behavior.

Surprisingly, respondents employed in ecotourism were more likely

than those not employed to indicate that hunting and timber harvesting

are justified when alternative means of income generation are not

available. Based on this finding, the authors caution that creating

economic dependence on natural resources may be at the expense of non-

use conservation values.

In a separate study from Ecuador, Wunder (1999) found that villages

neighboring a national wildlife reserve and involved in community

based ecotourism had increased environmental awareness compared to

villages not involved in community based ecotourism. This resulted in

greater protection of their local environment. While hunting and

logging were not abandoned, these activities shifted to distant

locations and efforts were made to protect endangered species. Wunder

concluded that participation in ecotourism influences natural

resource use in conjunction with a variety of other factors including

population pressures, community organization, and historical and

cultural influences.

2.3. Challenges faced by the surrounding communities due to the

presence of the national park

In Queen Elizabeth National Park, most frequent problems were charcoal

burning and vegetation destruction in 1996, and game poaching,

prevalent in 1998. In Mgahinga National Park, the most common illegal

activities were wire snares and vegetation destruction, recorded in39

1995, 1997 and 2000. In Murchison Falls National Park, game poaching

was recorded in almost all years, with pitsawying and encroachment

recorded in 1992, 1993 and 1997. In Lake Mburo, the most occurring

illegal activities were vegetation destruction and game poaching.

Creating a real and lasting relationship is not easy, especially in the

context of doubt conflict between protected area managers and local

people. Nor is the implicit change of protected area authority

attitudes towards local community issues easy. The prevalent

attitudes of protected area authorities towards local communities

simply keep them out. The authorities feel that local people do not

care about wildlife though they live with it every day. They have been

labeled as a problem (Mcshane, 1992).

It is difficult to change anti poaching and protectionists model to one

of conciliation, consultation and enablement. Illegal hunting,

changing land uses and degradation of wildlife habitats in the

country's land landscape has been an issue of concern with regard to

wildlife conservation outside protected areas. The attitude of

communities towards the wildlife and protected areas is not conducive

for wildlife conservation.

The relationship between the tourist resources and the local

communities is bitter in that local people particularly those who keep

livestock consider the wild animals as destructive, dangerous, and a

nuisance predator with no economic value, and which should be

exterminated. Persons who have hunted and killed wild animals are

highly regarded, feared and treated as family, clan or tribal heroes.

Local community members around QENP particularly those exploited by

40

the parks, see no good reasons of protecting/ conserving protected

areas (Williams, 2001).

And considering the historical and current human settlement pattern,

and in particular how this relates to wild animals distribution, the

species is widely known for its very stealth behaviors attacking and

killing local people’s livestock and sometimes people, and in response

the local communities killing it, mostly through prey-bait poisoning

or direct hunting.(Williams, 2001).

Though integration is positive to tourism, wildlife, natural resource

conservation and sustainable community livelihood practices it faces

several challenges. To minimize losses and damage to human life and

property caused by problem animals and reduce conflict between

wildlife and people, the governments established Problem Animal

Units. The units were established to: Minimize the danger caused to

human life and property by problem animals. Minimize the negative

attitude among the communities towards wildlife conservation created

by problem animals (Reid, 1998)

Work with stakeholders in managing problem animals and vermin. .

Minimize conflict between wildlife, wildlife managers on one part and

communities on the other, and therefore promote wildlife conservation

(Reid, 1998). Competition for resources especially grazing grounds

and water is a big challenge among the pastoral communities who depend

on cattle for their livelihood. There is still the problem of spread of

diseases to the cattle and attack from carnivores. This challenge has

41

remained unresolved and always threatens the co-existence between

pastoralists and PA wildlife. (UWA, 2002)

Wildlife and other natural resources diversely exist within and

outside the protected areas. Wherever they exist, efforts must be made

to ensure their survival through sustainable integrated planning and

management, and communities must sustainable derive their livelihood

from them if co-existence must occur. The development of wildlife

based projects on community land outside PAs present great challenges,

and will depend on size of the area, security, location and proximity

to parks and reserves among others.

Wildlife Management Areas such as Sanctuaries and Community Wildlife

Areas (CWAs) were created to provide for the interests of wildlife

conservation, rural inhabitants and sustainable community use of

wildlife on their land for a livelihood. However, much hinges on the

definition of ‘property rights’. When people or communities are

declared bona fide owners of land, the issue of CWAs becomes complex as

user rights are limited to certain activities. Section 21 of the Land

Act forbids hunting, cultivating, grazing domestic animals, or

lighting fires in any ‘wildlife conservation area’ (including

community wildlife areas, where, by definition, people have property

rights) unless “provided for by the Act” (Homewood, 1998)

Therefore, there can be little enthusiasm for landowners to agree to

upgrade their land to CWA status, since many of the activities that

support their livelihood (e.g. cultivation, cattle herding) will be

illegal, or regulated by the State. In addition, the prospect of having

the status of private land changed by an Act of Parliament is

42

intimidating to landowners. It is not clear from the Act whether such

land then becomes ‘state land’ or remains private land. There are other

disincentives for establishing CWAs. For example, if communities or

landowners themselves wish to use wildlife on their land, they can only

do so with a Wildlife Use Right which is difficult to obtain. However,

landowners may sanction others to conduct the activities on their

behalf, and obtain the necessary Wildlife Use Right accordingly

(Walter, 2007).

This is exemplified in the sport hunting scheme around QENP

Conservation Area where hunting carried out on private land mainly

benefit the hunting company, which has the Wildlife Use Right and the

landowners, receive only 10% benefits from the hunting. The landowners

themselves have no Wildlife Use Right, and none of the QENP area is

gazetted as a Community Wildlife Area. This begs the question “What is

the real function of WURs and CWAs” if a WUR is simply a license, and if

communities may derive benefits from wildlife without their land being

a designated CWA There are also misunderstandings concerning the

functions of CWAs and wildlife sanctuaries (Walter, 2007).

People may live in both types of PA, but it is implied in the Act that

only in CWAs may people actually derive benefits from wildlife. In the

sanctuaries, wildlife is protected and there is no reason why people

may not benefit from wildlife in a non consumptive way in the wildlife

sanctuaries where they own the land. Wildlife conservation can be

sustainable integrated with rangeland productivity activities. In

the past, rangelands have supported pastoralists with their large

herds of livestock despite the long drought spells and associated poor

water and pasture conditions (Muhwezi, 1993).

43

The range of options for integrating wildlife with natural resources

management for tourism and livelihoods in East Africa leaves much

desired. There are many successes made and challenges to overcome.

Wildlife populations were drastically depleted across the Protected

Areas due to the exclusion methods of management earlier applied and

inherited from the colonial period.

Wildlife in most community areas outside PAs remained not sufficient

to support wildlife-based enterprises like tourism as would be

desired. The agricultural potential of areas outside Protected Areas

still far exceeds any possible returns from wildlife. Although

communities and landowners may derive some revenues from activities

such as sport hunting, the operating costs for these schemes are borne

by the hunting operator since the communities do not have the capacity

(Ashley, 2001).

It is imperative to note that all aspects of sustainable economic

growth, and wildlife and other natural resources make significant

contribution to the well being of humanity in terms of food, commercial

activities, medicine, energy, shelter and other social values. It is

therefore important to integrate wildlife, in the management of other

natural resources so that it can directly contribute to the

livelihoods of the communities and sustainable resource utilization

and management.

2.4 To suggest possible ways of improving community attitude and

benefits in relation to QENP

Queen Elizabeth National Park was created in 1960 by government in an

area formerly gazetted as a game reserve. It was created in a very

44

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 QENP 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 (Ashley, 2001).

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 were very difficult and bore

minimal positive results. This situation lasted from 1960 when the

park was created until the 1964s.

It was therefore necessary to build relationships between sustainable

community systems and create new alliances between conservation and

local communities. The African wild life foundation, an international

conservation non Governmental organization, has helped develop the

field of community conservation through its “protected areas,

neighbors as partners” program in East Africa. The principle that

local communities should be involved and benefit from conservation of

protected areas is now widely accepted but there is still little

experience of how to put the principle into practice. Community

conservation seeks to involve local people in dialogue which will lead

45

to joint responsibility for natural resources and sharing in the

benefits of conservation (Barrow et. al. 1993).

The QENP experience also shows that though direct benefits in form of

social infrastructure, communal and income generating projects have

began to flow from the park to the people; individuals do not

necessarily perceive them as benefits. To them, it’s realized that

QENP 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.

The ultimate benefits of community conservation include maintenance

of protected area integrity, resolution of conflict resulting in

sustainable conservation for improved food security and household

economics of rural resource users and may be both attitudinal and

physical. Community conservation needs to be able to achieve its

conservation objectives. However community conservation cannot be

simplified to the provision of benefits but has to relate to wider

issues of land use and tenure together with local and national economic

needs and aspirations (Barrow et. al. 1993)

Partnership and consultation, concern over sustainability has led to a

voice in decision making, an increased responsibility and benefit

sharing are seen as keys to long term sustainability of protected

areas. This hinges on the creation of attitudes of responsibility

towards natural resource, understanding, problems and opportunities

that exist and enablement (Namara, 2006).

The government of Uganda is giving priority to the development of the

46

local tourism industry so that the country can win its fair share of the

millions of visitors each year from around the world who want to

experience firsthand some of the very special places that abound on the

African continent (Ashley, 2001).

National park authorities in East Africa have been evolving a

functional means for involving neighbours as partners in conservation

through East Africa programme over the past six years. Issues are

discussed with park management in the national park and broad

problems, opportunities and priority target areas are selected. This

forms the basis for opening channels of communication target areas

being informally surveyed. District and local level support is

solicited. Initial baseline socio-economic data is gathered from

various sources including park records, literature, establishing

district and village profile for the priority areas.

To date Tourism Revenue-Sharing (TRS) programs have been identified.

Local conditions and national policies that shape the success of TRS

programs were identified by comparing the experiences of both

implementers and beneficiaries of pilot TRS programs at the three

parks in western Uganda (QENP inclusive) between 1995 and 1998,

communities around these parks used a total of US $83 000 of tourism

revenue to build 21 schools, four clinics, one bridge, and one road. In

1996, the Ugandan parliament passed legislation that changed both the

amount of money available for TRS and the institutions responsible for

sharing the money.

According to Barrow and Murphree‟s (2001) the strength of a

collaborative management agreement is subject to the level of benefits

47

derived from resource use and the contribution to local livelihoods

that such resources make. Since community members do not equally

benefit, the community will be stratified in terms of motivation and

enthusiasm to fulfill their obligation and may also result into

intercommunity tensions (Namara 2006).

The Queen Elizabeth National Park Community Conservation Project

(QECCP), now the Community Conservation for Uganda Wildlife Authority

Project (CCUWA), funded initially by SIDA and then by USAID, and

implemented by the African Wildlife Foundation and Uganda National

Parks (now Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)), commenced in 1991. QENP

is employing staff specifically designated as community conservation

officers and a range of activities to improve local awareness of

conservation issues, increase local participation in sustainable

income generating activities and initiate and support community-

initiated development projects. With such projects, park management

started 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 has also provided funds for the PMAC operations and

helped them to become more sustainable in their role as

representatives of the local communities (Annual wildlife report,

2007).

The Uganda Wildlife Policy (1999), the Wildlife Act (Cap 200 of 2000)

and the UWA Community Conservation Policy (2004) all recognize the

contribution of wildlife to the well being of humanity and highlight

the need to share benefits accruing from wildlife if wildlife

conservation is to be meaningful. Sharing of benefits from wildlife is

also important in promoting positive attitudes, knowledge and change

48

of behavior of the neighboring communities and the general public

towards wildlife conservation in general.

Uganda Wildlife Authority has implementing wildlife use rights (WUR)

since 2001 on pilot basis in accordance with the Uganda Wildlife Policy

1999 and section 29 of the Uganda Wildlife Act 2000. Wildlife use

rights was put in place as an incentive to promote the conservation of

wildlife outside Protected Areas (PAs) and eliminate the negative

perception by some people who still regarded wildlife as Government

property and of benefit to only foreign tourists. The overall

objective of granting WUR is to promote sustainable extractive

utilization of wildlife by facilitating the involvement of landowners

and users in managing wildlife on private land.

In the private ranches around Queen Elizabeth National Park for

example, the pastoralists on whose land the wild animals reside

perceive them as a problem because they destroy their property and

compete with livestock for pasture, water and salt leaks. The

residents on ranches see wildlife as useless and destructive, and this

attitude has encouraged illegal hunting. Therefore, there has been a

need to save wildlife resident on the ranches and give value to the

wildlife as an incentive to the landowners to manage and protect it. In

reaction to the situation, sport-hunting program (based on Class A

Wildlife Use Rights) as a wildlife management tool has been initiated

and implemented on the ranches around Queen Elizabeth National Park.

These organizations argue that environmental protection could

significantly be enhanced if the support of local communities living

in, or adjacent to, protected areas is guaranteed and that this could

49

be achieved if such communities derive socio-economic benefits by

conserving their environment and foregoing unfriendly environmental

development (Balmford and Whitten, 2003; Naidoo and Adomowicz, 2005).

On the other hand, environmentalist argue that in countries such as,

Kenya and Tanzania, the uncontrolled development of tourist

facilities and large numbers of visitors in protected areas has

resulted in a significant loss of biodiversity (Sindiga, 1999).

Furthermore, despite such developments, the net benefits accruing to

local communities are minimal and the various challenges to

conservation including human-wildlife conflicts and encroachment on

protected areas have been on the increase (Manyara and Jones, 2008).

