KAWUKI JOSEPH KIGGUNDU
INSTITUTIONAL SUSTAINABILITY OF COLLABORATIVE
RESOURCE USE AGREEMENTS IN MOUNT ELGON, UGANDA
The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB). It consists of eight departments, associated research institutions and the Norwegian College of Veterinary Medicine in Oslo. Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development lies in the interface between research, education (Bachelor, Master and PhD programmes) and assignments.
The Noragric Master theses are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfil the requirements under the Noragric Master programme “Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture” (MNRSA), “Development Studies” and other Master programmes.
The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Noragric.
© Kawuki Joseph Kiggundu May 2007 E-mail: [email protected] Noragric
Department of International Environment and Development Studies P.O. Box 5003
N-1432 Ås Norway
Tel.: +47 64 96 52 00 Fax: +47 64 96 52 01
Internet: http://www.umb.no/noragric
Declaration
I, Kawuki Joseph Kiggundu, do hereby declare that with the exception of quotes and work of other people, which I have duly referenced and acknowledged herein, this thesis, is the result of my own original research work. This work has not been presented to another university in pursuit of a degree before.
Kawuki Joseph Kiggundu
Ås, May 2007
Dedication
To my family and all those who have contributed in any way to my entire education
Acknowledgements
Sincere thanks to NORAD for funding my study and fieldwork. Many thanks also go to my supervisor, Prof. Paal Olav Vedeld (UMB). I will always remember your, “Hope I am not butchering”. You are a great teacher. Thanks the academic staff at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences I came into contact with in their different capacities. For the teachers and librarians at NORAGRIC, your efforts have not been in vain! Special thanks go to UWA for according me permission and cooperation to carry out my study in MENP. For the research assistants, Bosco Jingo the driver, and all the people in Mt. Elgon, WANYALA NABI.
To the NORAGRIC masters students of 2005-2006, you are the people. Long live and all the best in your endeavours! Bente, Siri Mete, Ingrid, Laura, Ingvar, Saafo, Karol, Raza, Teddy and Ethiopian crew, Ingelinn, Lise, Beirit, Amos Colnoe, Cassius, Bridget, Tawina, Kalpana, Hafiz, Mathi, Sathi, Trine, Bjorn, Gry, Berte-Stine; Oh My God, they are many! The names of the important ones are invisible on this paper. To the special one Helga Einarsdottir♥♥♥, you have done your work and you did it diligently. This cannot be contested. There is no currency that can be used to pay you.
The Ugandan community in Aas during the two years: Justin, Charlotte, Simbwa, James, Joel, Alex, Ronnie and Susan, Maria, Ashaba, Kasule, Buyinza Mukadasi, Aleper, Nakamatte, Patrick, Kenneth; invisible ones again. Let us continue with the developmental discussions.
To the entire staff of the Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation in Makerere University, and all those who have made this study a possibility, maintain the spirit of academic support.
For all Norwegians in the world, my stay in Norway has shown me that you may be the best in the world: Helga’s family, the Ås and UMB community, Torunn, Anne Linn and Arne Finn, Maret, Sissel, Anne, Miriam, and the invisible great ones again. TUSSEN TAKK. For those we met in Ås: Lettie, Paul, and the entire International Student Community, thanks for the company.
To my ever loving parents, Mrs. Gaudensio Birungi Kiggundu and Mr. Pascal Kiggundu, alongside Mrs. Mary Byabasaija, may the good Lord bless you in a special way. Maureen Kyomuhendo, thanks for always dropping me and picking me from the airport. To the entire family, friends, colleagues, and in-laws, MWEBALE NYO!
Abstract
Six forest reserves were turned into National Parks in 1993 of which one of them was Mt.
Elgon. Local people were then denied the traditional access to forest resources resulting into local people – park conflicts, especially in relation to costs of staying near the park. This made conservation difficult until when the missing element of local people was introduced with adoption of resource use agreements as a form of collaborative management. The study sought to assess whether agreements are sustainable.
Data was collected through semi-structured questionnaires, focus group discussions, analysis of secondary data, and direct observation. Results indicate that agreements perform different in different communities around Mt. Elgon depending on the conditions and situations; they perform poorly in a ‘nearly to collapse fashion’ in some communities and perfectly in others.
The conditions include access to the different types of assets, and the nature of conduction of the agreement formation process. Agreements were found to be liked by local people in relation the law enforcement approach that was used when the forest was turned to a park.
They were also found to averagely perform better in the achievement of both the development of local communities with some limited park access, while at the same time allowing the forest to regenerate due to the sustainable harvesting of resources. Resource use agreements face some challenges with the main one being lack of financial sustainability. Many agreements have expired and have not been renewed due to lack of finances. Continuous sensitization of communities is another vital factor but also requires steady finances too. The biggest achievement with agreements in Mt. Elgon is that they have led to the improvement of the people-park relationship that was so bad in the past although the commitment of UWA as a managing body is still lacking. However, UWA is also in a fix since ‘dancing to the full tunes’ of local people’s needs, especially of a poor community like the one around MENP which may want full dependence on the park, may not be very sustainable for the forest and park. Some iron hand is required.
