impacts of bwindi impenetrable national park on local people's livelihoods
kenneth balikoowa
Department of international environment and development studies master thesis 30 credits 2008
IMPACTS OF BWINDI IMPENETRABLE NATIONAL PARK ON LOCAL PEOPLES’
LIVELIHOODS
KENNETH BALIKOOWA May 2008
Department of international Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB)
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of a degree of Masters of Science in Natural Resource Management and Sustainable Agriculture
ii
The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB). 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 programs) and assignments.
The Noragric Master theses are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfill the requirements under the Noragric Master program “Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture” (MNRSA), “Development Studies” and other Master programs.
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.
© Kenneth Balikoowa, May 2008 [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, Kenneth Balikoowa, declare that this thesis is a result of my research investigations and findings. Sources of information other than my own have been acknowledged and a reference list has been appended. This work has not been previously submitted to any other university for award of any type of academic degree.
Signature………...
Date………
i
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my girlfriend Irene; I love you so much and always will.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am very grateful to my supervisor Assoc Professor Espen Sjastaad for the guidance in preparing the proposal and the final report. Also Professor Paul Vedeld was very much involved in the inception of this research and Doctor Buyinza Mukadasi whose help while in the field is invaluable.
I am grateful to NORAD for having sponsored my master’s degree studies, and all staff at Noragric for being such good teachers. Doctor Goretti Nabanoga of Faculty of Forestry, you were very helpful. Ingeborg and Liv at Noragric library, you have been so helpful and always willing to help with literature search.
I also thank in a special way Herbert Ainembabazi for the unconditional help during data analysis. I am indebted to all my classmates and friends at UMB, Patrick, David, Justin, Gloria, Linn Marie, Sandy, Henry, Bjonnar Rebekka and Christina you all deserve the best in life. To all of you I say thank you and may God bless you.
iii
ABSTRACT
There is debate on whether protected areas like national parks can help in poverty alleviation or are instead poverty traps. In this study, the impact of Bwindi impenetrable national park in south-western Uganda on local incomes and livelihoods is assessed. The study also seeks local perceptions on collaborative natural resource management scheme. Data was collected from a stratified random sample. Stratification was based on proximity to the park boundary with strata at 0-2 km, 3-6 km and above 6 km from the park boundary. Another stratum also 0-2 km from the park boundary but with some access to park resources was created. The four strata were compared with respect to total household income, asset endowment, income diversification and income distribution. Results showed that households nearest to the park earned higher income but no differences in land and livestock ownership. Proximity to the park negatively affected access to social services. Dependence on park income was not influenced not by proximity but by membership to a resource user group. Dependence on park income had a negative effect on total household income and due to the small allowable quotas of park resources, park income had a small income equalising effect. Local people expressed concern over damage of crops done by park animals and inability of park management to either curb the problem or offer compensation for the damage. However, there is satisfaction with the management approach but less appreciation of the manner in which tourist revenue sharing money was being handled. As a result it is concluded that BINP has enormous potential to benefit local people but real local benefits remain a distant reality yet the costs associated with the existence of the park are having a heavy toll on local people.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION --- i
DEDICATION --- ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT --- iii
ABSTRACT --- iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS --- v
LIST OF TABLES --- vii
LIST OF FIGURES --- viii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS --- ix
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION --- 1
1.1 Background --- 1
1.2 Problem statement --- 3
1.3 Goals, objectives and hypotheses --- 4
CHAPTER II: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW --- 6
2.1 Analytical framework --- 6
2.1.1 Key terms and concepts --- 6
2.1.2 Household economic model --- 6
2.2 Rural livelihoods --- 9
2.2.1 Characteristics of rural households --- 9
2.2.2 Rural income diversification --- 9
2.2.3 Rural household dependence on natural resources --- 10
2.2.4 Rural household income distribution --- 10