According to Thompson (1997) many of the protected areas were created

with little consideration of traditional land use systems in the areas

concerned, with little regard to the impact on local communities. The

prohibition of human habitation led to a loss of access to varied

resources critical to household needs and local communities had little

option but to continue using resources within protected areas in

contravention of protected area legislation. The resulting

confrontation with government authorities has often led to growing

antagonism, and in some cases to communities perceiving interests of

conservation to be contrary to community development. The insular

approach to wildlife management evolved at a time when human

population densities around protected areas were low and human

activities within the protected areas borders were relatively

insignificant. Conservation and human development were able to

proceed in isolation simply because there was room and a sufficient

supply of natural resources (MNRT, 1986). Present day trends in the50

protected areas indicate that there can be no long-term future in such

an insular and antagonistic relationship between local communities

and conservation areas, as the number of people and demand for land and

resources have escalated. The implication is that it is no longer

possible to ignore local communities and their development needs since

this will only place the long-term future of the protected areas in

jeopardy (MNRT, 1986). And yet, wildlife remains a source of cultural

identity for many indigenous people, and wildlife resources may be

valued in cultural, spiritual, ecological and economic terms (IIED,

2000b).

Maganga (2002) stated that the aim of conventional wildlife

conservation was protecting the resource, and to effect this, there

were laws prohibiting the use of the resource by the indigenous

communities who had been custodians of the resource for centuries. The

laws were used as a tool to facilitate punishing people who were

supposedly found using the resource illegally. By using this approach,

it was expected that the resource system would be stable and viable,

which was never achieved. Local communities perceived that the state

was taking away their natural and ancestral lands and transforming

them into restricted wildlife conservation areas and augmented them

with legislation that forbid the people to practice traditional

wildlife utilization in these areas. Apart from that, wildlife

conservation areas were formerly used communally by the people as

common lands for obtaining wood fuel, building materials, and

medicinal plants, for grazing their livestock and as cultural sites,

which again they were denied access without being given alternatives.

Worse still, local communities had to bear both the social and economic

51

costs and losses due to wild animals marauding or attacking livestock,

human beings and destroying crops (Bell, 1987; Maganga, 2002). Because

of such circumstances, the communities created a feeling that people’s

lives were less valued than that of wildlife. They thus developed an

antagonistic behaviour towards both wildlife and employees of

wildlife institutions. The outcome of this was poaching and

occasionally killing employees of the wildlife institutions

(Maganga, 2002).

A community is taken to refer to a homogenous group of common interest

generally resulting from a shared history, sense of tradition or

residence within a common area (IIED, 2000c). Also a community is

regarded as a group of people associated in spatial, social, cultural

or economic terms which occupy, have access to, or have a legitimate

interest in a particular local geographical area. A community

represents users of a resource rather than a homogenous resident unit

(IIED, 2000a).

A range of both plant and animal resources contribute to local

livelihoods in the region, and the term wildlife resources encompass

wildlife and the habitats on which it depends (IIED, 2000c).

Community-based conservation refers to the application of rules and

regulations to ensure the long-term sustainability of wildlife

resources use and hence the biodiversity. Barrow and Murphree (2001)

identify three categories of community conservation that have

occurred in Africa namely:

Protected area outreach that seeks to enhance the biological

integrity of National Parks and Reserves by working to educate and

52

benefit local communities and enhance the role of a protected area

in local plans. In East Africa this has been the predominant

approach, (e.g. the Community Conservation Service, CCS of TANAPA).

Collaborative management that seeks to create agreements between

local communities or groups of resources users and conservation

authorities for negotiated access to natural resources which are

usually under some form of statutory authority. For example the

Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) community conservation programme

takes this form through negotiation of resource sharing agreements.

Community-based conservation, which has the sustainable

management of natural resources through the devolution of control

over these resources to the community as its chief objective. This

has been the predominant approach in Southern Africa, for example

Zimbabwe, Namibia, and pilot projects in Tanzania (SRCP, SCP, and

MBOMIPA).

In East Africa arrangements for collaborative management and

community-based conservation have evolved in recognition that

community conservation is more than outreach programmes (IIED,

2000a).

The conflicts between protected area authorities and local

communities has prompted growing calls for protected areas to play a

greater role in the development of adjacent local communities. As a

result there has been an evolution of a variety of approaches seeking

to achieve this. These have been described as benefit sharing, joint

management, integrated conservation and development projects (MNRT,

1986; Thompson, 1997).

53

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

This chapter describes the methodology that was employed in conducting

the study. This chapter was focus on the description of the procedures

that was employed in the study. Mugenda and Mugenda, (1999) state that

this chapter should specify the research design, the study population

or the area in which the study was conducted, the sampling design, the

sample size, data sources, data collection instruments and the

validity and reliability of the data collection instruments.

3.1 Area of the study

The study was carried out in Lake Katwe-Kabatoro found at Kasese

District. It is about 30 minutes drive from either gate to QENP park

headquarters.

3.2 Research Design

Research design provides the glue that holds the research project

together. An exploratory research design was used although some

analytical, observation and descriptive techniques was employed

which help the researcher to get detailed information from relevant

persons. Exploratory was the appropriate method to discover community

54

understands of documenting the contributions of Queen Elizabeth

National Park to the social economic development of surrounding

communities , to show how all of the major parts of the research project

- the samples or groups, measures, treatments or programs, and methods

of assignment - work together to try to address the central research

questions (William M.K. Trochim; 2006).

The research design was exploratory and Descriptive which helped to

explore and investigate more on integrating Eco tourism in pastoral

resource systems. This helped the researcher to get detailed

information to intensively study the relevance of documenting the

contributions of Queen Elizabeth National Park to the socio-economic

development of surrounding communities - Uganda as a whole. Using

descriptive techniques, it was discovered that although the

collaboration of Uganda wildlife Authority and Lake Katwe-Kabatoro

authorities and the communities around the park have tried to bridge

the gap between the wild life and the people but the relationships are

still hostile though there are some credits in relation to past years.

3.3 Study Population

Target population is defined as a compute set of individuals,

cases/objects with some common observable characteristics of a

particular nature distinct from other population. According to Ngechu

(2004), a population is a well defined or set of people, services,

elements, events, group of things or households that are being

investigated. This definition ensures that population of interest is

homogeneous. Population studies are more representative because

everyone has equal chance to be included in the final sample that was

drawn according to Mugenda and Mugenda (1999) (not necessary, remove).55

In this case the study population includes fish men, farmers

(Cultivators and Pastoralists) around Lake Queen Elizabeth National

Park . The study will also included opinion leaders such as local

leaders and park staff. This was to help the researcher get their

opinion about Queen Elizabeth National Park , the contribution of

tourism in improving communities’ standards of living, factors that

influence Queen Elizabeth National Park . On the other hand, local

leaders and park staff help to reveal the strategies to be put in place

in order to improve tourism around Queen Elizabeth National Park .

3.4 Sample Size

The number of respondents interviewed was 50 respondents. These were

interviewed because it will be appropriate sample sizes that were

studied from community members and park authorities in the area. The

sample size included 40 farmers (cultivators and pastorlists), 5 key

informants (local leaders and park authorities) and 5 potential

tourists such as students, business people such as traders.

3.5 Sample Selection Method

According to Sekaran (2003), sampling is the process of choosing the

research units of the target population, which are to be included in

the study . The samples used in the study were selected using purposive

sampling which is a function of non- probability sampling . Under

purposive sampling technique, the researchers were purposely

choosing who, in their opinion are thought to be relevant to the

research topic. In this case, the judgment of the researcher was more

important than obtaining a probability sample. The process of sampling

in this case involved purposive identification of the respondents.

56

Also Simple random sampling and Random route sampling was used to

obtain respondents to participate with in the study. Also purposive

sampling was used to select key informants who have knowledge about

documenting the contributions of Queen Elizabeth National Park to the

social economic development of surrounding communities.

3.6 Data Sources

3.6.1 Primary Data

According to Roston (2001), primary data is that kind of data that has

been gathered for the first time, it has never been reported anywhere.

Primary data were obtained through the use of self-administered

questionnaire to respondents following systematic and established

academic procedures, as suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). In

collecting primary data, the study mainly used structured and semi

structured interviews, in-depth interviews and transect walks. Key

informants were also used to capture a wider knowledge of the people’s

attitude about documenting the contributions of Queen Elizabeth

National Park to the social economic development of surrounding

communities .

3.6.2 Secondary Data

Roston (2001) defines secondary data as that kind of data that is

available, already reported by some other scholars. Secondary data was

used to support the empirical findings of the study. These other

sources of data (Literature review) were Marjory used to back up the

arguments and findings in chapter four and five. Secondary data were

collected from various sources and included statistics, journals,

textbooks and annual reports. This enable the researcher get detailed

57

and relevant information about documenting the contributions of Queen

Elizabeth National Park to the social economic development of

surrounding communities and how it can be implemented.

3.6 Data collection method

The study made use of both primary and secondary data and this was done

through utilization of quantitative methods of data collection. In

quantitative research, the design was developed at the beginning of

the research and deviation of any kind of deviation was permitted as

such deviation is thought to cause problems; communication and

interaction objectively define the fashion, data analysis were takes

place only when the process of data collection was completed, the data

collection methods was standardized and fixed leaving no options for

correction and adjustment.

3.6.1 Interviewing

Face to face interviews was carried out with the top management and

clients to cross check the response from the questionnaire. These were

designed in a way that more specific and truthful answers were got.

These help capture information, not provided by the questionnaires.

The method used Interview guide to capture the respondents‟ views.

These methods were preferred because of its flexibility and ability to

provide new ideas on the subject (Kothri, 1990).

3.6.2 Documentary Analysis

Secondarily data from materials such as textbooks, newspapers,

journals and internet was used to back up primary information and

relate the findings to other approaches already in existence. The

58

method was used document checklists and guides to get views from other

writers which were instrumental especially in comparison analysis and

literature review.

3.7 Data collection instrument

3.7.1 Self-administered questionnaire

This set of pre-set questions, which had both closed and open-ended

questions that were administered to l respondents. The questionnaires

were in English and will take to the selected respondents to fill. In

cases where the respondent could not read and write the researcher read

out the questionnaires and asks the respondent to answer and the

researcher fill the answer given. In cases where the respondents never

understood English an interpreter was used and the answers given were

recorded.

3.7.2 Observation

Economic activities carried out by the communities were seen and

problems faced by the people arising from the Reserve (like crop

raiding by animals) were observed.

3.7.3 Focus Group Discussion

A total of 5 focus group discussions was conducted, two from each of the

two villages closest to the reserve and one in the distant (third)

village. Each focus group has 10 participants and was composed of

people with similar socio-economic backgrounds so as to limit bias and

to ensure free deliberations of the discussants. Focus group

discussions were used to collect only qualitative data. The focus

59

group discussions were used among others, to get information on the

problems associated with wildlife.

3.7.4 Source of Secondary data

The study made use of secondary data from: reports from Uganda Wildlife

Authority, National Forest Authority and Nongovernmental

Organizations (NGOs), News Papers, University libraries, District

Environment departments, and internets.

3.7.5 Discussion

Discussions was conducted with national park staff to get their views

about the legal and illegal activities carried out in the reserve, the

programmes carried out in the communities and how they benefit the

people and the people involvement in the reserve planning and decision

making.

3.8 Research Procedure

An introductory letter was first obtained from the research

Coordinator, Dean Faculty of Business and Development studies of

Bishop Stuart University introducing the researcher to the relevant

authorities allowing her to carryout research in the area of study. The

introductory letter was presented to the office of the Uganda Wildlife

Authority desk, QENP which introduced the researcher to the park

authorities and the neigbouring communities. The UWA desk introduced

the researcher to the lower local political entities like Parishes,

Villages who finally introduced the researcher to the respondents. The

researcher also built the confidence of the respondents by assuring

them that their views were confidential and was used only for academic

purposes.60

3.9 Data processing and Analysis

Data analysis is the science of examining raw data with the purpose of

drawing conclusions about that information. The collected data will be

analyzed using quantitative analysis which majorly involved six major

activities namely, data preparation, counting, grouping, and

relating, predicting and statistical testing.

Data preparation involved all forms of manipulations that was

necessary for preparing data for further processing e.g. coding,

categorizing answers to open-ended questions, editing and checking as

well as preparation of tables; counting included the mechanical task

of registering the occurrence and frequency of the occurrence of

certain answers or research items; grouping and presentation involved

ordering of similar items into groups and this was resulted in

distribution of data presented in the form of tables and graphs;

relating involved cross-tabulation and statistical tests to explain

the occurrence and strength of relationships; predicting is a process

of extrapolating trends identified in the study into the future and

this statistical method helped the researcher complete this task and

finally statistical testing; this refers to the stage where test of

significance, inference, hypotheses and correlation are employed

during the process of analysis.

Also data collected was mostly quantitative, and it was analyzed by

descriptive analysis techniques. The descriptive statistical tools

such as SPSS will help the researcher to describe the data and

determine the extent used. Content analysis was also used to analyze

qualitative data. The findings were presented using tables and charts,61

percentages, means and other central tendencies. Tables used to

summarize responses for further analysis and facilitate comparison.

For this study, the researcher were interested in documenting the

contributions of Queen Elizabeth National Park to the social economic

development of surrounding communities of Lake Katwe-Kabatoro .This

was generated quantitative reports through tabulations, percentages,

and measures of central tendency.