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
BKA Bee Keeping Agreement
BMA Boundary Management Agreement CM Collaborative Management
CRM Collaborative Resource Management
CNPPA Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas CFR Central Forest Reserve
CPI Community Park Area Institution CPR Common Property Regime CCR Community Conservation Ranger CCW Community Conservation Warden FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FD Forest Department
FMC Forest Management Committee
HH Household
IUCN World Conservation Union KNP Kibale National Park
LEC Local Environment Committee
LC Local Council
MEDCP Mount Elgon Conservation and Development Project MENP Mount Elgon National Park
MTTI Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry NGO Non Governmental Organisations
NLH Agricultural University of Norway
NORAD Norwegian International Development Agency
NORAGRIC Department of International Environment and Development Studies
PA Protected Area
RUA Resource Use Agreement RUC Resource Use Committee UGX Uganda Shillings
UMB Norwegian University of Life Sciences UNP Uganda National Parks
USAID United States Agency for International Development USD US Dollars
UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority
WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration ...i
Dedication ... ii
Acknowledgements ... iii
Abstract ...iv
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...v
LIST OF TABLES ... viii
LIST OF FIGURES...ix
LIST OF PICTURES ...x
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ...1
1.1 Background ...1
1.2 Research objectives and questions ...2
1.3 Justification of the study ...4
1.4 Thesis structure ...4
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW...6
2.1 Literature review ...6
2.1.1 Conservation of natural resources in Uganda ...6
2.1.2 Collaborative Management in Uganda...7
2.1.3 Collaborative Management in Mount Elgon...8
2.1.4 Processes involved in the formation of Resource Use Agreements used in ...8
2.1.5 Uganda Wildlife Authority...9
2.1.6 Contested resources in Mount Elgon ...11
2.1.7 Conflicts and natural resource management ...12
2.1.8 Sustainability and collaborative management of natural resources ...13
2.2 Conceptual framework ...15
2.3 Factors impacting households’ collection of forest products...17
2.3.1 Social capital ...17
2.3.2 Human capital ...19
2.3.3 Physical capital...19
2.3.4 Financial capital ...20
2.3.5 Natural capital ...20
2.4 Household external factors impacting on collection of forest products...21
2.4.1 Natural vagaries...21
2.4.2 Market access ...22
2.4.3 Distance to the park and the required resources...22
2.4.4 Ethnicity and duration of stay ...22
2.4.5 Access to the forest resources ...23
2.4.6 Other external household factors impacting on collection of forest products...23
2.5 Household constraints ...23
2.5.1 Lack of markets and infrastructure...24
2.5.2 Costs related to staying around the park ...24
2.5.3 Denied access to natural resources on protected areas...25
2.5.4 Other household constraints ...25
2.6 Community attitudes, values and perceptions in people-park relations...26
2.8 Durability and sustainability of management institutions...29
2.9 Power and instruments in management of natural resources ...32
CHAPTER III: STUDY AREA ...34
3.1 A review on the management of Mount Elgon ...34
3.1.1 Management under indigenous systems...34
3.1.2 Management under the Forest Department ...35
3.1.3 Management of Mount Elgon as a National Park ...36
3.2 Physical Description of the study area ...37
3.3 Climate and hydrology ...39
3.4 Flora ...40
3.5 Fauna ...41
3.5.1 Mammals...41
3.5.2 Birds ...41
3.5.3 Insects...41
3.6 Communities around MENP ...42
3.7 Areas where study was done ...43
CHAPTER IV: DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND HANDLING ...44
4.1 Sampling...44
4.2 Household interviews...44
4.3 Interview of key informants ...45
4.4 Focus group discussion ...47
4.5 Pre-testing of the questionnaire...47
4.6 Data analysis ...47
4.7 Representativity...47
4.8 Validity and reliability ...48
CHAPTER V: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS...49
5.1 Insight of parishes involved in the study...49
5.1.1 Kapkwai parish...49
5.1.2 Mutushet parish ...50
5.2.3 Ulukusi parish ...51
5.2.4 Bunambale parish...52
5.2 Local people dependence on the national park in Mt. Elgon ...53
5.2.1 Community access to the different types of assets under agreement system...54
5.2.1.1 Access to natural capital...54
5.2.1.2 Access to physical capital ...56
5.2.1.3 Access to financial capital...56
5.2.1.4 Access to social capital ...59
5.2.1.5 Access to human capital...60
5.2.2 Livelihoods and local people park dependence in Mt. Elgon ...62
5.2.3 Resources collected from the park by the local communities...64
5.2.4 Resources reported inaccessible by households around Mt. Elgon ...67
5.2.5 Household adaptation to cope without the inaccessible resources...68
5.2.6 Benefits of staying near the park...70
5.2.7 Costs of staying near the park ...71
5.2.8 Variations around the Mt. Elgon ...73
5.3 Participation in Mt. Elgon ...76
5.3.1 Participation of stakeholders in the formation of Resource Use Agreements in Mt.
Elgon ...77
5.3.2 Stakeholders as park managers in Mt. Elgon ...79
5.3.3 Conflicts between stakeholders in Mt. Elgon...81
5.3.4 Incorporation of locally existent social institutions into resource use agreement system ...82
5.3.5 Heterogeneity of societies in Mt. Elgon...83
5.3.6 Challenges that came with agreements ...84
5.3.7 Flow of information between stakeholders ...85
5.3.8 Responsibilities of different stakeholders in Mt. Elgon...85
5.3.8 Self interests of different stakeholders ...87
5.4 PERCEPTIONS, VALUES, ATTITUDES, NORMS AND PRACTICES OF LOCAL PEOPLE IN MT. ELGON ...89
5.4.1 Local people’s perception of the historical access to the forest in Mt. Elgon...89
5.4.2 Perception of Resource Use Agreements by local people and other stakeholders in Mt. Elgon ...91
5.4.3 Local practices in communities relating to forest use and misuse ...93
5.4.4 Stakeholders’ suggestions of improving the resource use agreements in Mt. Elgon....94
5.5 MENP AS A SOCIAL INSTITUTION ...96
5.5.1 Principle One: Clearly defined physical boundaries ...96
5.5.2 Principle Two: Congruence between appropriation, provision rules and local conditions ...97
5.5.3 Principle Three: Collective choice arrangements...98
5.5.4 Principle Four: Effective monitoring procedures...99
5.5.5 Legitimate system of graduated sanctions and cheap/accessible conflict resolution mechanisms ...100
5.5.6 Principle Six: Conflict resolution mechanisms ...101
5.5.7 Principle Seven: Recognition of rights to organize...103
5.5.8 Principle Eight: Nested enterprises ...104
5.4.8 Factors discovered in the field that could threaten or strengthen the sustainability of agreements in Mount Elgon ...106
CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RELATED SUGGESTIONS...108
6.1 Conclusions ...108
6.2 Policy suggestions ...112
REFERENCES...115
Appendix ...121
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2. 1: Pretty's typology of participation (based on Pretty 1996)...27 Table 2. 2: Modified design principles for long enduring common pool resources (adopted fromTable 3. 1: Altitudinal zonation of Mt. Elgon (based on Howard 1991) ...40
Table 5. 1: Constraints faced by households around Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006...57
Table 5. 2: Reported sources of income around Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006 ...62
Table 5. 3: resources reported collected by households around Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006 ...64
Table 5. 4: Example of a RUA in Mt. Elgon 2006 ( adopted from Kapkwai Resource Use Agreement)...66
Table 5. 5: Inaccessible resources reported by households around Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006...67
Table 5. 6: Benefits of staying around the Mt. Elgon National Park, Uganda 2006...70
Table 5. 7: Costs of staying near the park faced by households around Mt. Elgon, Uganda 200671 Table 5. 8: Dealing with problem animals around Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006 ...72
Table 5. 9: Livestock possessed by households, Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006 ...74
Table 5. 10: Reasons why local people felt they were part of the management of Mt. Elgon National Park, Uganda 2006 ...80
Table 5. 11: Reasons why local people felt that they were not part of management of Mt. Elgon National Park, Uganda 2006 ...80