2.2.5 Community based natural resource management--- 10
2.2.6 A case for community involvement in conservation --- 12
2.2.7 A case against community involvement in conservation --- 13
CHAPTER III: STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY --- 15
3.1 Study area --- 15
3.1.1 Location, physical and demographic characteristics --- 15
3.1.2 Management of Bwindi forest prior to becoming a national park --- 16
3.1.3 Management of Bwindi forest as a national park --- 17
3.2 Methodology --- 19
3.2.1 Site selection --- 19
3.2.2 Data collection --- 19
3.2.3 Data handling, estimation and analysis --- 20 v
3.3 Proxies for internal household factors --- 22
3.3.1 Human capital --- 22
3.3.2 Physical capital --- 23
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION --- 25
4.1 Basic household characteristics --- 25
4.2 Access to infrastructure and social services --- 29
4.3 Household income and income dependence --- 32
4.3.1 Household income sources --- 32
4.3.2 Household dependence --- 34
4.4 Determinants of total household income --- 37
4.5 Effect of proximity to the park on total household incomes --- 40
4.6 Household total income diversification --- 40
4.7 Distribution of income --- 43
4.7.1 Income inequality --- 43
4.7.2 Effect of park income on income inequality --- 43
4.8 Performance under the collaborative management scheme--- 45
4.8.1 People-park relations --- 45
4.8.2 Perceived benefits of staying close to the park --- 45
4.8.3 Local people participation in management of BINP --- 46
4.8.4 The tourist revenue sharing scheme --- 47
4.8.5 Resource use in BINP --- 48
4.8.6 Local opinions on how the park can benefit local people --- 48
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS --- 50
REFERENCES --- 52
APPENDICES --- 60
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Adult equivalent scales ... 23
Table 2: Livestock conversion factors ... 23
Table 3: Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the four strata and whole sample .. 26
Table 4: Main occupations of household heads ... 28
Table 5: Household income (UGX) ... 33
Table 6: Contribution of livelihood activities to household income ... 35
Table 7: Household subsistence and cash income ... 36
Table 8: Ordinary linear regression of log total household income against household characteristics ... 38
Table 9: Weighted least squares regression of total income diversity and household socio economic fators ... 41
Table 10: Comparison of income inequality in the four strata ... 43
Table 11: Comparing Gini coefficient for Karangara with and without park income ... 44
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Modified household economic model (Based on Tumusiime (2006)) --- 8
Figure 2 Map of Uganda showing location of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park --- 16
Figure 3: Selected endowments by stratum --- 31
Figure 4: Selected asset endowments showing aggregated strata --- 32
Figure 5: Relationship between dependence on off-farm income and total household income --- 40
Figure 6: Relationship between total household income and income diversification --- 42
viii
ix ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AEU Adult Equivalent Units
BCHC Buhoma Community Health Centre BINP Bwindi Impenetrable National Park CEU Cattle Equivalent Units
CPAC Community-Protected Areas Committees CPI Community Protected Area Institutions DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DTC Development Through Conservation GEF Global Environment Facility
HuGo Human-Gorilla Conflict Resolution
ICDP Integrated Community Development Projects ITFC Institute Of Tropical Forest Conservation
LIRDP Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project
MBIFCT Mgahinga and Bwindi Impenetrable Forest Conservation Trust MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MUZ Multiple Use-Zones
NEMA National Environmental Management Authority PEC Production and Environment Committees PMI Poverty Measurement Index
RUG Resource User Agreements UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority WHS World Heritage Site
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background
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 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).
Rural people in developing countries depend heavily on natural resources and derive a significant portion of their income and livelihoods from them (e.g Cavendish 2000; Escobal & Aldana 2003;
Ghate 2002; Mamo et al. 2007; Vedeld, Pal et al. 2004). This has increased global attention towards biodiversity management in the last decades (Ferraro 2001). Some believe the “fortress approach” to managing natural resources is no longer tenable, due to its disadvantages especially in relation to human cost (Brockington & Schmidt-Soltau 2004) but also the difficulty in enforcing established protected areas in face of growing local opposition (Hutton et al. 2005;
Wells, P. M. & McShane 2004). A new “community conservation” paradigm (Hulme &
Murphree 2001) later emerged that emphasized conserving biodiversity hand in hand with satisfaction of human needs (e.g. Adams, M. William & Hulme 2001; Adams, William M. &
Infield 2003; Hutton et al. 2005).