3.10 Ethical Considerations

The researcher protected by the statutory rights of the participants

investigated and were avoided undue intrusion, obtain informed

consent and protect their privacy rights. The researcher was framed

research questions objectively so as to widen the scope of the study

and maintain confidence in the research process. The researcher

sensitive of social and cultural differences and considers

conflicting interests. Lastly the researcher endeavored to report all

findings completely, and objectively with full information on

methodologies to allow research work to be assessed by colleagues and

to increase public confidence and reliability.

3.11 Limitations faced during the study.

Some QENP official was denied the researcher information as they

failed to believe that the research was purely academic. As a result,

the researcher was able to get information from such QENP official.

Poor time management by employees of the QENP was also hindered the

data collection process. Some employees came late as they had other

things to besides working at the QENP office, others did not keep

appointments leading to failure to get responses from them in the end.

62

Resource constraints in form of human, time and technical but the

researcher worked hard for the success of the research studied.

Inadequate cooperation of respondents in form of refusal and delays in

completing questionnaires. However a number of respondents tried to

bring back the questionnaires in time and the researcher tried to be

patience enough to the respondents who delayed in completing

questionnaires.

Respondents may felt insecure to reveal that they empowered but the

researcher assured them that their responses was treated with much

confidentiality

63

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FIELD FINDINGS

4.0 Introduction

This chapter presents analyzed and discussed field findings. It was

done by computer packages especially Micro Soft Excel to generate

graphs, tables and charts to give data presentation more meaning. The

presentation, analysis and discussion of result are based on the

research objectives. The chapter is presented in two sections which

include Biographic characteristics of respondent (sex, Age,

education,) and the rest of the findings basing on the order of

objectives.

Biographic characteristics of the respondents were considered by

looking at their sex, age, education levels and time spent in the area

so as to come up with their views about to documenting the

contributions of Queen Elizabeth National Park to the socio-economic

development of surrounding communities . The chapter then brings out

key roles to establish services offered by the national park to the

surrounding communities. The chapter also gives to investigate the

local people’s attitudes and perceptions on the services offered to

64

the local community and to the surrounding areas , to assess challenges

faced by the surrounding communities due to the presence of the

national park and to suggest possible ways of improving community

attitude and benefits in relation to QENP.

4.1 Biographic Information of Respondents

4.1.1 Sex Composition of Respondents

According to the field findings, most of the respondents were Males 56%

(28) while the rest 44% (22) were Females.

Figure 1 : Showing the Sex Composition of Respondents

Sex Com position of Respondents

56%

44% M alesFem ales

Source: Primary Data, March 2014

The number of Males was more than Females. Sex was highly valued as far

as the topic of the study was concerned “challenges faced in promoting

local tourism”. Men had a lot of literature concerning Queen Elizabeth

National Park and the neighboring societies. Most of these people were

born in the area adjacent to Queen Elizabeth National Park and it was

revealed that the relationship between the protected area and the

neighboring communities was bitter. Local people particularly those

who keep livestock considered the wild animals as destructive,

dangerous, and a nuisance predator with no economic value which should65

be exterminated. Local community members around Queen Elizabeth

National Park particularly those exploited by the park animals see no

good reasons of protecting/ conserving protected areas. The data

collection exercise was in morning hours and during this time, women

would be away in their gardens and therefore the researcher would

interview the husbands and this serves one of the reasons why men were

more than women. Concerning the park authorities, females were

difficult to get because there are few women officers in the park.

However there was no reason given for few women in the park.

4.1.2 Education Levels of Respondents

The study also looked at the levels of education of the respondents

because it was believed that levels of education highly determine

people’s ideas and opinion on local tourism and its challenges. It was

found out that 20 (40%) respondents had not studied, 11 (22%) had

primary education, 3 (6%) had secondary education while the rest

16(32%) had tertiary education.

Figure 2 : Showing Education Levels of Respondents

66

40

32

6

22

051015202530354045

None Prim ary Secondary Tertiary Education Levels

Percentages

Source: Primary Data, March 2014

Respondents who had tertiary education included teachers, park

wardens and even tourists. These had different views concerning local

tourism, some blamed the communities neighboring the park that they

are old-fashioned and they are hard to influence to adopt documenting

the contributions of Queen Elizabeth National Park to the social

economic development of surrounding communities . The illiterate and

primary school respondents were mainly from the communities around the

park and they knew little concerning local tourism.

4.1.3 Occupation of the Respondents

The study went further to find out the occupations of the respondents.

40% (24) were own account workers, 13.3% (8) were farmers, regular paid

private workers16.7% (10), 13.3% (8) were civil servants while the

rest were students and pastoral farmers constituting 8.3% (5) each.

67

Table 1 : Showing Occupations of the Respondents

Occupation Frequency Percentages (%)

Own Account Worker 16 32

Pastoral farming 10 20

Civil Servants 9 18

Farmer 9 18

Students 3 6

Traders 3 6

Total 50 100

Source: Primary Data, March 2014

Research findings indicate that the majority of the respondents were

own account workers 32% (16) and these were mostly the Men. These were

involved in various activities like animal rearing, crop growing as

well as family maintenance (looking after children, cooking food for

them and catering for elderly people). Related to that, crops grown and

animals reared are purposely for subsistence uses (home consumption)

although the surplus products are usually sold for minimum basic needs

like clothing’s, food and shelter.

The women around Queen Elizabeth National Park are not recognized in68

most formal and informal job setting due to limited access to education

and production resources; they lack independency and autonomy in

decision making, toil for long hours and have no control over their

conditions of life. Their valuable socio economic contributions are

unrecognized. The phenomenon is a complex function of multiplicity of

factors, chief among which is inherently discriminatory culture

working against women.

4.1.4 Period Spent in and Around the Park

According to the research conducted in March 2014, the majority of the

respondents had spent more than 10 years in and around the National

park. These mounted to 50% (25) of the respondents interviewed. Most of

these respondents were born there while other migrated from other

parts of the country. They are involved in various activities such as

Pastoral farming, crop cultivation, fishing among others. In relation

to the topic, years spent in the area were crucial in the study that it

helped in analysis of previous relationship between the park and the

residents and the current situation.

The study field also indicated that 34% (17) respondents have stayed

there for years between 11 and 20. Some of these were born there while

others came in as workers in different fields. 24% (12) have spent 21-

30 years in and around the park while the rest 20% (10) respondents,

have spent below 10 years in and around the park. These below 10 years

are predominantly workers in both the park, households’ private

initiatives as well as in public projects. They included cultural

workers, Teachers, fishermen and women as well as house workers. The

years were vital in the study for comparison between relationship

between the park and the residents for different years. It was found69

out that formally, the land that is occupied by the park was owned by

the people but since the proposal of gazetting the land, some people

were displaced.

4.1.5 Land holdings

Land holding varied from being <0.5 acre with (24%) of the respondents

to 20.0% with 2.0-3.0 acres of land, 10% of the respondents own Land

between 1.0-2.0 acres of land and 46 % of the respondents own 3.0-4.0

acres. Although majority of the population seems to have fairly big

plots of land, there is considerable number of people with less than

0.5 acres of land (24%). Shortage of land drives the community to move

into the Queen Elizabeth National Park in search of land for grazing,

cultivation among others since the community depends mainly on

subsistence agriculture for their livelihood. This breeds conflicts

between them and the Queen Elizabeth National Park management. Even if

the people with small landholdings do not directly encroach on the

Queen Elizabeth National Park for farming, they may engage in a lot of

extractive activities such as poaching and illegal cutting of trees

for firewood, thereby exerting excessive pressure on the reserve which

may eventually be a precursor of conflicts between the local

communities and the park authorities

70

Figure 3 : Percentage of respondents with different Land size holdings

Source: Primary Data 2014

4.1.6 Main sources of cash income

Table 2: Main sources of income

Main source of

income Frequency Percentages (%)

Sale of farm produce 20 40 Sale of household

labor

12 24

Hunting 0 0 Charcoal burning 10 20

Petty trade 05 10 Work in the Reserve 03 06

Total 50 100 Source: Primary Data March 2014

From the table, Sources of income were significantly different with

majority of the respondents (40%) citing farm produce as the main

source of income. Labour hire (24%) is another source of income as well71

as charcoal burning by 20% of the respondents. Employment in the Queen

Elizabeth National Park as a benefit to the communities was minimal

with 10% saying the Reserve did not employ them. Although the

questionnaire survey revealed that the unemployment rate for the

sample was 12%, the respondents indicated that unemployment was a

major problem within the community. The disparity between the actual

perceived magnitude of the unemployment problem and the statistical

figures revealed by the questionnaire survey could be due to the fact

that the survey was addressed to a restricted sample frame. The survey

therefore possibly excluded other members of  households who were not

heads of households but were part of the community's labour force.

The high dependence on farm produce for income (stated by 60%)

compounds the problem of land shortage. To increase their incomes, the

community needs to increase farm produce which requires more land

since technology for farming in the area is still poor (improved

farming methods are hardly practiced). In such situations,

encroachment onto the reserve for more land becomes almost inevitable.

There are also indications that some people do not regard the reserve

as being important. This is because many claim the reserve does not

employ them which is an indirect way of saying it does not benefit them.

All the above scenarios provide a fertile ground for conflicts.

72

4.2 To Establish Services Offered By the National Park to the

Surrounding Communities

4.2.1 Community involvement in national park to the surrounding

communities

To ascertain the people’s involvement, respondents were asked a

question whether the community engages in local tourism. 64% (32) said

yes while 36% (18) said they are not involved local tourism.

Figure 4 : Showing Community Involvement in Local Tourism

64%

36% YesNo

Source: Primary Data, March 2014

Different views were given concerning community involvement in local

tourism. 64% (32) respondents revealed that they are involved in

local tourism in various ways and they include; providing market for

the products from the protected areas, providing inputs and handcraft

to the park, labor force and man power plus good to the national park.

Concerning inputs, it was said that some park projects like Lake Katwe

Cultural Conservation Project LKCCP, LKCCA and others allow the

communities around Lake Katwe Kabatoro Town Council to take part in

73

preserving Ankole cow. People who are found of having good cows are

requested to give one cow to the park to conserve them within the park.

Great worry surrounds neighboring communities that at any time, their

local cows can get extinct because most pastoral farmers are

practicing cross breeding which scare away pastoralists that their

long horned cows will be wiped out.

It was revealed that Park neighbors are given chances to sub scribe to

different with in the park. People are required to buy shares depending

on their abilities. The least share is sold at 50,000= and the highest

share is at 300,000=. This creates a warm relationship between the

Elizabeth National Park and the communities around.

Figure 5 : Showing a herd of cattle feeding from the park

Source: Primary Data, March 2014

As presented in plate1 above, communities are allowed to graze their

cows and other animals from the park. However it was said that such

animals are exposed to various dangerous pests and diseases from wild

animals. However, 36% (18) revealed that they can never be involved in

74

local tourism. It was said that they see no good of protecting the

national park because Lake Katwe Kabatoro Town Council gains most from

other national and international tourists. And also sometimes animals

destroy people’s gardens and eat away livestock. So despite the UWA’s

aims of moving towards collaborative management (UWA, 1995), the local

people fell that much is denied from them such as enough grazing

pasture and land for cultivation.

4.2.2 Relationship between Queen Elizabeth National Park and the

Neighboring Community in relation to trust and Support

This theme is presented in two parts (positive and negative)

relationships between Queen Elizabeth National Park and the

community. Protected areas have various contributions to the people

around which help them earn their living as well as foster development

in the area. However protected areas pose some challenges to the

neighbors both direct and indirect.

Table 3 : Showing positive Relationship between Queen Elizabeth

National Park and the Neighboring Community in relation to Trust and Support

Responses Frequency Percentages (%)

Medicine and drugs 1 2.0

Food relief 2 4.0

Employment

opportunities

3 6.0

Tourists create markets 4 8.0

75

Profit Sharing/spot

hunting

3 6.0

Free venues for

Functions

3 6.0

Livelihood improvement 5 10.0

Infrastructural

development

12 24.0

Grazing their cows in

the park

17 34.0

Total 50 100

Source: Primary Data, March 2014

According to the Research conducted, 34% responses indicated that the

park helps the community in and outside the park by allowing them to

graze in the park. It was revealed that usually such practices ensue

during dry seasons when people have no pastures and water for their

animals. This practice is limited to some areas that are neighboring

homes.

From the study, 24% responses indicated that the park contributes to

infrastructural development for both the community and the park

itself. The park has set up different infrastructural facilities among

others include, schools, health facilities as well as roads. These

have helped the communities around the park and the park in that

education and health facilities are brought near them. Schools include

Lake Katwe primary school as well as Lake Katwe Secondary School and

even the park constructs houses for teachers and health facilities.76

Also the roads have linked different areas with in and around the park

and this have created global development of the area (markets and easy

commerce).

Figure 6 : Showing one of the schools that are partially facilitated by

Queen Elizabeth National Park (Lake Katwe Primary School)

Source: Primary Data March 2014

The research data also indicated that 10% responses pointed out

livelihood improvement as one way how people benefit from the park. It

was revealed that some percentage of the gate collections is shared

between the communities around the park. That this has improved on the

relationship between the people and the park because people feel they

own the project at heart and live to guard it against any set back. The

most commonly mentioned communal benefit was Lake Katwe’s secondary

school. A teacher at the primary school who is proud to have a place to

send his graduates told me: The people from this area are really benefiting, we

are the ones getting education from this school. Maybe a certain group is benefiting

more than the rest but I think everybody in this area is benefiting . . . Once Lake Katwe

77

started a secondary school that was when we realized now the money is ours.