Table 5. 12: Responsibilities of local people under the agreement system in Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006...86
Table 5. 13: Reasons why ‘free access’ was good in Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006 ...89
Table 5. 14: Reasons why ‘free access’ was bad in Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006...90
Table 5. 15: Reasons why agreements are regarded as good by local people in Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006...91
Table 5. 16: reasons why agreements are regarded as ’bad’ by local people in Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006...91
Table 5. 17: Practices carried out by communities that are good for the forest, Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006...93
Table 5. 18: Local people’s alternatives to agreements as a park management style in Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006 ...94
Table 5. 19: suggestions to improve agreements in Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006...95
Table 6. 1: Assessment of the collaborative management in Mt. Elgon National Park as a long enduring social institution, Mt. Elgon 2006...111
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: A modified household economic model based on Vedeld 1995 (adopted from Tumusiime 2006) ...16Figure 3. 1: Map of Uganda showing Mt. Elgon National Park ...38
Figure 3. 2: Map of Mt. Elgon National Park showing districts and study areas ...39 Figure 5. 1: Average household land size in Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006 ...54 Figure 5. 2: UWA Staff-Local people relationship in Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006 ...106 Figure 5. 3: Improvement of UWA staff-local people relationship with adoption of resource use agreement Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006...107
LIST OF PICTURES
Picture 1: After a focus group meeting with women in Mutushet Parish, Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006 ...46 Picture 2: Entrance to the Forest exploration centre in Kapkwai, Mt. Elgon, Uganda 2006 ...50 Picture 3: Traveling in Mt. Elgon is not easy but fun sometimes ...58
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Conservation of nature and its biodiversity has for long been one of the hottest global issues. Up to 1980-85, the “Fortress Conservation approach” had dominated with the physical separation of people from land to prevent the destruction of its resources through their consumptive and non- consumptive uses. Local people around the protected areas had lost their traditional usufruct rights and were prevented from traditional use (Vedeld 2002). Even after independence, the African traditional leaders and elites bought these conservation ideas (Adam & Hulme 2001, Vedeld 2002, Gibson 1999). There has since been a call for the adoption of participatory approaches with a shift in focus from conservation to sustainable use (Vedeld 2002). The Fortress approach narrative has now lost its hegemony with a call on the inclusion of humans in Natural Resource Management (Adam & Hulme 2001) which is widely regarded as the counter narrative though some scholars are however advocating for the return of the fortress. The exclusive approach was first adopted by the North Americans who had the idea that the wilderness needed to be preserved and therefore should be without humans who were seen as destroyers of the pristine nature (McNeely 1993), an ideology that later spread to the entire world and mainly to the developing countries.
Several areas in Uganda were gazetted for protection with the use of the fortress conservation methods under the colonial government. The exclusion approach did not change when Uganda attained independence in 1962. During the 1972-86 period of civil unrest, there were lots of management capability breakdowns (Scott 1998) and when civil stability was restored in 1986 when the current government came to power, control of the protected areas was regained with the maintenance of the colonial legacy of a paramilitary style of protection.
In the early 1990s, the management and administration of the six natural forests of Mgahinga, Kibale, Bwindi Impenetratable, Semliki, Mount Rwenzori and Mount Elgon that was under the authority of the Forest Department was handed over to Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) (Scott 1998:7) and then converted to National Parks (see Ditiro 2005). UWA is an institution and a
Uganda National Parks, an institution that was responsible for National Parks in Uganda in the early 90s, with the Game Department. The new national parks together with those that had existed earlier continued being strictly protected for conservation enhancement with a paramilitary law enforcement approach of excluding human beings with centralized institutional systems where management decisions were being taken without consulting the locally resident population. It resulted into among others conflicts between UWA staff and the neighboring populations since conservation and preservation needs were being ranked far above those of the neighboring populations whose livelihoods are primarily dependent on resources on/in these conserved areas. Local people and their needs were viewed as a problem and a hindrance. In many areas of the world, it was getting recognized that such conflicts between ‘resource users’
and ‘resource conservers’ were damaging and that they led to the failure conservation efforts (Scott 1998:4). A better address was needed.
Uganda then joined the global call of natural resource management and conservation strategies which called for the consideration of needs and opinions of the populations neighboring the protected areas and national parks with the identification of sustainable utilization of resources as a key component. This was viewed as a better story since it considered the local peoples concerns and mitigated negative effects of conservation by offering some decision making rights to the resource users and devolving some power to their local levels (Scott 1998). This resulted in the adoption of what is known as collaborative management of resources. It implied that people were no longer visualized as problems but as partners (Bartlett 1992) with rights, responsibilities, returns and decision making powers shared by stakeholders. Fischer (1995) refers to collaborative management as recognizing both development and conservation goals and not viewing the local people as antagonistic. This can be by involving them in environmental management through their participation or collaboration. Options of Collaborative Management of protected areas have now taken a centre route, the need to determine their sustainability is vital.
1.2 Research objectives and questions
The research objectives and questions are:
1. Assess access to resources and outputs before and after/with and without the agreements.
i) What are the general livelihood strategies of the local communities in Mt. Elgon?
ii) What resources do local communities get from the national park? What do they miss and how have they adapted?
iii) What are the benefits and costs of staying around the park?
2. To assess the types of participation of different stakeholders in planning and management of the park, and also assess whether local contexts were understood when effecting the institutional change.
i) How was the participation of the different stakeholders in the formulation the RUAs as a park management style?
ii) Do all stakeholders feel they are part of the park management system?
iii) What are the conflicts between the different stakeholders?
iv) Were locally existent social institutions incorporated in the agreement system?
v) How heterogeneous are the societies around Mt. Elgon? How has this aspect been taken care of?
vi) How is the general flow of information between the different stakeholders?
vii) What are the duties of different stakeholders?
3. Investigate the perceptions, practices and values in local communities in relation to Collaborative Resource Use Agreements
i) How do local people perceive the historical access to forest resources?
ii) How do local people perceive resource use agreements?
iii) What local practices relating to forest use and misuse do exist in the communities?
iv) How is the collaboration management perceived by different stakeholders?
v) How can the resource use agreements be improved and make them long lasting in the face of different stakeholders?