The costs and benefits of conservation accrue unequally at local, national and international levels (Balmford & Whitten 2003; Wells, M. 1992). Unfortunately, the marginalized and impoverished local people foot the bigger part of the conservation bill (see Ferraro 2001; IUCN 2005; Roe &
Elliott 2004; Wells, M. 1992) and receive the least of the benefits (Adams, William M. & Infield 1
2003). Yet local people are indispensable for the long term integrity of protected areas (Wells, P.
M. & McShane 2004). It is now commonplace that management of protected areas be consistent with overall socio economic goals of society (Adams, William M. et al. 2004).
The negative effects of protected areas on people’s livelihoods undermine local support (e.g.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).
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).
2
1.2 Problem statement
National parks like Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (BINP) can provide various goods and services to local communities around it, and therefore contribute 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 etc 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 2004), local communities are allocated large responsibilities under the resource-use programs (Namara 2006) yet reciprocal benefits remain minimal (Wilkie et al. 2006).
As a source of fuelwood, medicinal herbs, forest foods, fish, building poles and other subsistence products (Archabald & Naughton-Treves 2002), BINP 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 BINP (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 BINP actually contributes to the livelihoods of the local people surrounding it.
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
3
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 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.
1.3 Goals, objectives and hypotheses
The study seeks to examine park-poverty relations in terms of how livelihoods around BINP are affected by the park and if the management approach has improved local people’s attitudes towards the park.
Objective 1: To assess the implications of park proximity on local livelihoods in terms of natural resource dependence, livelihood diversification and income distribution
Hypotheses
1. Households nearer the park have higher total incomes.
The park is expected to offer job opportunities to local people for instance as tourist guides and market for local goods and curios. These are expected to positively affect local household income.
2. Households nearer the park have greater asset endowments.
People use household income to accumulate assets. With expected high incomes, it is assumed that households will have more assets like more land, livestock, or more educated household members.
3. Households nearer the park depend more on park income.
Common-pool resources like forests provide cheap alternatives to private assets. People close to forest resources are expected to make use of these resources for household consumption and income generation. In many cases the only cost to forest resource extraction is time; both to and from the park. Being close to the park lowers the amount of time spent on resource extraction and this should serve as an incentive to extract more park resources.
4
4. Households nearer the park have more diversified incomes.
Tourism is expected to attract a lot of other business opportunities like sale of agricultural products, sale of curios and cultural exhibitions. In addition many local people will be expected to take up park jobs. This should result in more diversified income for the participating households in comparison with distant households which may not be able to tap into the additional income possibilities.
5. Total income increases with park income.
Environmental income has been found to make significant contribution to total household income by some studies on rural livelihoods. As a supplement to other income activities, park income is expected to increase total household income for households participating in resource extraction.
6. The park contributes to income equality.
Income inequality exists due to differences among households with respect to access to private assets. Common-pool resources like park resources provide cheap alternatives to asset poor households and hence have a potential to reduce income inequality.
Objective 2: To investigate the local people’s attitudes and perceptions on the current management approach of BINP.
The research questions are:
1. Has the current management approach reduced animosity between local people and park management?
2. Do local people realize and appreciate benefits from the park?
3. Is money from tourist revenue sharing scheme used to benefit people affected by the park?
5
CHAPTER II: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Analytical framework
2.1.1 Key terms and concepts
The definition of livelihoods follows that by Ellis (2000 : 10) “…the assets (natural, physical, human, financial, and social capital), the activities, and the access to these (mediated by institutional and social relations) that together determine the living gained by the individual or household”.
Poverty is usually taken to describe a situation of failure to meet the “one dollar a day” yardstick.
However, there is more to it than the simplicity that the yardstick represents. It can include deprivation of capabilities (Sen 1999). I adopt the definition of poverty as “ a pronounced deprivation of well-being related to lack of material income or consumption, low levels of education and health, vulnerability and exposure to risk, lack of opportunity to be heard and powerlessness”(WorldBank 2001 pg 15). Poverty alleviation is looked at as the reduction in deprivation of well-being.