(Bagonza, personal communication, March 3, 2014

In addition 6% revealed that there is profit sharing between the park

and the neighboring communities. It was revealed that among the stake

holders of the Queen Elizabeth National Park is the neighboring

community. Also under spot hunting, people are allowed to hunt animals

that trespass to neighboring communities. The money obtained from spot

hunting is shared amongst the stake holders where community members

get a percentage of the money. However as it was said by some

respondents that they cannot be surprised of the actions because

formally the land was theirs and there is no reason why they should over

appreciate the practice.

As one respondent indicated, Uganda is currently implementing revenue

sharing scheme (6% ) of gate entrance fee) to fund development and

conservation initiatives around Protected Areas, local people who are

affected by wild animals do not realize adequate economic benefits

from wildlife conservation to offset conservation costs that they

incur. Furthermore, this scheme is limited in scope in that

communities far away from protected areas or with no gazetted

protected areas or with protected areas that are not visited by

tourists do not benefit from revenue sharing. I think there is. This revenue

sharing the park is starting. That one could help and then secondly if they let people

enter the park for free, the local people should not pay anything. Then they’ll know the

park belongs to us and not the government. Then the other thing, people would be very

happy if the park puts some fences around so the elephants cannot cross and destroy

crops, then they will have to like the park. If the park could guard the crops the people

78

would like the park. People neighboring the park loose a lot. They are not happy. Like

my parents are not happy, they have problems with baboons and elephants from the

park. Me I’m happy because I work for the park and get some money but my parents

are not happy. (Magambo, personal communication, March 5, 2014)

It was also realized that whenever wild animals attack and kill

livestock or destroy people’s gardens, the affected farmers are

compensated directly by the “Uganda Wildlife Authority and this is to

control the killing and poisoning of wildlife thus keeping their value

to the society. Therefore spot hunting of wild animals would make it

more valuable (value addition) than being poisoned or killed and left

to rot. It would also generate tangible economic benefits that would

motivate local people to protect it instead of regarding it as vermin.

In other words most farmers are likely to tolerate wild animal on their

property if it has a commercial value for them”.

Considering this, I asked her to weigh the costs and benefits of

tourism and she replied: The benefits are greater because building a school is so

good. It helps a very big area; it is a small portion of those in that area that suffers

from animals. Those can be helped later as the area improves from education or they

can find a way of solving the problem. Now our children can get an education and the

area can develop, so you cannot say that tourism is bad because of a few people who

are suffering from the wild animals. (Mbabazi, personal communication, March 2,

2014.

It was revealed that Rhinos and other herbivorous animals like

Buffaloes, Antelopes, zebras among others feed from people’s gardens,

the issue that has denied a good will from the community towards the

protected areas. I asked another friend what would happen on such an79

occasion, and she replied: By the time we were young, in the 1960s we used to

run, I am telling you the truth. You would see the Bazungu [white people] stopping in

their vehicle and what you could do is just run. Because we were not used to them! We

had some wrong mentality. They used to tell us that when you see the Bazungu they are

going to cut off your ears, they will kidnap you because they are constructing such and

such a bridge or dam and they are going to sacrifice you so the project succeeds. They

will cut off your head, we believed that if bazungu are constructing something, they

must slaughter these certain things. (Kabatotro, personal communication, April 2, 2014)

From the research field also, 6% responses showed that the park

provides free of charge venues for functions to the neighbors. When

community members have parties they are availed with the place free of

charge but usually on a condition of security assurance. Sometimes

neighbors are usually given discounts when visiting the national park.

In addition to that, like any other neighbors, the park shares

happiness and grief with the people in good times and sorrows. This is

usually done through participation in parties like in cooking and

pledging towards the party. In times of grief the park usually send

condolence messages and even at night fire they are represented. This

clearly indicates how the community and the community support to the

park.

Furthermore, the field data indicated that 3% responses revealed that

the park is always having fulltime tourists and these tourists buy

various commodities produced by the community around the QENP. It was

revealed that tourists have seasons when they are many within park and

this is usually during winter seasons in western countries. During

80

these seasons the produces are sold highly with in QENP because the

markets are usually high. That in such seasons, crafts products are

liked much compared to other commodities. The founder of the peanut

butter project described things in similar terms: Everybody is benefiting

from tourism. If you have something to sell you get money. Before people were

suffering, there was no way to get money; but since tourism came to this place now

everybody at least knows what to do. There are different activities; people are getting

money in every corner. People have put up new houses, more shops, tourism has

brought big development, and everybody knows what to do. (Akello, personal

communication, March 4, 2014)

The field findings indicated that 3% responses showed that the park

provides employment opportunities to the neighboring community. Some

community members are employed as park workers such as wardens,

watchmen, teachers among other works. Some community members have set

up their private pay firms in the park such as recreational centre as

well as cultural centres. These too have improved the livelihoods of

the community. 2% indicated that the park provides food relief to the

neighboring in times of scarcity of food. Our conversation follows, it

began when I asked her if she worked for the Lake Katwe Women’s Group Canteen in

Lake Katwe:I don’t but when I get Irish potatoes or green peppers I take them to Lake

Katwe and they pay me at a good price, better than what I would get in Kasese, so it

can help us. Because before tourism came to this place we had only one job of digging

[farming], even we had no market for produce! We would dig and we would bring our

food home and we would eat! (laughs).

Finally, 1 % showed that that the park is the source of traditional

drugs. Different rugs and recreation materials such as wood are

81

usually obtained from national park and rare animals. For example

Leopards skin is said to treating different diseases in addition to

herbs which the community gets from QENP and other products for

cultural purposes. He compared conservation in the West and Uganda

like this: The attitudes of people towards nature in developed countries are very

positive, meaning they see nature as something to conserve not to destroy, because

they value nature. But in underdeveloped countries, we take nature for granted because

it is abundant, it is not in scarcity … In Uganda we still think conservation is when you

can get tourists from outside to come and visit your place, and tourist means bazungu,

but it is not an innate ethic or way of looking at life or the use of natural resources

where people can say this is a nice forest and we need to conserve it with or without

tourists … and this is a big problem because people in the rural areas don’t understand

that natural resources are in a crisis because they see them abundantly, swamps, trees,

everything. (Personal communication, March 3, 2014)

4.2.3 Negative relationship between Queen Elizabeth National Park and

the neighboring Community

According to the research findings, it was said that in due course of

operation the Queen Elizabeth National Park brings about great

challenges directly and indirectly which have led to a bitter

relationship between the park and its neighbors.

Table 4 : Showing negative relations between Queen Elizabeth National

Park and the Neighboring Community and their causes

Response Frequency Percentages

Fire setting 5 10.0

Little compensation 6 12.0

82

Population increase 6 12.0

Poaching (Killing of

animals)

12 24.0

Destruction of crops 21 42.0

Total 50 100

Source: Primary Data, March 2014

The research findings indicate 40.0% (20) responses showed that

negative relations between QENP and the community are caused by

destruction of people’s crops by wild animals from the Park. Animals

such as Buffaloes, Hippos and wild pigs and other vermins move out of

the park and attach people’s crops and no immediate response from the

park authorities. Such setbacks bring about ridges between the park

and the neighboring community.

In remembering those early days, a farmer in Lake Katwe recounted how

Batoro used to hunt the wild animals with spears and would eat them, or sometimes

they used to dig deep holes to trap the animals. They used to look for trees with fruits

and would eat the fruits … Those days the forests as we know them today did not exist,

everywhere there was bush and people would move freely in it and hunt. (Barungi,

personal communication, March 2, 2014).

For them, the absence of farming meant the land was underutilized,

perhaps even unoccupied, and they took pride in putting it into

production. As a Bakiga woman told me: When we came we found only wild

animals and there were no houses with iron sheets. The people here were not digging

[farming], so when we came we started digging and we started doing some businesses83

and also building houses with iron sheets. (Mbabazi, personal communication, March 2,

2014).

Plate 1 : Showing some animals (Rhinos) that were blamed for destroying

people’s gardens

Source: Primary data March 2014

Poaching (Killing of animals) the field findings shows community

practices like poaching have also created a place for conflicts

between Queen Elizabeth National Park and the neighboring community.

The case was reported by 24% responses. Most people in Uganda have not

realized the role played by the National Park towards the development

of Uganda. They see parks as west lands and the only use of animals in

the park is to be eaten and they end up hunting animals in the park which

has created a gap between the park and the neighboring community.

Research findings showed that 12% blames Population increase among the

factors that gear conflicts between Queen Elizabeth National Park and

84

the neighboring communities. The number of people in Lake Katwe Sub

County is increasing due to immigrants and high birth rate. The

resource (land) is becoming little while population is increasing.

Besides that individual characters have increased peoples greed for

land for popularity and status. People have resorted to encroachment

to the park that has led imprisonment and heavy fines to the culprits.

Another 12% said there is little compensation by park authorities if

any. It was revealed that sometimes wild animals eat people’s crops and

even kill children and the park authorities keep closed eyes with no

compensation for the lost property as well as human lives. The

community retaliate by killing animals that results into imprisonment

of the culprits. “We feel if the park can have a positive and immediate

retaliation against the actions of the animals, I do not think the

things can go all that far. Even if the authorities can admit their

mistakes, we would be living with them very well but they just act as if

they are chasing us from here”. Another reason given for conflict is

community ill deeds like fire setting during dry seasons. The cause was

presented by 10% responses. It was said by pastoral farmers that

usually when the dry season is ending (after like 3 rains) the pastures

stink and cows cannot take such pastures and therefore people try to

burn the grass such that fresh and young pastures regenerate. Such set

fires are not controlled which end up burning the park creating

conflicts between them.

Themes suggested concerning the disadvantages of the park include the

potential for the encroachment of park animals on to agricultural land

from the park. There are fears that animals attack goats while monkeys

and baboons threaten maize and matooke crops. Economically the park

85

has had a major impact. With the change in lifestyle to resource

protectors that the park implies for the local communities, there is an

increasing need to learn about the need for protection of traditions

and conservation of culture.

4.3 To Investigate The Local People’s Attitudes and Perception On The

Services Offered To The Local Community And To The Surrounding Areas

4.3.1 Community Attitudes toward Local Tourism

According to research findings, various views were given relating to

community attitudes towards local tourism. Generally, before

introduction community projects, the attitudes of the people towards

conservation of the protected areas were futile because projects did

not show that communities were generally more positive towards

community conservation. Tourism projects were more critical of

management and demanded more support and resources than they had

received. Attitudes were influenced by communities receiving

development assistance, but improvements were fragile, vulnerable to

poor behavior of park staff and law-enforcement activities. Both were

seen as contradicting community approaches. Attitudes were also

influenced by land ownership and economic occupation. The CCP was not a

solution to the problems of the park and did not resolve fundamental

conflicts of interest between communities and park management.

However, it did change the way the protagonists perceive and interact

with each other.

From the search, 65% of the responses appreciate local tourism and they

have a positive perception about the protected areas. They see the

presence of Queen Elizabeth National Park within the park is a blessing86

since the local people are able to acquire food from the lake such as

fish, firewood, local herbs, water from the lake for livestock

especially during dry spells and also people are able to look at

animals since they can easily go to the park. These include

hippopotami and birds like pelicans, black crake, heron, cormorant and

fish eagle, rare shoebill stork among others.

The study findings indicated that 26% revealed that people are not

aware of the importance of the national park, the country as a whole and

the neighboring community in particular. They revealed that if the

masses are made aware of the contribution of the park to the country,

may be the bitter relationship between the park and the community can

reduce. This was revealed basing on the community perception of the

park as a wasted land and useless asset that aims at displacing the

residents. Therefore it was seen that if people are made aware of all

issues related to National parks, it would get rid of traditional

belief and perception about the park.

From the study results it was revealed that, Queen Elizabeth National

Park 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 Queen

Elizabeth National Park 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

87

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 were very difficult and bore

minimal positive results. With this relationship, it becomes hard for

local communities to get involved in eco tourism because they fear the

past experience to reverse and they also see the park/ protected area

as opportunist project.

According to the findings, as a strategy in marrying community and

protected areas, various projects have been established such as Lake

Katwe Community Conservation project, the CCU ACCA among others and

their primary aims were to involve local communities in the

conservation of Queen Elizabeth National Park . 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 Uganda National Park 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

88

establish a harmonious relationship. PMAC membership is drawn from

elected representatives from each of the parishes that border Queen

Elizabeth National Park , 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 Queen Elizabeth National Park

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.

However, 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 realized 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 study also revealed that ranger harassment, which is contrary to

89

the goals of community conservation as being advanced under the

LKCCP/UWA and which undermines these goals, was still reported among

the community. This strains park-people relation through the hatred

created between the park and the local community.

But despite the work of the UWA, most people still want 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 Queen Elizabeth National Park P. Although

parks are principally meant to prevent people from harvesting

resources within, Queen Elizabeth National Park 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.

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

realized that the people are not fully mobilized against poaching.

These 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.

90

4.3.2 Programs Promotion of Local Tourism

Respondent were asked whether there are tourism programs being done to

promote local tourism. 72% (36) of the respondents accepted that there

are different programs and strategies aiming at promoting local

tourism. 28% (14) gave a No answer to the availability of programs that

promote local tourism.