4. Develop ideas that may help make resource use agreements sustainable and long enduring.
i) Are there clearly defined boundaries for limiting non–members and competing users?
ii) Are those affected by the agreement system fully participating? Are they contented?
iii) Are there cheap, swift and conflict resolution mechanisms in place? Are they accessible?
iv) Are there effective monitoring and accountability procedures?
v) Is there a legitimate sanctioning system? Who set the rules?
vi) Is there congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions?
vii) Is the local authority given due recognition and not interfered by external government authorities and decisions?
1.3 Justification of the study
Collaborative management is currently popular, but it has had its weaknesses and constraints.
These include lack of capacity and resources (labour and finances) plus limited commitment (MEDCP 1998) by different stakeholders and the professional culture of coerciveness and law- enforcement approach embedded in the corresponding government parastatals (Hulme & Infield, in press in Infield & Adams 1999). Some scholars have as a result called for the return of the fortress conservation (cf Hutton et al., 2005). This study will help highlight the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and lessons to be learnt from the collaborative management arrangement of using resource use agreements that have been adopted in the management of MENP. Collaborative management arrangements are always evolving (MEDCP 1998). This implies that more knowledge and information is vital for the improvement and strengthening of collaborative management arrangements. Knowledge generated will help guide local, national and international policy makers in relation to local governance, decentralization and nature resource management and conservation.
1.4 Thesis structure
The thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter two consists of management regimes in MENP plus literature review related to the study. Chapter three consists of study area description and
methods used to carry out the study. Chapter four has the research findings while chapter five holds conclusions and recommendations.
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews literature on conservation of natural resources and national parks in Uganda, presents the conceptual framework used in the thesis and also presents theories and models used in study.
2.1 Literature review
2.1.1 Conservation of natural resources in Uganda
Conservation of natural resources in Uganda has not been easy given the pressures exerted on them and the poor people in their vicinities (Infield & Adams 1999). Another weakness has been the agricultural encroachment of forests during the weak governance of the 1970s and 80s.
Evictions of agricultural encroachers done in the 1990s to restore the integrity of national parks led to park-people conflicts. Protected areas were managed through traditional protectionist models (Chhetri et al. 2003) of coercive ‘fine and fences’ approach like elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa (Barrett & Arcese 1995). This went up to about 1980s and 90s (Tumusiime 2006). Before the 70s, parks did not experience any pronounced problems as wildlife populations were abundant and surrounding human populations being low. Subsistence hunting seemed the biggest threat, but with minimal effects to the national parks. The game department (that was in charge of the national parks at the time) protected farmers’ crops by shooting trespassing animals. At the beginning of the 70s, human population increase and less control over management of resources became evident. People also got internally displaced and the general economy deteriorated. these events had negative effects on wildlife management with the game department lacking capacity stop the illegal killing of wild animals some of which was commercial and state-sponsored (Chhetri et al. 2003).
With the coming of the current political regime in Kampala in 1986, the confrontational approach to wildlife management was questioned given the lacking human component. A partnership model was thought of which recognizes people at the center of conservation policies and practice.
Dialogue with the local people whose lives are affected by wildlife practices and policies were then initiated. Conservation efforts and programmes with people were first initiated in 1988 in
the Bwindi Impenetratable National Park with concerted efforts to minimize the people-park conflicts.
2.1.2 Collaborative Management in Uganda
In Uganda, like elsewhere in the world and sub-Sahara, community conservation has become dominant (Infield & Adams 1999). Conservation efforts and programmes involving people in Uganda were initiated in 1988 in Bwindi Impenetratable National Park (Chhetri et al. 2003).
However, Infield & Adams (1999) report that collaborative management of national parks started in 1991.
In 1996, institutional wildlife arrangements were reviewed resulting in the creation of UWA which was coined out of the game department and Uganda National Parks merger (Chhetri et al.
2003). Chhetri et al. 2003 give the four important realities revealed at the Uganda’s National Parks jubilee celebrated in 2002:
1. Conservation initiatives can never yield effective and equitable results without the participation of affected communities
2. A negative attitude towards protected areas still existed within the local communities 3. Many rural Ugandans still depended on the park resources for their subsistence
4. Conservation benefits and income should be shared with those negatively affected
Since the mid-1990s, legal, policy and institutional frameworks have been progressively modified and some partnering with local communities forged out. A wildlife statute was been instituted and provides for: the harvest of resources by the local communities, the involvement of local communities in the management of the protected areas and the sharing of 20% of the national park gate receipts with the local communities. It should be noted that income from other sources of revenue is not shared e.g. camping and trekking fees. Wildlife that destroy farmers crops can legally destroyed by farmers if found destroying crops (Chhetri et al. 2003). Currently, collaborative management has been adopted in about six national parks in Uganda (Kenneth Balikowa, pers. comm.).
2.1.3 Collaborative Management in Mount Elgon
Collaborative management was explored in MENP so as to exploit the local people’s involvement and park dependence for maintaining their interest in the park’s management and initiate sustainable development activities. It was viewed as a breakthrough to resolving park- people conflicts and conservation from the community side. Collaborative management in MENP has been reportedly adopted in over 35 parishes out of about 62 around MENP (in personal communication with a UWA staff).
The form of Collaborative Management adopted in ME is the Resource Use Agreements (RUAs).
Arrangements began as a result of a Phase II mid-term review of the Mount Elgon Conservation and Development Project (MECDP) that highlighted the ineffectiveness of the traditional protectionist approaches used in conserving the park. The idea on the table became the need to develop links between conservation of the park and the sustainable development of communities around it. MECDP financially and technically supported MENP with the overall objective of protecting the ME ecosystem for the present and future generations. Experiences were drawn from India and Nepal’s community forestry and joint forestry management where rights of use were exchanged with the responsibility to manage. The smallest unit of management chosen under the agreement level was the parish and the approach was piloted in Mutushet and Ulukusi parishes. Progress has been slow with the negative attitude to conservation and conflicts persisting and remaining a major concern for UWA (Chhetri et al. 2003).
2.1.4 Processes involved in the formation of Resource Use Agreements used in
Mountain Elgon
The process began in 1995 and culminated with the signing of agreements in 1996 in the two pilot parishes after a whole year of various activities. Forest Management Committees (FMCs) were first elected in the pilot parishes. Discussions and negotiations took place between the park managers and the FMCs on behalf of communities culminating into agreement drafts that were sent to Uganda National Park (UNP) headquarters for comments. After their approval, Memoranda of understanding were signed between the Executive Director of UWA and the FMCs during which MECDP staff acted as intermediaries.