Figure 7 : Showing Community responses on the presence of local Tourism

72%

28%

YesNo

Source: Primary Data, March 2014

According to research findings, local tourism is the involvement of

local tourism in Eco tourism. Formerly, the relationship between Queen

Elizabeth National Park and neigbouring communities was hostile

because the park had varying motives from community demands. It was

described of displacement of the natives, harassment from the rangers,

dangerous animals for both plants and people. The communities around

the park were not given enough opportunity to take part in conservation

of eco tourism. The communities developed negative perception about

91

the protected areas and they saw the park as a development object

rather than project. People who killed famous animals like lions

Buffaloes among others would be regarded as Heroes of the area and

people had no project at heart.

However the UWA and Queen Elizabeth National Park realized a need to

involve the community in conservation of the park and this was done

through allowing the communities to be stakeholders of the protected

who harmonized the park and the neighbours though some people are still

conservative to change basing on the past experience. Different

practices are being done to marry the park programs with the

surrounding population

As reviewed from UWA report, 2007, National park authorities in Lake

Katwe Kabatoro Town Council have been evolving a functional means for

involving neighbours as partners in conservation through local

programme over the past six years. Issues are discussed with park

management in the national park and broad problems, opportunities and

priority target areas. This forms the basis for opening channels of

communication between Queen Elizabeth National Park and the protected

areas being informally study. It was revealed by rangers that District

and local level support is solicited. To date Tourism Revenue-Sharing

(TRS) programs have been identified. Local conditions and national

policies that shape the success of TRS programs were identified by

comparing the experiences of both implementers and beneficiaries of

TRS programs.

It was said that the Lake Katwe Community Conservation Project

(LKCCP), now the Community Conservation for Uganda Wildlife Authority

Project (CCUWA), funded initially by SIDA and then by USAID, and92

implemented by the African Wildlife Foundation and Uganda National

Parks (now Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)), started in 1991. Queen

Elizabeth National Park is employing staff specifically designated as

community conservation officers and a range of activities to improve

local awareness of conservation issues, increase local participation

in sustainable income generating activities and initiate and support

community-initiated development projects. With such projects, park

management started 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 has also provided funds for the PMAC operations and

helped them to become more sustainable in their role as

representatives of the local communities.

According to the research findings, Uganda Wildlife Authority has been

implementing wildlife use rights (WUR) since 2001. Wildlife use rights

was put in place as an incentive to promote the conservation of

wildlife outside Protected Areas (PAs) and eliminate the negative

perception by some people who still regarded wildlife as Government

property and of benefit to only foreign tourists. The overall

objective of granting WUR is to promote sustainable extractive

utilization of wildlife by facilitating the involvement of landowners

and users in managing wildlife on private land.

The research also indicated that in the early 1990s, Queen Elizabeth

National Park introduced community conservation as a park management

strategy in Queen Elizabeth National Park . This strategy emphasizes

partnerships between park management and local communities. The new

strategy was introduced because it was realized that the conservation

status of the park was at stake and that unless communities got

93

involved in the management and also realized benefits from there,

protection of the resources would continue to be very difficult.

4.3.3 Strategies put up to harmonize Queen Elizabeth National Park and

the Neigbouring Communities

Figure 8 : Showing strategies put up to harmonize Queen Elizabeth

National Park and the neighboring communities

34.9

26.8

3.4

10.5

4.3

8.6

11.5Grazing their cows in theparkInfrastructuraldevelopm ent Food relief

Livelihood im provem ent

Em ploym entopportunities Free venues forFunctions Profit Sharing

Source: Primary Data, March 2014

From the study conducted, 34.9% (73) responses indicated that the park

helps the community in and outside the park by allowing them to graze in

the park. It was revealed that usually such practices happen during dry

seasons when people have no pastures and water for their animals. This

practice is limited to some areas that are neigbouring homes.

Also from the study, 26.8% (56) responses indicated that the park

contributes to infrastructural development for both the community and

the park itself. The park has set up different infrastructural

facilities among others include, schools, health facilities as well as

roads.94

These have helped the communities around the park and the park in that

education and health facilities are brought near them. Schools include

Lake Katwe primary school as well as Lake Katwe Secondary School and

even the park constructs houses for teachers and health facilities.

Also the roads have linked different areas with in and around the park

and this have created global development of the area (markets and easy

commerce).

Figure 9 : Showing a cultural shop found at Lake Katwe Women Recreational centre

Source: Primary Data March 2014

Findings indicated that there various recreational centers dealing in

selling hand crafts. They fetch large sums of money from tourists

especially whites/foreigners. Shop owners charge their customers in

dollars which increases on the amount of money from such hand crafts.

95

Hand crafts are obtained from the communities around the park which is

one of the way how the community owns the PA.

The Queen Elizabeth National Park 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 realized that Queen Elizabeth National Park 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.

The research data also indicated that 44% responses revealed

livelihood improvement as one way how people benefit from the park. It

was revealed that some percentage of the gate collections is shared

between the communities around the park and this has improved on the

relationship between the people and the park because people feel the

project as theirs and live to guard it against any set back.

In addition 12% revealed that there is profit sharing between the park

and the neighboring communities. It was revealed that among the stake

holders of the Queen Elizabeth National Park the neighboring community

and the people feel they own the project and guard it as their own

properties. However some respondents said that they cannot be

surprised of the practice because formally the land was theirs and they

96

feel that there is no reason why they should over appreciate the

practice.

From the research field findings also, 10% responses showed that the

park provides free of charge venues for functions to the neighbors.

When community members have parties they are availed with the place

free of charge but usually on a condition of security assurance. In

addition to that, like any other neighbors, the park shares happiness

and grief with the people in good times and sorrows. This is usually

done through participation in parties like in cooking and pledging

towards the party. In times of grief the park usually send condolence

messages and even at night fire they are represented. This clearly

indicates how the community and the community support to the park.

The field findings indicated that 6% responses showed that the park

provides employment opportunities to the neighboring community. Some

community members are employed as park workers such as wardens,

watchmen, teachers among other works. Some community members have set

up their private pay firms in the park such as recreational centers as

well as cultural centers. These too have improved the livelihoods of

the community. 2% indicated that the park provides food relief to the

neighboring in times of scarcity of food. Residents’ Attitudes about

Tourism: When tourism started it assisted us very much because our children became

employed and started working and they gained a chance of getting some money to

assist their families and increase on their standards of living. When tourism started is

when others took to working with a good spirit and improving themselves. Tourism has

helped very many of us. (Mugaga, personal communication, March 3, 2014)

All these opportunities were availed to the people neighboring Queen

97

Elizabeth National Park and first priority is given to the residents of

the neighboring communities to and this primarily aims at harmonizing

the park and the people around. These all promote local tourism within

the park.

4.4 To Assess Challenges Faced By the Surrounding Communities Due To

the Presence of the National Park

4.4.1 Challenges faced by local community around Queen Elizabeth

National Park

Table 5 : Showing Challenges faced by local Community around Queen

Elizabeth National Park

Responses Frequency Percentages

Diseases 14 28.0

Displacement of people 04 08.0

Destruction of crops 09 18.0

Fire outbreaks 05 10.0

High fines and charges 2 2.0

Hunters are killed 3 6.0

Poor planning 4 4.0

Restriction of community for water

02 4.0

Wild animals encroach on private land

07 14.0

Total 120 100

Source: Primary Data March 2014

From the field research conducted in March 2014, 28% responses98

indicated that National Park accelerates the spread of animal

diseases. According to the findings, it was revealed that most of the

diseases that claim their animals come from wild animals that cross and

feed with their animals. Among other diseases include Foot and Mouth

disease, Anthrax. These have caused discomfort because most of the

people in the community relay on cows for their livelihoods and

therefore loosing their cows render them toothless and difficult to

survive.

From the field findings 18% indicated that wild animals escape from the

park and attack people and their crops and animals. Animals like

buffaloes, wild pigs, monkeys among other attack people’s crops and no

action can be taken to compensate the people for the lost property. The

communities around the park usually retaliate by killing animals which

is highly blamed for the increased conflicts between the park and the

community.

Also from the study conducted, 14%) animals encroach and graze on

private lands. This has been blamed for the cause of scarcity of

pastures and water with in communities around the park. As one of the

respondents showed discomfort “for them they graze in our areas but for

us when we attempt it they fine us and when we kill the animals, they

blame us. There is a time when you ask yourself the kind of neighbors

they are and you fail to understand”.

Another 10% indicated that there is a challenge of fire out break from

the park. The park is usually associated with uncontrolled fires

mostly in dry seasons. These fires burn away people’s crops, houses as

well as farms. However “I may not fully blame fires on the park because

99

in most cases these fires are set by pastoralist who wants to burn dry

pastures during dry seasons to prepare for new and fresh pastures when

the rains set".

The field study also indicated that 8% revealed displacement of people

as among the challenges faced by communities around Queen Elizabeth

National Park . As a way of extending the park, some people have been

displaced both voluntarily and non voluntary. For example some people

decide to leave the areas because of continuous exploitation from the

park

The field findings also indicated that 6% reveled that some community

members imprisoned and heavily punished when caught hunting with in

the park, People see the park animals as food. They only use of wild

animals is to be killed for food. And in reaction when such poachers are

caught, they are heavily punished and some who try to resist, end up

being shot and killed by the park security.

While the rest 4% (5) indicate that the park accelerates poor planning.

This mostly affects agriculture because most of the crops are

destroyed by wild animals and since the neighboring communities rely

on agriculture, it becomes hard to predict for the future.

4.4.2 Challenges faced by Queen Elizabeth National Park from the

Neighboring Community

Table 6 : Showing Challenges faced by Queen Elizabeth National Park from

the surrounding communities

100

Responses Frequency Percentages

Poaching 23 46.0

Fire setting 10 20.0

Encroachment of the park 07 14.0

Negative attitude by the community

towards QENP

05 10

Individual characters (Personality) 05 10

Total 50 100

Source: Primary Data, March 2014

According to field findings 46% revealed that the most challenge faced

by QENP is illegal poaching and killing of animal from the park by the

neighboring community. People hunt and kill wild animals for food and

other cultural or traditional functions for example it was said that

animal skins are used by traditional nurses in treating their

patients. It was also found out that some animal and bird parts are

medicine for certain diseases. This has increased the cases of illegal

hunting with in the park.

Further more from the same study, 20% indicated that QENP is facing the

challenge of Fire setting by the community members. Usually towards

the end of the dry seasons, people burn the dry pastures to prepare the

grazing fields for new and fresh pastures. Usually their fires are not

controlled and it ends up burning the park and animals with in it.

Another group of responses totaling to 14% indicated that Encroachment

of the park by the neighbours is another challenge faced by QENP. It was101

revealed that most people occupying the areas around the park are

pastoralists and they mind much on the chunks of land one has. The more

chunks of land one has, the more he/ she is respected. Therefore to add

themselves respect, they clear away the bushes of the park neighboring

them to increase on the land they have and also to increase the on the

number of cows they are grazing. This also has created a ridge between

the camp and the neighboring community.

The study also indicated that 10% respondents were giving negative

attitudes by the community towards QENP as one of the negative

challenges faced by QENP from neighboring community. Most of the local

people take National Parks as waste lands. They see it as land which is

not used for any productive purpose and therefore they have developed

negative attitudes towards it and they see it as a thing that is

occupying their lands for nothing. It has been said that almost all the

evil activities done by the community is blamed on this challenge.

There is a call by the park authorities to the relevant authorities to

sensitize the people about the NPs and their use such that they feel its

importance and guard it against any external set back.

From the field findings, 10% revealed that characters and

personalities of the people are affecting the performance of the park.

As usual, there are people who are naturally bad neighbors. They kill

and kill neighbors’ property in case of any misunderstandings. Such

people not only do such practices to the park, but also to the fellow

neighbors.

102

4.5 To suggest possible ways of improving community attitude and

benefits in relation to QENP.

4.5.1 Possible solutions to the challenges faced by Queen Elizabeth

National Park and the Neighboring community

Table 7 : showing possible solutions to the challenges faced by Queen

Elizabeth National Park and the neighboring community

Responses Frequenc y

Percentages(%)

Mass sanitization 12 24.0

Individual responsibility 09 18.0

Compensation policy 09 18.0

Profit sharing with the community 08 16.0

Transparency and accountability among the park authority

05 10.0

Reduced fines and punishment on park defaulters

07 14.0

Total 50 100

Source: Primary Data, March 2014

The study findings indicated that 24% revealed that people are not

aware of the importance of the national park the country as a whole and

the neighboring community in particular. They revealed that if the

masses are made aware of the contribution of the park to the country,

may be the bitter relationship between the park and the community can

reduce. This was revealed basing on the community perception of the

park as a wasted land and useless asset that aims at displacing the

residents. Therefore it was seen that if people are made aware of all

issues related to National parks, it can get rid of traditional belief103

and perception about the park.

From the same study, 18% indicated that there is a need for individual

responsibility by the neighboring community towards the up keep of the

national park. This was revealed that some people destruct the park

because it is like a development object put for them and therefore they

see it as an object for exploitation of the people rather than

developing them. And suggestions were brought up that if the masses are

involved in the project participation, they can feel responsible and

guard against any external setback.

Also from the study, 18% responses showed that there is a need for

strengthening compensation policy. It was said that in most cases

animals escape from the park and destroy the neighbors’ gardens and

properties and the reaction of the park authorities is usually

inconsiderate because they give very little compensation not worth the

property destroyed and such response is seen as a negative reaction by

the park towards the people. Some people feel that the park usually

exploits the neighbors such that they can feel tired with the area and

sell their lands to the park for expansion. Therefore compensation

worth the destroyed property can show concern by the park on the

neighbors that can improve on the relationship between them.