2.1.5 Uganda Wildlife Authority
Uganda wildlife authority (UWA) is a statutory body under the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry (MTTI) established by the Uganda Wildlife Act of 2000. It resulted from the merger of the Uganda National Parks (an institution responsible for National Parks in Uganda in the early 90s) and the Game Department (Scott 1998). The merger in which UWA resulted was due to the reviewing of institutional wildlife arrangements which was done in 1996. It became operational in August 1996. Its mission statement is “to conserve and sustainably manage the wildlife and protected areas of Uganda in partnership with neighboring communities and other stakeholders for the benefit of the people of Uganda and the global community” (Chhetri et al. 2003: 29).
Uganda Wildlife Authority is responsible for the management of 10 national parks, 12 wildlife reserves and 7 wildlife sanctuaries. It also provides guidance in the management of 5 community wildlife areas.
Chhetri et al. (2003) add that there had been many conflicts between the local people and UWA in Mount Elgon and other national parks due to the loss of traditional access to the in-park resources by the local communities. In response, UWA explored collaborative management in its programmes in reflection to its mission statement. In Mt. Elgon, 9 community conservation rangers had been instituted by 2003 although there were 57 law enforcement rangers indicating that protectionism still enjoys the accorded priority but with some investment in developing local partnerships. But the training that rangers receive is paramilitary meaning that they are more prepared for law enforcement than community conservation. It is one of the few protected area authorities permitting extractive resources use in Category II PAs (IUCN 1994). It also adopted a combination of community conservation strategies in response to the realization that no one single strategy can resolve conflicts. The approach combined the following strategies:
1. Adopt collaborative resource arrangements where local communities can harvest and manage selected park resources
2. Keep wild animals from entering crop fields through different mechanisms. In some national parks under this strategy, UWA together with local communities , has tried out deterrent methods to keep animals from raiding crops e.g. trench digging, scare shooting , live fencing with a plant called Mauritius thorn placing sharp objects and buffering using crops not easily eaten by wild animals e.g. Soya bean and tea. Use of some of these
strategies in Kibale National Park is reported to have reduced on crop raiding by wild animals especially elephants and improved the park-people relationship.
3. Clearly define park boundaries with trees and enter agreements with neighboring communities authorizing utilization of trees in return for protection of the boundary.
4. Reduce pressures on PAs through collaboration with district authorities and NGOs to promote environmentally sustainable development outside PAs.
5. Sensitize and raise awareness regarding importance of conservation with particular emphasis on environment education for school children.
In collaborative resource management explored by UWA, local people’s access to specific resources is under certain conditions. The local people are in turn expected to undertake the monitoring and regulating of resource harvesting levels plus the protection of resource use areas.
It is termed as ‘rights for responsibilities’ referring to one managing resources where (s)he depends. In the collaborative management arrangement adopted by UWA, formal agreements are signed with the resource user representatives after negotiations. The negotiation process was slow in the beginning since park staff had to be trained on how to conduct the process e.g. group dynamics, participatory resource assessment and negotiation skills. With a better and trained staff, the process has been reduced to six months from two years. The negotiation process also needs time. “Numerous meetings are required to identify all resource users, gain their trust, familiarize them with the CRM concept and help them negotiate terms of resource use agreements”. The agreements may be for extracting only one resource or may allow extraction of multiple resources. Before the final signing of the agreements, the agreement has to be approved first by UWA. By 2003, 3 agreements had been signed in ME while 21 still awaited approval involving about 20% of the surrounding parishes and about 10,000 households (Chhetri et al.
2003: 31).
The issue of the park boundary has been pronounced in Mt. Elgon. It is compounded by high population densities given the fertile soils. A resurveying exercise carried out 2000 put the true boundary outside the existing one that the farmers new hence taking some of their fields resulting into an extreme conflict and court cases. In some communities adjoining the park in Mt. Elgon which Chhetri et al. (2003) put at five, partnerships were developed with UWA to plant five lines
of eucalyptus trees at spacing of 2 meters along the boundary. Locals can plant crops under and can periodically harvest as an incentive to protect the boundary.
In its strategy to reduce pressures on PAs through collaboration with district authorities and NGOs to promote environmentally sustainable development outside PAs, UWA has partnered with IUCN, district authorities and local NGOs to promote sustainable development in parishes neighboring the park. To reduce pressure on the parks, promotion of the growth of alternatives and substitutes to the park resources has been to the park tried. These include pig farming for income generation and substituting bush meat, improved farming systems including soil fertility management, beekeeping to reduce forest fire incidences resulting from honey collection activities, and agroforestry to reduce pressure on the park for firewood, poles, timber and other tree products. Revenue-generating park-based enterprises have also been promoted e.g. local tourism and bee-keeping (Chhetri et al. 2003).
Uganda wildlife authority’s fifth strategy for achieving conservation is sensitizing and raising awareness regarding importance of conservation (Chhetri et al. 2003). Uganda wildlife authority is reported to regularly held dialogue with local communities and their political representatives to explain wildlife management policies, laws and discuss park management actions impacting on the community. A long-term management plan was made in 1999 and extensive series of consultative meetings held. An environment education center was set up in collaboration with IUCN providing short environmental courses to children and educating them on the value of education. Conservation messages have also been disseminated through community workshops, radio broadcasts, posters and road shows (Chhetri et al. 2003). But it should be noted that community collaboration in Mt. Elgon has just complimented law enforcement since all of them do prevail there. Illegal penetration of the park for bush meat and timber among other resources still exists given the genuine fact that many of the communities around the park are below the poverty line and need food and land to sustain their livelihoods (Infield & Adams 1999).
2.1.6 Contested resources in Mount Elgon
Communities around the park have traditionally used it for medicinal, cultural, commercial and subsistence needs. But access was restricted and resource harvesting prohibited when the legal
status was changed from a forest reserve to national park around 1993. It resulted into conflicts especially the eviction of agricultural encroachers who had exploited the weak governance of the 1970s and 80s (Chhetri et al. 2003). However, with the adoption of RUAs, some resources became accessible on specific days and others remained restricted or banned (MECDP 1998).
This applies only to parishes that have signed agreements. Those without agreements have zero access. Accessible resources include mushrooms, vegetables, medicinal plants, Fodder, fittos (reeds less than 3cm in diameter usually used for building), honey, bamboo shoots and stems, circumcision sticks, firewood, ropes, water, crop stakes, clay, salt licks, access to cultural sites, medicinal plants and passage through the park among others. Amounts to be collected are clearly outlined in the agreement. Banned activities include all types of domestic animal grazing, charcoal burning, cultivation, game killing, disturbance or egg removal and tree cutting for timber (Kapkwai Collaborative Resource Use Agreement 2002, Sletten 2004).