In relation to the above idea 16% revealed that there is a need for

sharing of benefits from the park. Community members showed some

discomfort that the land where the park is located formerly belonged to

them and therefore the benefits from the park collections may build a

good relationship between the two and live at peace.

Finally 5% responses revealed that there is a need for reducing fines

104

and punishment for the park defaulters. The park usually gives heavy

punishments to the park defaulters and people think that it is one way

of chasing them from their lands.

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDING, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction

This chapter gives concise contents of the investigations, in relation

to local tourism. It gives the researchers conclusions and

recommendations derived from the interpreted findings. The study was

carried out in Lake Katwe Kabatoro Town council in Kasese District in

western region of Uganda. The whole study was focusing on documenting

the contributions of Queen Elizabeth National Park to the socio

economic development of surrounding communities

5.1 Discussion of the Finding

5.1.1 To establish services offered by the national park to the

surrounding communities

From the study finding it shown that, community conservation programme

builds an understanding of conservation objectives amongst

communities and members are more likely to recognize positive aspects

of the park and conservation. This can generally change people’s

behaviour and reduce on the levels of poaching and illegal grazing

among others. Attitudes are influenced by communities receiving105

development assistance, good behavior of park staff and law-

enforcement activities. Attitudes are also influenced by land

ownership, interact and economic occupation between communities and

park management.

They acknowledge the fact that the park offers a lot of community

benefits in terms of integrated community development projects like

gravity water schemes and funding construction of local schools.

However there is dissatisfaction with tourist revenue sharing. Locals

believe the money should be used to benefit directly the people most

affected by proximity to the park. Instead, the money is sent to local

government as used according to local government plans which may not

directly benefit the affected households.

The study noted that the conditions of QENP neighboring communities

are both good and fair, and there are no authorities that are under the

plan of the government authorities that are under a sorry state except

those not known by the authorities which are considered no to be good

care but people’s own created strategies to create a conducive

environment and neighborhood. Regarding the community’s responses to

QENP and its maintenance, the majority people are negative which means

people have not yet realized the need for wild life conservation in

their everyday life.

5.1.2 To investigate the local people’s attitudes and perceptions on

the services offered to the local community and to the surrounding

areas.

It was found out that in the private ranches around Queen Elizabeth

National Park the pastoralists on whose land the wild animals reside

106

perceive them as a problem because they destroy their property and

compete with livestock for pasture, water and salt leaks. The

residents on ranches see wildlife as useless and destructive, and this

attitude has encouraged illegal hunting. Therefore, there is a need to

save wildlife resident on the ranches and give value to the wildlife as

an incentive to the landowners to manage and protect it. In reaction to

the situation, sport-hunting program (based on Class A Wildlife Use

Rights) as a wildlife management tool has been initiated and

implemented on the ranches around Queen Elizabeth National Park.

The Queen Elizabeth National Park case shows that people were mostly

positive towards the park because the park supports development

projects in the area such schools, health units, roads among others

initiated among communities by the protected area under Community

Conservation Programs which have improved the relations between the

two. This case shows that if people are allowed to access resources to

meet their own needs, they will be able to conserve the wildlife

resource and also sustainable utilization of the resources outside and

within the protected areas will be strengthened. This will further

help improve attitudes and cooperation of the people towards the

protected areas. 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

making.

107

5.1.3 To assess challenges faced by the surrounding communities due to

the presence of the national park

From the study finding it shown that despite the contribution realized

from Queen Elizabeth National Park , a number of problems make it a

concern. These problems include; conflicts with other land uses,

poaching, loss of habitat, pollution, global warming and introduction

of exotic species. The failures of wildlife to compete effectively

with other land uses in sustaining the livelihood of the adjacent

communities exacerbate these problems. As a result, local people look

at wildlife as a liability rather than an economic and social status

advantage, thus making wildlife conservation efforts to be perceived a

contradiction to the socio-economic endeavours of the local

communities.

5.1.4 To suggest possible ways of improving community attitude and

benefits in relation to QENP.

From the about objectives from the study finding it show that At the

broader level, the future of Queen Elizabeth National Park hinges on

the degree to which the basic concerns, needs and aspirations of the

local people are addressed. Bridging the gap between wildlife

conservation and local communities remains a challenge. In forging new

strategies for sustainable rural development, however, it is perhaps

the basis of change rather than change that may ultimately determine

the sustainability of protected areas such as Queen Elizabeth National

Park National Park. While the potential economic and ecological values

of the reserve to the nation and indeed the rest of Ugandans cannot be

ignored, it is probably when the participation by the neighboring

108

communities translates into meaningful socio-economic benefits that

the sustainability of protected areas may perhaps be assured.

5.2 Conclusions

The results show that the CCU has been successful in influencing the

attitudes of the communities around Queen Elizabeth National Park

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 LKCP/CCUWA has established with

the community has been successful.

Regarding the effect of proximity to the park on dependence on park

income, the study does not provide enough grounds to conclude that

households nearer to the park depended more on park income. The reason

for this is that access to park resources in not guaranteed by

closeness to the park but by signing a memorandum of understanding with

the park management. Members of resource user groups upon signing a

memorandum of understanding are given identification cards and its

only then that they can be allowed to enter the forest on a given date

usually twice a year and in the company of a park ranger to collect park

products. The resource user agreements allocate harvestable off take

quotas according to what is considered as being sustainable ensuring

that the forest retains its natural state as much as possible. Both

Buhoma and Karangara are located within the same distance from the park

but only Karangara households could access park resources and

therefore only Karangara reported park income. From the focus group

discussion it is safe to conclude that local people are generally happy109

with the management scheme in place.

5.3 Recommendations of the study

Action must be taken to minimize conflicts over wildlife resources to a

level and in a form that ensures equitable benefit sharing. The

following policy implications must be considered.

Governments must put in place appropriate cost-recovery mechanisms

for communities who bear the costs of living with wildlife. Through

decentralization, local governments must re-orient expenditure and

planning to emphasize crop losses to wildlife as a development problem

and a poverty issue. Conflicts between conservation and development

concerns increase poverty by depriving people of their assets and

increasing their vulnerability. Therefore, attempts to reduce

poverty must be mainstreamed into conflict-minimizing strategies.

Out-reach and environmental education is a fundamental catalyst in

changing people’s perceptions and creating situational awareness. It

has been found that often local communities don’t know the main aims of

the protected area leaving them to feel excluded and marginalised

(Ormsby and Kaplin, 2005). Through outreach and education programmes,

understanding of the importance of the protected area, coupled with

pragmatic alternatives for local livelihoods can contribute to the

reconciliation of people-protected area conflicts.

Collaborative management. Collaborative management is now a common

approach to protected area management in Africa. Collaborative

management is focused upon conservation with some rural livelihood

benefits on state-owned resources. Although there has been mixed

successes in the management of protected areas, this method is110

recommended for situations where governmental institutions are not

sufficient enough to maintain resource management. There is need to

strengthen the available cooperate participation at all levels from

the community (local council), the government as well as meeting the

pressing needs that would not be met by one individual level of

authority.

However, law must be enforced in all dimensions and levels of authority

whether at local level or higher levels. For example people should be

restricted to settle near or close the park and where necessary there

should be forced displacement of the local population in relation to

the majority pressing needs. But to be noted here is to carefully study

why the majority and not the minority parks are in bad conditions.

It is deemed important that people are made aware of all issues related

to National parks; it can get rid of traditional belief and perception

about the park. It was revealed that if the masses are made aware of the

contribution of the park to the country, may be the bitter relationship

between the park and the community can reduce. This was revealed basing

on the community perception of the park as a wasted land and useless

asset that aims at displacing the residents.

There is a need for individual responsibility by the neighboring

community towards the up keep of the national park as shown that some

people destruct the park because it is like a development object put

for them but there is no mass participation and therefore they see it as

an object for exploitation of the people rather than developing them.

Therefore masses should be involved in the project participation, for

that reason they can feel responsible and guard against any external

111

setback.

There is also a need for strengthening compensation policy. It was said

that in most cases animals escape from the park and destroy the

neighbors’ gardens and properties and the reactions of the park

authorities are usually inconsiderate because they give very little

compensation not worth the property destroyed and such response is

seen as a negative reaction by the park towards the people. Some people

feel that the park usually exploits the neighbors such that they can

feel tired with the area and sell their lands to the park for expansion.

Therefore compensation worth the destroyed property can show concern

by the park on the neighbors that can improve on the relationship

between them.

5.3.1 To the Government

Awareness about the importance of wildlife conservation should be

increased among the local communities. The management should offer

part-time/contract employment for some members of the local

communities to sensitize their fellow members about the benefits of

conservation to the local communities. Parents should also be

encouraged to send their children to school in order to improve the

level of education among the communities. An educated population is

expected to know the benefits of conservation. The government and UWA

should therefore Increase education and conservation awareness-

raising efforts in the local communities.

Understanding the traditional methods of conflict management will

help civil societies, education institutions, governments and the

community as a whole, design intervention strategy that are acceptable112

and relevant to communities within which they will be implemented.

Presently there are no such studies done. Therefore is there need to

carry out research on traditional methods of conflict management.

As noted in literature review, there are few studies done on the

subject matter and most studies have tended to concentrate on

government intervention, leaving out the role of civil society and

local communities. There is therefore need for more studies to be

carried out on the nature and form of peace strategies adopted by

Uganda Wildlife Authority and the community so as to have conceptual

understanding of such approaches and evaluate which approaches work

for different community settings.

5.3.2 To Local Authorities

As homes are built on lands that were formerly wildlife habitats,

animal populations increasingly come into contact with humans. This

sometimes leads, to conflicts. Therefore human approach to human

wildlife conflict is based on three general principles: Respect for

the environment, Tolerance and understanding of living things and a

willingness to resolve conflict using nonlethal means.

The natural environment we share with living things is one of the most

important components of wildlife conflict resolution. Often the first

and the best defense is to let natural forces resolve the issue without

human intervention. Human tolerance and understanding are also

crucial since many wildlife problems arise out of our irrational

fears. For example, realizing that White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium

simum cottoni ) is not a threat but a member of a natural community removes

immediate impulse against or to the White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium

113

simum cottoni ) removed. Nonlethal conflict resolution is an area most

people have only just began to investigate and understand. The

following six step evaluation will help to resolve wildlife conflict

safely and humanely.

Determine the problem—and consider whether it is a problem at all.

Learning about the habits of your wild neighbors will help you decide.

For example, if a family of woodchucks’ moves into the backyard will

they attack your child or your pet? Educating yourself about the

natural history of these animals will help you see that they aren't a

threat.

If there is a problem, collect information to better deal with the

problem . It is necessary to positively identify the species involved,

the extent of the damage, how long it has been happening, whether there

are young animals present and what can be done to resolve the issue in a

humane and permanent way.

Assess the seriousness and extent of the problem . Important

considerations involve safety or health concerns to people or pets,

likelihood of recurrence, and whether the damage appears to be

seasonal or ongoing.

Take action, but only after all the facts have been collected . Taking

action should be one of your last steps, and it should not have to

involve killing animals. Exclusion, environmentally sound

repellents, changing human cultural practices, and habitat

modification are all viable, nonlethal strategies.

114

Evaluation. Did your action resolve the problem or merely addressed

the symptoms? Your solution should get at the underlying cause of the

problem and be effective over the long-term.

Seek help . You may not be able to resolve the problem by yourself, but

seek help.

5.3.3 To Uganda Wildlife Authority

The management of the wildlife resources is often affected by varied

and often opposing viewpoints and interests especially where matters

of resource allocation, accessibility are to be decided. Many times

the local communities surrounding the Wildlife Protected Areas are not

involved in the protection of wildlife. For protected areas to be

sustainable and effective, a balance must be struck between benefits

to local communities and the goals of biodiversity conservation.

Management should therefore involve the local communities in the

protection of the reserve.

This study has shown that only 12% of the respondents are employed.

Redundant labor in the rural area next to Reserves can trigger illegal

access for resources in the Reserve in order to sustain a living. There

is therefore need to address the unemployment concern of local

communities surrounding Queen Elizabeth National Park.

The Uganda Wildlife Authority should implement Revenue Sharing

Scheme. The famous revenue sharing scheme is not being implemented in

Queen Elizabeth National Park purportedly due to lower revenue

collected from the reserve yet the communities know about it. The

scheme should be fully implemented by the management to plough back to

115

the surrounding communities. The mode of revenue sharing should

include construction of schools in the surrounding villages, offering

scholarships to best performing pupils or students among others.

There is need to strengthen the Reserve management to ensure that there

is effective surveillance and high level of detecting illegal

activities. Findings in this research indicate that law enforcement is

a factor that influences people’s behavior. If there are high chances

of being detected members will choose to obey rather than violate the

laws and improved enactment and enforcement of laws. Laws that can be

clearly understood by the local communities should be enacted and

enforced. These laws should include by-laws translated in the local

languages of the people within the reserve. There should be sections of

the laws to clearly spell out penalties against illegal activities by

any person or group of persons.

Incentives for sustainable production in National Park. Incentives

offer an effective means to resolve wildlife conflicts. The Reserve

management needs to create incentives for the local communities to

protect wildlife. Such incentives may include allowing communities to

collect fuel wood from selected areas in the Reserve, allowing them to

collect some medicinal plants from the reserve, to mention a few. This

will cause the communities to exercise self-restraint and report any

illegal activity to the authorities.