2.1.7 Conflicts and natural resource management
Natural resources related conflicts between local people and management bodies are more often created or intensified by policies that regulate resource use significantly impact on the local populations (Gombya-Ssembajwe et al. 2000). Factors leading to forest use related conflicts in Uganda include:
1. Population increase: fertile forest land is encroached for survival
2. Poverty: communities rely on forests for livelihood and economic income
3. Access, ownership and use: local populations get forest land freely and illegally 4. Political differences which flame up the already existing conflicts
5. Lack of alternatives: authorities come up with policies but put no alternatives in place.
6. Ignorance between authorities and local people on each others perspectives
7. Policy changes and implementations that are done with poor or no consultation of stakeholders.
The park-people conflict in Mount Elgon emerged upon changing the legal status of the mountain from a forest reserve to a national park. The local people were not consulted, forest access became restricted and harvesting of forest resources became prohibited. Lack of a clearly defined
park boundary has been another persistent cause of conflict in Mt. Elgon. But at the same time, conflicts have catalyzed the development of conservation strategies that bound the civil society, district authorities and the local people together (Chhetri et al. 2003) e.g. collaborative management.
2.1.8 Sustainability and collaborative management of natural resources
Costanza et al. (1998: 244 in Costanza et al. 2001) argues that ‘sustainability depends on understanding the way humans and their institutions interact with ecological systems’. They regard information and consideration of the actor’s self interests as sufficient inputs for sustainable management. They identify six major principles of a sustainable renewable resources management as put across in a workshop in Lisbon, Portugal:
1. Responsibility: individual and corporate responsibility should be ensured and should be in line with social and ecological goals.
2. Scale matching: decision making on environmental should be at institutional level, flow of ecological information between institutions should be ensured, all actors should be put into account and all costs and benefits should be internalized.
3. Precaution: in cases of potentially irreversible environmental impacts, decision taken to avoid any more risks, probably the most difficult principle to implement.
4. Adaptive management: continuous gathering and integration of all appropriate information for adaptive improvement
5. Full cost allocation: identification and allocation of all costs and benefits.
6. Full participation: all stakeholders should be involved in formulation and implementation of decisions regarding environmental resources so as to come up with credible and acceptable long lasting rules that will appropriately identify and assign corresponding responsibilities. All stakeholders should fully participate in the institutional development and maintenance.
A Sustainable system is one that can survive for a specified (non-finite) time (Costanza & Patten 1995 in Costanza et al. 2001). The system resources will most probably never become biologically extinct and the resource users will avoid disruptions and collapses and hedge against
instabilities and discontinuities with resource users knowing why the resources deserve conservation. Local resource control is unfoundedly the best and effective method of managing resources since local actors are the ones who face the brunt of the related costs and enjoy the related benefits. Their resource dependence over a period of time plus the presence of adequate conflict resolution mechanisms contributes to sustainability (Costanza et al. 2001). Heterogeneity of human beings and their systems is an important factor to consider in the sustainability of the management systems. The differences may be in the aspects of age, wealth, education, strength, etc and these carry different demand effects on the ecosystem. It affects the conflicts between individuals and groups and makes institutional establishment difficult henceforth affecting sustainability. The different interaction relationships between the human systems and ecosystems also need to be considered (Costanza et al. 2001). They include:
i) Excludability: capability and cost of keeping some individuals from benefiting on a resource
ii) Observability: detecting and measuring human actions and consequences iii) Enforceability: feasibility and cost of achieving conformation to rules
iv) Knowledge: understanding how the resource management system works and the values of all the involved variables
v) Divisibility: separating the resource into units to be used by different individuals
Poffenberger (1990a in Scott 1998) points out that the forest dependent people can be the best forest managers since they are the ones who benefit from the forest. The more benefits, the more the users would want the resource properly managed. Scott (1998) stresses the need for the fair representation of all forest users in the contexts of age, gender, specialists, socio-economic status, tribe etc. on a decision making unit which should be at a community level and refers to this as the first step towards partnership management. Bartlett et al. (1993) call for the local residents to be the chief determinants of the real resource users and the way the want to be represented citing Nepal as an example where indigenous user rights still exist and determine who to use which resource in which area.
The following sections present theoretical models used in my study
2.2 Conceptual framework
A household economic model (adopted from Tumusiime 2006 and based on Vedeld 1995) in Fig.
1 is used to assess the local people’s access to park resources and outputs in the study area before/after the adoption of the agreements, and to some extent, with and without agreements.
Tumusiime (2006:23) defines a household as an appropriate unit of analysis and defines it as
“sharing the same abode and eating together”. He considers a household as a good unit of analysis because of its pooling of resources, joint decision making, income sharing and often makes choice on which income generating activity to pursue. The combination of activities which a household decides to pursue and Ellis (2000) refers to as household activities, are determined by internal and external factors (Barrett et al. 2001, Tumusiime 2006). The activities are usually farm and non-farm (Vedeld et al. 2004). For households in vicinities of forest resources, there are also forest use related activities since the households use the forest commercially and for subsistence (FAO 1993, Vedeld et al. 2004). The main internal factor is access to assets (Tumusiime 2006) with assets being categorized as natural, physical, social, human and financial (Ellis 2000, Norton & Foster 2000 in Dearden et al., 2002).
A household’s livelihood is defined by assets and activities it undertakes (Ellis 2000, Chambers
& Conway 1992). The household also faces constraints; factors that limit the struggle to improve its livelihood. They include limited access to assets and factors that constrain the household from converting assets into outputs. Selected activities generate income for the household in terms of cash, goods and/or services. The income may then be consumed hence enhancing the well being of the household, or may be re-ploughed to enhance the household’s asset base and/or for the future incomes of the household. The consumption and/or investment of each household implies much beyond a single household’s economy and impacts on income distribution, poverty and policy implications (Tumusiime 2006). He points out how a forest activity contributing to the income of poor community members reduces the income concentration to a smaller section of the community thus reducing income inequality. The welfare of the recipients thus improves since they are able to access socially acceptable standards of necessities like nutrition. Poverty incidence (the proportion of the poor) therefore reduces, poverty depth (distance separating the poor from the poverty line) reduces and poverty severity also reduces. These measures all have
policy implications for rural development, poverty alleviation and dependence on the park, forests and natural resources (Tumusiime 2006).