Training residents to promote ecotourism. Residents within the

National Park should be trained in ecotourism. This may include

training them to make arts and crafts that can be sold to tourists. This116

will earn income for the local people and improve their livelihoods

thereby reducing illegal activities in the game reserve. The park

management should help to secure market for these products.

There is need for collaborative management to help offset some of the

lost opportunity cost of local communities and justify conservation as

a form of land use. Translocation programmes should be initiated in

partnership with the different stake holders to enhance crashing

population strategic management intervention such as anti-poaching,

boundary marking, community conservation, monitoring and research

among others to address threats to wildlife conservation in Uganda.

5.4 Suggested areas for further research The researcher feels that more studies should be conducted on:

To examine ways of integrating pastoral production system in Eco-

Tourism development so as to bridge the gap between wildlife and the

people.

To examine the major challenges faced in implementing local tourism

in the protected areas

To assess the challenges faced in integration of pastoral

production systems in eco tourism as well as copying up mechanisms

to mitigate the challenges

117

REFERENCES

Adams, M. W. & Hulme, D. (2001); Conservation and Communities : Changing

Narratives,

Policies and Practices in African Conservation.

In Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. W. (2008) ; African wildlife & livelihoods: the

promise and

performance of community conservation , pp. 9-23. Oxford, James

Currey, London.

118

Adams, M. W. & Hutton, J. (2007); People, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology

and Biodiversity Conservation . Conservation and Society,

5 (2): 147–183.

Adams, W. M. & Infield, M. (2003); Who is on the Gorilla's Payroll? Claims on

Tourist

Revenue From a Ugandan National Park. World Development , 31 (1):

177-190.

Adams, W. M. (2004); Against extinction: the story of conservation . London,

Earthscan. xvi, 311

s. p.

Vira, B.& Wolmer, W. (2004 ); Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of

Poverty .

Science , 306 (5699): 1146-1149.

Agrawal, A. & Ribot, J. (1999); Accountability in Decentralisation: A Framework

with South

Asian and West African Cases. The Journal of Developing Areas , 33: 473-

562.

Archabald, K. & Naughton-Treves, L. (2002). Tourism revenue-sharing around

national parks

in Western Uganda: early efforts to identify and reward local

communities. Environmental Conservation , 28 (02): 135-149.

Babaasa, at.al Bitariho, R. & McNeilage, A. (2004). Gap characteristics

and regeneration in

119

Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda . African Journal of Ecology

42 (3): 217-224.

Balmford, A. & Whitten, T. (2003). Who should pay for tropical conservation,

and how could

the costs be met? Oryx , 37 (02): 238-250.

Barrett, C. B. & Arcese, P. (1995); Are Integrated Conservation-Development

Projects (ICDPs)

Sustainable? On the Conservation of Large Mammals in. World

Development , 23 (7): 1073-1084.

Barrett, C. B., Bezuneh, M. & Aboud, A. (2001); I ncome diversification,

poverty traps and

policy shocks in Côte d'Ivoire and Kenya. Food Policy , 26 (4):

367-384.

Barrett, C. B., Reardon, T. & Webb, P. (2001); Nonfarm income

diversification and household

livelihood strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics, and

policy implications. Food Policy ,26 (4): 315-331.

Blaikie, P. (1994); At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability, and disasters.

London,

Routledge. XIV, 284 s. p.

Blom, A. (2000); The Monetary Impact of Tourism on Protected Area Management

and the

120

Local Economy in Dzanga-Sangha (Central African Republic).

Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 8 (3):175–189.

Blom, A. (2001); Ecological and economic impacts of gorilla-based tourism in

Dzanga-Sangha,

Central African Republic . Wageningen, Wageningen University,

Department of Environmental Sciences. vi +164pp p.

Brandon, K. E. & Wells, M. (1992); Planning for people and parks: Design

dilemmas . World

Development , 20 (4): 557-570.

Brockington, D. & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2004); The social and environmental

impacts of wilderness and development. Oryx , 38 (02): 140-

142.

Bruner, A. G., Gullison (2001). Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Tropical

Biodiversity .

Science , 291 (5501): 125-128.

Cavendish, W. (2000). Empirical Regularities in the Poverty-Environment

Relationship of Rural Households: Evidence from Zimbabwe.

World Development , 28 (11): 1979-2003.

Cernea, M. M. (2006). Population displacement inside protected areas : a

redefinition of

concepts in conservation politics. Policy Matters , 14: 8-26.

Cernea, M. M. & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006). Poverty Risks and National

Parks: Policy Issues in

121

Conservation and Resettlement. World Development , 34 (10):

1808-1830.

Cheong, K. S. (1999). A note on the interpretation and application of

the Gini coefficient, Working Paper No. 99-1R.

Honolulu, Department of Economics, University of

Hawaii.

Chhetri, P., Mugisha, A. & White, S. (2003). Community resource use in

Kibale and Mt Elgon National Parks, Uganda. Parks , 13 (1).

Child, B. & Dalal-Clayton, B. (2004). Transforming approaches to

CBNRM: learning from the Luangwa experience in Zambia. In

Getting biodiversity projects to work: towards more

effective conservation and development, pp. S. 256-289. New York,

Columbia University Press.

Davies, S. (1996). Adaptable livelihoods: coping with food insecurity in the Malian

Sahel . Houndmills, Macmillan Press. XXII, 335 s. p.

De Sherbinin, A. (2008). Is poverty more acute near parks? An

assessment of infant mortality

rates around protected areas in developing countries. Oryx,

42 (01): 26-35.

Ellis, F. (1998). Household strategies and rural livelihood

diversification. Journal of Development Studies , 35 (1): 1

- 38.

Ellis, F. (2000). Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing

Countries.

122

Ellis, F. & Bahiigwa, G. (2003). Livelihoods and Rural Poverty

Reduction in Uganda. World

Development , 31 (6): 997-1013.

Ellis, F. & Ntengua, M. (2003). Livelihoods and Rural Poverty

Reduction in Tanzania. World

Development , 31 (8): 1367-1384.

Ellis, F. & Freeman, H. A. (2004). Rural Livelihoods and Poverty

Reduction Strategies in Four

African Countries. Journal of Development Studies , 40: 1-30.

Escobal, J. & Aldana, U. (2003). Are Nontimber Forest Products the

Antidote to Rainforest

Degradation? Brazil Nut Extraction in Madre De Dios, Peru.

World Development , 31 (11): 1873-1887.

Ferraro, P. J. (2001). The Local Costs of Establishing Protected Areas

in Low-Income Nations:

Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar.

Fisher, M. (2004). Household welfare and forest dependence in southern

Malawi. Environment

and Development Economics , 9: 135-154.

Ghate, R. (2002, June 17-21, 2002). Global Gains at Local Costs: Imposing

Protected Areas: A

123

Case Study From India." Presented at "The Commons in an Age of

Globalization . The Ninth Conference of the International

Association for the Study of Common Property, Victoria

Falls, Zimbabwe.

Gillingham, S. & Lee, P. C. (2003). People and protected areas: a study of local

perceptions of

wildlife crop-damage conflict in an area bordering the Selous Game

Reserve, Tanzania , 37, 03,

Cambridge Journals Online. pp. 316-325.

Goldman, M. (2003). Partitioned Nature, Privileged Knowledge:

Community-based

Conservation in Tanzania. Development and Change , 34: 833-

862.

Hamilton, A., Cunningham, A., Byarugaba, D. & Kayanja, F. (2000).

Conservation in a Region

of Political Instability: Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda , 14, 6. pp.

1722- 1725.

Harcourt, A. H. (1981). Can Uganda's gorillas survive?--A survey of

the Bwindi Forest Reserve.

Biological Conservation , 19 (4): 269-282.

Hart, G. (1994). The Dynamics of Diversification in an Asian Rice

Region. In Koppel, B.,

124

Hawkins, J. N. & James, W. E. (eds) Development or deterioration?:

work in rural Asia , pp. XV, 325 s. Boulder, Colo., Lynne

Rienner.

Hayati, D., Karami, E. & Slee, B. (2006). Combining Qualitative and

Quantitative Methods in the Measurement of Rural

Poverty: The Case of Iran. Social Indicators Research , 75 (3):

361-394.

Hayes, T. M. (2006). Parks, People, and Forest Protection: An

Institutional Assessment of the

Effectiveness of Protected Areas. World Development , 34

(12): 2064-2075.

Holland, J., Burian, M. & Dixey, L. (2003). Tourism in Poor Rural

Areas: Diversifying the

product and expanding the benefits in rural Uganda and Czech

Republic. Working Paper No. 12. Lesson-Sharing on Pro-poor

Tourism.

Howard, P. (1995). The Economics of Protected Areas in Uganda: Costs, Benefits

and Policy

Issues. A dissertation for them . University of Edinburgh.

Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. W. (2001). African wildlife & livelihoods: the promise

and performance of community conservation . Oxford, James

Currey. XVI, 336 s. p.

Hutton, J., Adams, M. W. & Murombedzi, C. J. (2005). Back to the

barriers? Changing

125

narratives in biodiversity conservation. Forum for

Development Studies , 32 (2): 341-47.

Inamdar, A., Jode, H. d., Lindsay, K. & Cobb, S. (1999).

Conservation:Capitalizing on Nature:

Protected Area Management. Science , 283 (5409): 1856-1857.

Infield, M. & Adams, M. W. (1999). Institutional Sustainability and

Community conservation: A

Case study from Uganda. Journal of International Development , 11:

305-315.

IUCN. (2005, 8–17 September 2003). Benefits Beyond Boundaries. Switzerland

and Cambridge,

UK. . The Vth IUCN World Parks Congress , Durban, South Africa.

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. ix + 360 pp p.

Jha, R., Nagarajan, H. K. & Prasanna, S. (2005). Land Fragmentation and

its Implications for

Productivity: Evidence from Southern India. Australian

National University, Australia South Asia Research Centre, ASARC Working

Papers , Australian National University.

Johannesen, A. B. & Skonhoft, A. (2005). Tourism, poaching and

wildlife conservation: what can integrated

conservation and development projects accomplish? Resource and

Energy Economics , 27 (3): 208-226.

Johannesen, A. B. (2007). Protected areas, wildlife conservation, and

local welfare. Ecological126

Economics , 62 (1): 126-135.

Kamugisha, R. J., Ogutu, Z. A. & Ståhl, M. (1997). Parks and people:

Conservation and livelihoods at the crossroads- Four case

histories Nairobi, Regional Soil Conservation Unit. pp

7-30 p.

Karugia, J., Oluoch-Kosura, W., Nyikal, R., Odumbe, M. & Marenya, P.

(2005). The Role of Rural Factor Markets in Reducing

Poverty, Risks and Vulnerability in Rural Kenya: The Case

of Kakamega and Vihiga Districts. SAGA Brief.

Katto, F. M. J. (2004). Sustainable livelihoods and environmental income

dependence around

Mt.Elgon National Park, Uganda . Ås, [F.M.J. Katto]. XII, 121 s.

p.

Kawuki, J. K. (2007). Institutional sustainability of collaborative resource use

agreements in Mount Elgon, Uganda . Ås, [J.K. Kawuki]. X,

128 s. p.

Kazoora, C. (2002). Poverty Alleviation and Conservation: Linking

Sustainable Livelihoods and

Ecosystem management. A Case study of Uganda.

Kibirige, R. (2003). The socio-economic impacts of tourism on poor

rural communities: the

Mpembeni community, Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Park, Kwazulu-

Natal, South Africa. In Africa Insight [Online], 33(1). pp23-28.

Available at:

127

http://www.ajol.info/viewarticle.php?id=12215 (accessed:

15/02/2008).

Kiss, A. (1990). Living with wildlife: wildlife resource management with local

participation in

Africa . Washington, D.C., World Bank. XI, 217 s. p.

Korbee, D. (2007). Environmental Security in Bwindi: A focus on

farmers. The Hague, Institute

for Invironmental Security.

Kremen, C., Razafimahatratra, V., Guillery, R. P., Rakotomalala, J.,

Weiss, A. & Ratsisompatrarivo, J.-S.

(1999). Designing the Masoala National Park in

Madagascar Based on Biological and Socioeconomic Data.

Conservation Biology , 13 (5): 1055-1068.

Lanjouw, P. & Ravallion, M. (1995). Poverty and Household Size. The

Economic Journal , 105

(433): 1415-1434.

Lepp, A. (2007). Residents' attitudes towards tourism in Bigodi

village, Uganda. Tourism

Management , 28 (3): 876-885.

MacChapin. (2004). A Challenge to Conservationists. World Watch , 17

(6).

128

Maisel, F., Sunderland, T., Curran, B., Loebenstein, K. v., Oates, J.,

Usongo, L., Dunn, A.,

Asahav, S., Balingav, M., Defo, L. & Telfer, P. (2007).

Central Africa‟s Protected Areas and the Purported

Displacement of People: A First Critical Review of

Existing Data. In Redford, K. H. & Fearn, E. (eds) Protected Areas

and Human Displacement: A Conservation Perspective Wildlife

Conservation Society Working Paper No. 29, 2007 , pp. 75-

89.

Makombo, J. (2003, September 08 – 17, 2003). Responding to the Challenge –

"How Protected

Areas can best provide benefits beyond boundaries" A case study of

Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in Western Uganda . World

Parks Congress Durban, South Africa

Mamo, G., Sjaastad, E. & Vedeld, P. (2007). Economic dependence on

forest resources: A case

from Dendi District, Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics , 9

(8): 916-927.