Figure 2.1: A modified household economic model based on Vedeld 1995 (adopted from Tumusiime2006)
Forest activities provide both timber and non-timber products that are important in cash generation, construction, food security and health (Tumusiime 2006). Household Environmental income in Mt. Elgon totaled to 19%. Eighty percent of the environmental income came from the park (Katto 2004). But the choice of activities that a household undertakes depends on the accessibility of the assets (or capital). The better the access, the more profitable the activity a household or individual chooses to undertake. Households with better asset access often depend less on environmental incomes. Park dependence increases as total household income decreases (Tumusiime 2006). Environmental incomes are often considered a last resort employment (Angelsen and Wunder 2003). Wealthier households do posses better productive assets like land and have access to markets with ability to employ poor people on their farms. They also invest in
off-farm activities. Households with poor asset access of which the majority in the rural areas, value forest activities more. Even some forest income generating activities they would have engaged themselves in require investment, e.g. buying power saws to cut timber. As a result, poor people instead sell their labour and pursue activities requiring little or no assets and investment of which forest activities are part (Tumusiime 2006). Among the factors affecting park resources collection are cultural and socio-economic factors. Some tribes culturally depend on the park more than others. Immigrants from non-forest environments may depend less on the park (cf.
Stræde et al. 2002), Tumusiime 2006).
Agriculture, mainly subsistence, is the main household activity for many of the rural areas in developing countries with some dependence on off-farm activities. For households around Mount Elgon, 65% of the income came from agriculture (Katto 2004). Forest activities attract many rural households and generate incomes for many of them, though they don’t provide a “pathway out of poverty” (Vedeld et al. 2004). Extensive analysis on household surveys by Reardon et al.
(1998) that went for three decades from 1970s showed that non-farm income, of which a considerable portion is forest income (FAO 1993), contributed a good portion to the average total income. The percentages were placed at 32 for Asia, 40 for Latin America and 42 for Africa.
2.3 Factors impacting households’ collection of forest products
From the model, there are two categories of factors: internal and external. Internal factors are related to asset access. Constanza et al. (2001) have what they refer as stocks which they define as elements in a system that can potentially accumulate or decline. They include capital and actors. They categorize capital into two: human made capital which they refer to as assets and natural capital. Human made capital (assets) comprises the material and non-material resources that actors use to pursue their activities and is categorized into social, human and physical capital (see Scoones 1997).
2.3.1 Social capital
Social capital involves relationships and norms shared among individuals and not possessed by a single individual. It may be at the level of family, clan, firm and government (Costanza et al.
2002). Social capital is based on reciprocity within communities and between households
(Tumusiime 2006). It directly or indirectly conditions economic decisions. Links created may facilitate pursuit of better paying activities and thus discourage pursuit of park activities. Links with park authorities may facilitate pursuit of park activities. The linkage may be horizontal within the same community members or vertical when beyond village level e.g. with politicians and park officials (Tumusiime 2006). Goodland (2002) refers to social capital as investments and services that create structures of a system. Trust in a civil society can be achieved through systematic community participation. It brings about “community cohesion for mutual benefit, connectedness between groups of people, tolerance, compassionate, patience, reciprocity, fellowship, love, honesty, discipline and ethics”. Inadequate investment in social capital may yield violence and mistrust resulting into subsequent social breakdown which is among the biggest constraint to social sustainability.
Social capital can be replenished and maintained through sharing values and having equal rights and that can be achieved through community, religious and cultural interactions. If the forest is of value to the local people, they will try to protect it and would never want to see it get extinct. If they feel that the forest is not of any value to them, they will have no attachments and would not care if anything bad happened to it. They would never care seeing it on fire for example.
Community members may not care seeing fellow members do something destructive e.g. cutting trees. They would never care seeing people killing and destroying resources. After all, the forest is not of any importance to them and is as good as not being there. Collaborative management brings about some value sharing although limited. Local people have some rights to resources access. Social capital lowers the working and transaction costs since it builds up trust and therefore facilitates cooperation (Goodland 2002: 1). Collaborative resource management contributes to social capital since resource use groups since increase interaction among members and resource use meetings can be used to discuss social matters outside the resource use. It leads to reduced law enforcement, reduced poaching and illegal resource use and generally improves community relations (Chhetri et al. 2003). Individual social capital increases forest environment income access while institutional social capital facilitates community based natural resource management (Paal Vedeld, pers. comm.).
2.3.2 Human capital
Human capital is the stock of education, skills, culture and knowledge stored in the individual human beings (Costanza et al. 2002). Human capital embodies labour which carries aspects of quality and quantity. Labour quality refers to knowledge and skills possessed which are developed through education and age. Labour quantity is relates to things like household size, gender and age composition. Human capital influences the needs and abilities to undertake certain income activities e.g. individuals or households with more education access a wide variety of livelihood activities hence downplaying some less profitable activities like collection of certain forest products. A household with a sufficient labour access may allocate some units of labour into what are considered last resort activities (Tumusiime 2006).
2.3.3 Physical capital
Physical capital are assets like factories, buildings, tools, land, livestock etc (cf. Costanza et al.
2002) owned by someone or a group of people and are used in the production process. Land is the most important for agrarian communities, like Mt. Elgon, since even very basic agriculture requires it. Its access therefore influences the ability to farm with households having little or no access being ‘pushed’ into other livelihood activities like collection of forest products. Wealthier households with a better access may even diversify because of being ‘pulled’ into better paying alternatives. A physical asset also of interest in Mt. Elgon is livestock. It is a good asset since it is a near to liquid asset as it can easily be converted into cash in case of an urgent household need, a characteristic of many rural households in developing countries. It improves on the insurance of a more stable livelihood (Tumusiime 2006).
However, lack of land is one constraint that many households face. This could be due to high population densities making total incomes meager for the survival of individuals and households.
Lack of land can also be caused by fragmentation through partitioning during inheritance processes. It could however be due to the poor quality of land, may be of rocky nature especially in the mountainous areas.
2.3.4 Financial capital
It is the least available capital to the rural poor of the low return activities they undertake. Even when available for access through borrowing, poor households cannot meet the accompanying interest rates. Poor households thus resort to forest activities for income since they lack the power to invest in activities that would have yielded income for them (Tumusiime 2006). Poor households thus depend on the forest dependent of poverty (Vedeld et al. 2004). Poor people depend on forests for subsistence while the rich use them to broaden their income bases (Tumusiime 2006). Lack of capital is one constraints faced by many rural households.