Mugisha , A. (2002). Evaluation of Community-based Conservation Approaches:

Management of Protected Areas in Uganda. Florida,

University of Florida.

Murphy, L., Bilsborrow, R., Pich, oacute & n, F. (1997). Poverty and

prosperity among migrant

129

settlers in the Amazon rainforest frontier of Ecuador.

Journal of Development Studies , 34 (2): 35 - 65.

Mutebi, J. (2003). Co-managed Protected Areas: from conflict to collaboration.

Experience in

Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda.

Mwima, P. M. & McNeilage, A. (2003). Natural regeneration and

ecological recovery in Bwindi

Impenetrable National Park, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology,

41 (1): 93-98.

Namara, A. & Nsabagasani, X. (2003). Decentralization and Wildlife

Management: Devolving

Rights or Shedding Responsibility? Bwindi Impenetrable

National Park, Uganda. In Jesse, R. C.(ed.)

Environmental Governance in Africa Working Paper Series,

Evironmental Gorvenance in Africa . Washington DC 20002, World

Resources Institute.

Namara, A. (2006). From Paternalism to Real Partnership with Local

Communities? Experiences

from Bwindi Impenetrable National Park(Uganda). African

Development , 31 (2): 39-68.

Narain, U., Gupta, S. & Van'T Veld, K. (2005). Poverty and the

Environment: Exploring the

Relationship between Household Incomes, Private Assets,

and Natural Assets.130

Niroula, G. S. & Thapa, G. B. (2005). Impacts and causes of land

fragmentation, and lessons

learned from land consolidation in South Asia. Land Use

Policy , 22 (4): 358-372.

Plumptre, A. J., Kayitare, A., Rainer, H., Gray, M., Munanura, I.,

Barakabuye, N., Asuma, S.,

Sivha, M. & Namara, A. (2004). The Socio-economic Status of

People Living Near Protected Areas in the Central

Albertine Rift. Albertine Rift Technical Reports , CARE, IGCP,

WCS. 127 p.

Pretty, J. & Smith, D. (2004). Social Capital in Biodiversity

Conservation and Management.

Conservation Biology , 18: 631-638.

Reardon, T. (1997). Using Evidence of Household Income

Diversification to Inform Study of the

Rural Nonfarm Labor Market in Africa. World Development , 25:

735-747.

Reddy, S. R. C. & Chakravarty, S. P. (1999). Forest Dependence and

Income Distribution in a

Subsistence Economy: Evidence from India. World Development,

27 (7): 1141- 1149.

Ribot, J. C. (2002). Democratic decentralization of natural resources:

institutionalizing popular

131

participation . Washington, D.C., World Resources Institute,

WRI. IV, 30 s. p.

Roe, D., Mayers, J., Grieg-Gran, M., Kothari, A., Fabricius, C. &

Hughes, R. (2000). Exploring

the myths and realities of community-based wildlife

management. Evaluating Eden . London,IIED.

Roe, D. & Elliott, J. (2004). Poverty reduction and biodiversity

conservation: rebuilding the

bridges. Oryx , 38 (02): 137-139.

Scherl, M. L., Wilson, A., Wild, R., Blockhus, J., Franks, P., McNeely,

A. J. & McShane, T.

(2004). Can Protected Areas contribute to Poverty Reduction?

Opportunities and Limitations.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge.

UK. viii + 60pp.

Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis.

Brighton, Institute of

Development Studies. 22 s. p.

Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom . New York, Knopf. xvi, 366 s. p.

Stark, O. (1991). The migration of labor . Oxford, Blackwell. x, 406 s. p.

Tedford, J. R., Capps, O., Jr. & Havlicek, J., Jr. (1986). Adult

Equivalent Scales Once More: A

Developmental Approach. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics , 68 (2): 322-333.132

Tumusiime, D. M. (2006). Dependence on environmental income by households

around Rwenzori Mountain National Park, Western Uganda.

Ås, [D.M. Tumusiime]. IX bl., 101, X s. p.

UBoS. (2002). Uganda Bureau of Statistics: The 2002 Uganda Population and

Housing Census,

Economic characteristics. October 2006, Kampala, Uganda

Uganda Bureau of Statistics. (2002a). Uganda Bureau of Statistics: The 2002

Uganda Population and Housing Census, Economic

characteristics. October 2006, Kampala, Uganda

Uganda Bureau of Statistics. (2002b). Uganda Bureau of Statistics: The 2002

Uganda Population and Housing Census, Population

Dynamics. October 2006, Kampala, Uganda.

Upton, C., Ladle, R., Hulme, D., Jiang, T., Brockington, D. & Adams, W.

M. (2007). Are poverty and protected area establishment linked at a

national scale? , Forthcoming, -1, CambridgeJournals

Online. pp. 1-7.

Vedeld, P., Sjaastad, E., Angelsen, A. & Berg, G. K. (2004). Counting

on the environment: forest incomes for the rural poor.

World Bank Environment Department Working Paper, vol 98.

Washington D.C., 98.

Vedeld, P., Angelsen, A., Bojo, J., Sjaastad, E. & Kobugabe Berg, G.

(2007). Forest

environmental incomes and the rural poor. Forest Policy and

Economics , 9 (7): 869-879.

133

Wells, M. (1992). Biodiversity Conservation, Affluence and Poverty -

Mismatched Costs and

Benefits and Efforts to Remedy Them. Ambio , 21 (3): 237-243.

Wells, P. M. & McShane, O. T. (2004). Integrating Protected Area

Management with Local

Needs and Aspirations. Ambio , 33 (8): 513-519.

West, P. & Brockington, D. (2006). An Anthropological Perspective on

Some Unexpected

Consequences of Protected Areas. Conservation Biology , 20:

609-616.

Wild, R. G. & Mutebi, J. (1996). Conservation through community use of

plant resources.

Establishing collaborative management at Bwindi

Impenetrable and Mgahinga Gorilla National Parks, Uganda.

People and Plants working paper 5 . Paris, UNESCO.

Wilkie, D. S., Morelli, G. A., Demmer, J., Starkey, M., Telfer, P. &

Steil, M. (2006). Parks and

People: Assessing the Human Welfare Effects of Establishing Protected

Areas for Biodiversity Conservation , 20, 1. pp. 247-249.

WorldBank. (2001). World development report 2000/2001: Attacking

poverty. . Oxford & New

York: Oxford University Press.

134

Wu, B. & Pretty, J. (2004). Social connectedness in marginal rural

China: The case of farmer

innovation circles in Zhidan, north Shaanxi. Agriculture and

Human Values , 21 (1): 81-92.

WORK PLANACTIVITY PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD

Conceptpaper

June2013

Proposal November -2014 December To February 2014

135

Datacollection

March2014

Dataanalysis

March

2014

Reportwriting

March ,2014

Submission April ,2014

136

BUDGETItem Total cost

Proposal Writing

Ruled paper 20,000=

Note book 10,000=

Printing 15000=

Photocopying 3000=

Pens 7200

Box file 10,000=

Clip Board 7,000=

SUB-TOTAL 72,200=

Data Collection

Transport and Airtime 160,000=

SUB-TOTAL 160,000=

Data Presentation 24,000=

SUB-TOTAL 24,000=

Data Analysis

Transcription Allowance 160,000=

Analysis allowance 160,000=

SUBTOTAL 320,000=

Report Writing

Secretarial Services

Typing 25,000=

Printing 25,000=

Photocopying 5,000=

Binding 40,000=137

SUB-TOTAL 135,000=

GRAND TOTAL 691,200=

APPENDIX A: AN INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR PEOPLE AROUND QUEEN ELIZABETH

NATIONAL PARK

BISHOP STUART UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am TUMUHAIRWE MADINA , a student of Bishop Stuart University

conducting a research on “ Documenting the contributions of queen

Elizabeth national park to the socio- economic development of

surrounding communities ; a case of study of Lake Katwe-Kabatoro”. I

kindly request you to participate in the study by giving your opinion

in relation to the questions asked. Your contribution will be treated

with strict confidentiality and it’s for academic purposes. In the

course of interview, you have a right to withdraw from interview in

case you feel uncomfortable with the discussion and your opinion will

be highly valued for the study.

Section A: Biographic Data

Section A: Biographic Data

1. Name (optional) ……………………………………………………..

2. Sex:

a) Male

138

b) Female

3. Level of education

a) None

d) Primary

e) Secondary

f) Tertiary

4. Occupations

g) Cultivator

h) Trader (Business)

i) Student

j) Pastoralist

k) Any other (specify)………………………..

5. Time spent in this area (Years)……………………

6. For how many years have you lived in this particular community?

(a) < 5 [ ] (b) 5 – 9 [ ] (c) 10 – 14 [ ] (d) 15 – 20 [ ]

(e) > 21 [ ]

7. How big is the size of the land that is under control of your

household?

(a) > 0.5 acres [ ] (b) 1.0 – 2.0 acres [ ] (c) 2.0 -3.0

acres [ ]

139

(d) 2 > 4 acres [ ]

8. What main crops do you grow and what is their acreage?

Crop Banan

a

Coff

ee

Cassa

va

Potat

oes

Bean

s

Pea

s

G.

Nuts

Othe

rs

Acrea

ge

9. What are the main sources of cash income for your household?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

SECTION B: To Establish Services Offered By the National Park to the

Surrounding Communities

10. Do you engage in tourism? Yes [ ] No [ ]

11. If yes which

activities.......................................................

......................................................

12. What is the relationship between communities and National Park in

relation to offering support?

a. ..............................................................................................................................

b. ...............................................................................................................................

140

c. .................................................................................................................................

13. What are the contributions of National Park (QENP) to the neighboring communities?

a. ..............................................................................................................................

b. ...............................................................................................................................

c. .................................................................................................................................

d. 14. What are the advantages accrued to the community due to the

presence of QENP?a. ............................................................

............................................................

......

b. ............................................................

............................................................

.......

c. ............................................................

............................................................

..........

15. Why do you think wildlife resource is a great asset to you as the

communities around QENP?

a. ............................................................

............................................................

......

b. ............................................................141

............................................................

.......

SECTION C: To Investigate The Local People’s Attitudes And Perceptions

On The Services Offered To The Local Community And To The Surrounding

Areas.

16. In your opinion, why do you think communities should be involved in

promotion of local tourism?

a. ............................................................

............................................................

......

b. ............................................................

............................................................

.......

c. ............................................................

............................................................

..........

17. What are the community attitudes towards conservation/

involvement in local tourism?

a. ............................................................

............................................................

......

b. ............................................................

............................................................

.......

c. ............................................................

............................................................

..........

142

SECTION D: To Assess Challenges Faced By the Surrounding

Communities Due To the Presence of the National Park

18. What challenges are faced by communities due to the location of the

QENP?

a. ..............................................................................................................................

b. ...............................................................................................................................

c. ..................................................................................................................................

d. ...............................................................................................................................

e. ...............................................................................................................................

19. What are the challenges faced by the park as a reaction from the

Neighboring community?

a. ............................................................

............................................................

......

b. ............................................................

............................................................

.......

c. ............................................................

............................................................

..........

20. What are the factors that influence community involvement in

promoting local tourism?

143

a. ..............................................................................................................................

b. ...............................................................................................................................

c. ..................................................................................................................................

d. ...............................................................................................................................

e. ...............................................................................................................................

SECTION E: To Suggest Possible Ways Of Improving Community Attitude

And Benefits In Relation To QENP .

21. What opportunities exist that can be harnessed for the future

success in implementation of local tourism?

a. ..............................................................................................................................

b. ...............................................................................................................................

c. ..................................................................................................................................

d. ...............................................................................................................................

22. Does UWA realize any importance/ benefit of involving local people

in wild life conservation? ( Probe for how has the UWA contributed in

promotion local tourism)144

a. ..............................................................................................................................

b. ...............................................................................................................................

c. ..................................................................................................................................

d. ...............................................................................................................................

23. In your own opinion, what do you think can be done to keep a good

relationship between the park and the Neighbouring society and making

local tourism a reality?

............................................................

............................................................

......

............................................................

............................................................

.......

APPENDIX IV: QUESTIONNARE FOR LOCAL LEADERS

Title of

Respondent…………………………………………………....................................

............

1. How would you describe the status of the boundary of the National

Park?

145

(a) Very good (b) Good (c) Neither good nor bad

(d) Very bad (e) Very good (f) Good and bad

2. How would you describe the status of the resource in this National

Park?

(a) Very good (b) Good (c) Neither good nor bad

(d) Bad (e) Very bad

3. Are there any kind of illegal activities in the above mentioned

National Park manage?

4. Do local councils get involved in the resolution of the National

Park /Community Conflict? Yes or No

5. If yes how?

6. How is the tourism industry organized in this National Park?

7. Do local people get involved in the organization of tourism based

on this National Park Yes or No

8. If yes how do they get involved?

9. Does this National Park enjoy political support from?

(a) Central Government (Yes No)

(b) Local Government (Yes No)

(c) Does not involve people at all (Yes No)

(d) Others specify

146

10. What benefit does this PA provide to the local people?

(a) Revenue sharing (Yes No)

(b) Environmental benefits (Yes No)

(c) Access to natural resources such as forest products,

firewood, grazing, water etc. (Yes

No)

(d) Employment benefits (Yes No)

(e) Support infrastructure (Yes No)

Others

specify..........................................................

.................................................

12. How do you rate the interaction between the National Park and the

local administration?

(a) Very good (b) Good (c) Neither good nor bad

(d) Bad (e) Very bad

13. What would be your recommendation to improve the interaction

between the National Park and this local administrator?

147

148