Households need finances are needed to carry out day-to-day activities ranging from paying hospital bills, school fees, and meeting domestic requirements like food, shelter and clothes.
Lack of financial capital is a big problem for individuals, households and communities in many of the developing countries in their struggle for survival and development. Its scarcity leads to underinvestment in education and consequently leads to low human capital. Education would have led to reduced dependence environmental incomes since there are alternative income sources from the professions where people are employed. Poor people cannot afford improved seeds and agricultural inputs so as to improve land production abilities and boost agricultural income. Agricultural income is the main source of income for rural households. Rudimentary tools are still used and the hand-hoe is the main agricultural tool. Livestock is of poor breeds, and give poor outputs in terms of meat and milk. The rural people have little or no access to agricultural information and knowledge. Many of the rural areas are far from the cities and capital cities where there is very little or no government influence felt. An improved decentralization policy may change the situation to some degree, like it has been the case in Uganda.
2.3.5 Natural capital
It may be divided into renewable and non-renewable capital. Renewable natural capital is one that uses solar energy to self maintain itself. It can still be importance even when not harvested.
For example, the vegetation can control erosion and can be used for recreation purposes.
Examples are fish and natural forests. Non-renewable natural capital yields no services when not
extracted e.g. fossil fuels and minerals. Land and forest products are the most important natural capitals though land is often classified under physical capital. Forests are used for both consumptive and non-consumptive purposes though the former is the most important for the rural people given its tangibility (Tumusiime 2006). National parks are a source of income through tourism (Chhetri et al. 2003) though its importance may be higher at national level and not at household or local level. Cavendish (2003) sees the forest as playing three household roles of safety netting, support current consumption and being an out of poverty pathway.
In safety netting, forests and their income help households play a safety role in unpredicted and irregular hardship times e.g. crop failure due to drought, sickness of a family member or even death hence preventing extreme hardship. The importance of the forest in such periods depends on the household’s susceptibility at such moments in terms of alternatively available safety nets.
Forests support household consumptions through gap filling during times of seasonal shortfalls e.g. firewood collection throughout the year and wild fruit collection in periods before the harvest of staple foods. Forests help households accumulate assets hence preventing them from sinking into deeper poverty. Forests also provide cash or subsistence income to households thus reducing poverty in rural areas. Pursued park activity(ies) may reduce poverty incidence (occurrence of poor people in the population), diminish the poverty depth (bringing the poor people near to the poverty line) and reduce the population poverty severity (see Tumusiime 2006).
2.4 Household external factors impacting on collection of forest products
From the model, external factors include natural vagaries e.g. adverse climatic conditions that may result into crop failure, market access, distance to the national park or even the resources in the park, access to forest resources and ethnicity. Other factors may prevail. These factors do impact on the collection of park resources.
2.4.1 Natural vagaries
Agriculture, which is the main occupation of rural people in developing countries, is made difficult by risks presented by natural vagaries e.g. adverse climatic conditions that may result in crop failure. More than one livelihood activity should be engaged in by a household to ensure against risks (Kinsey et al. 1998) of which collection of forest resources is may be one of them.
2.4.2 Market access
Markets generate non-park incomes e.g. markets for agricultural produce. Its limitation means that households’ dependence on park income increases. Market access may be affected by other factors e.g. road network in terms of road availability and condition since the produce has to be transported to and from where they are sold, communication means and facilities for buyers and sellers to reach each other, electricity in case of the need to refrigerate and preserve, preservation knowledge to increase the shelf life of the produce, etc.
2.4.3 Distance to the park and the required resources
In general, increased distance from home to the forest would be expected to decrease forest use though it may not be the case (see Missano 1994). It may depend on the distance from home to the market and the forest in relation to whether the resource is for subsistence or commercial purposes. If the resource is for commercial use, distance from home to the forest may not matter much. Distance to the market plays a big role. If the forest resource is for subsistence, distances to the forest may be disregarded especially if there are alternatives. Also, if there is alternative employment, distance from home to the forest may be considered. Collection of forest resources may therefore depend on the importance of the resource to the household and alternative opportunities (see Tumusiime 2006).
2.4.4 Ethnicity and duration of stay
Different tribes do depend on different forest products. Several factors may cause this: the duration of the stay of a household in the place citing its cultural background, knowledge, interest and importance in relation to the forest and its products. Different tribes also require different amounts of various products. Immigrants lacking sufficient access and poor immigrants may resort to park activities. Where management is by customary rights, they may be delineated (see Stræde et al. 2002). Tumusiime (2006) sees ethnicity and duration of stay as having a varied influence on collection of forest products. This is because tribes that have lived long in forest vicinities develop sustainable associations with the forest e.g. taboos protecting the forest and its products, while immigrant tribes may not have such customs protecting and respecting the forest.
2.4.5 Access to the forest resources
Free access, limited access or zero access like under the fortress conservation impact on forest use. In Mt. Elgon, the last two exist. Limited access is in areas with collaborative management where some parishes sharing a common boundary with the park have signed resource use agreements with UWA. Access is limited to 2 agreed days per week and only to certain resources. The fortress conservation applies to parish residents whose parishes do not share a common boundary with the park and those in parishes without agreements even if they share a common boundary with the park (see Sletten 2004, Ditiro 2003). Agreements are signed on condition of respect and failure to heed with them results in a withdrawal and subsequent return to the fortress conservation management style. It is the community’s role to protect and respect the agreement with the responsibility of reporting wrong users. Loss of traditional access to in- park resources has been a constant source of people-park conflicts (Chhetri et al. 2003).
2.4.6 Other external household factors impacting on collection of forest products
Other factors include road networks, communication facilities e.g. telephones and radio. These factors may improve on the marketing of agricultural produce hence reduce dependence on park income. Some household factors impacting on the collection of park products may be both internal and external or may not belong to any. One factor here is gender. Men and women collect different forest products for different purposes. For example, men may collect resources from risky areas, in risky ways e.g. using illegal methods and even illegal resources all of which women tend to avoid. Tumusiime (2006) points out that men tend pursue forest products that require more labour and those that carry a high potential to earn cash for household e.g. timber and bush meat, while women tend to collect forest products for home use e.g. firewood, medicinal plants, vegetables and wild fruits.2.5 Household constraints
Household constraints are limitations that hamper households in their quest of improved livelihoods. Every household has constraints to increased production though some are specific to certain areas. Areas in the proximity of to national parks and forests like Mt. Elgon some from costs related to staying near the park e.g. crop destruction by wild animals. Constraints faced by households follow below.