2.1.2 Household economic model
The household economic model (Figure 1) gives insights into the conditions under which households make choices about which economic activities to pursue. The model summarizes the assets available to the household, the options to which the assets can be put to use in order to generate income and the fate of the income generated from adopted livelihood activities. A household is herein taken to be a group of individuals making joint decisions, staying in the same residence and usually sharing meals (Ellis, Frank 1998). A household is used as the unit of analysis because individual household choices have implications on the welfare of the whole society due to interconnections that exist in communities; moreover household members pool resources and make joint decisions and also share incomes (Tumusiime 2006).
Factors both internal and external to the household influence choice of activities to pursue (Barrett, C. B. et al. 2001). External factors are those to which the household has little control and
6
include policies, natural vagaries and availability of social services, while internal factors are the various types of assets owned by the household. These assets can be broadly categorized as capitals; social, human, natural, financial and physical capital (Scoones 1998). The assets and the various uses to which they are put to use to produce outputs constitute the livelihood (Ellis, Frank 2000).
Both external and internal factors affect the household but also work in synergy to each other to create an even bigger influence on the household. The quality and quantity of assets owned enables a household to pursue livelihood activities not possible to another household with different asset endowment. For instance, a household rich in human capital i.e. with more educated household members is better placed to tap into employment opportunities than a less educated household and a household with more land is better placed to engage in extensive agriculture than a land deficient household. Household assets are important because they are useful inputs into production but can also be finished products in themselves. Family labor represents human capital as an input, but when a household member offers labor to other households, human capital is then a finished product. The choice on how to use family labor will reflect the opportunity cost of either alternative.
External factors affect internal factors and subsequently livelihood activities, i.e. the types and blend of assets a household owns and/or has access to, is determined in part by external factors.
The status of a forest as either a forest reserve or a national park can influence what type of natural resources local households can access; where status dictates the level of restriction imposed on the type of resources local people can get from the forest. In addition, incidents of crop raiding may affect what types of crops local people can grow on their land. Yet some parks can be important sources of financial capital and off-farm income activities. Therefore the effect can be either to enhance or constrain a livelihood. Of particular importance in a rural context will be how access to resources is constrained by external factors. Access to resources is fundamental as a pathway out of poverty.
Households earn income when assets are allocated to activities (Barrett, C. B. et al. 2001) and the different activities generate different incomes to the household. In order for the household to
7
maximize income, a good mix of assets and an enabling external environment are important to choose the most profitable livelihood activities. This is because access to assets has to be coupled with the ability to put resources to productive use and also possibility of meaningful asset accumulation in a direction that ultimately leads to more productive assets (Ellis, Frank &
Bahiigwa 2003; Ellis, Frank & Freeman 2004).
Therefore in using the household economic model, I investigate the effect park proximity has on the assets owned by a household and the various ways in which the assets are put to use.
EXTERNAL FACTORS
Insecurity Policies Social services Natural
vagaries
Market access
Park proximity
ASSETS (CAPITAL)
Figure 1 Modified household economic model (Based on Tumusiime (2006)) Physical Human Natural Financial Social
Household
LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES
Crop and animal husbandry, off-farm employment, collection of forest products
Consumption Investment
8
2.2 Rural livelihoods
2.2.1 Characteristics of rural households
Rural people typically have low education and possess little of economically significant assets.
They struggle with little land and livestock. Financial capital is also low (Ellis, Frank &
Bahiigwa 2003; Ellis, Frank & Ntengua 2003). Further, they are located far from basic infrastructure and find themselves in situations where markets are more less unfunctional (Holland et al. 2003). Labor intensive and subsistence production is symptomatic of their predicament. Social capital in terms of social interconnections (Wu & Pretty 2004), enabling the ability to undertake collective action, and natural capital i.e. the bulk of all common pool land resources (Narain et al. 2005), form the backbone of their livelihoods (Pretty & Smith 2004;
Vedeld, Paul et al. 2007).
2.2.2 Rural income diversification
An important feature of rural livelihoods is livelihood diversification defined as “the process by which rural families construct a diverse portfolio of activities and social support capabilities in their struggle for survival and in order to improve their standards of living” (Ellis, Frank 1998).
The reasons for livelihood diversification range from push factors like high transaction costs and failures in credit markets (Reardon 1997) to coping strategy and safety net in case of adverse shocks (Blaikie 1994; Davies 1996). But households can also voluntarily take up diversification (Ellis, Frank 1998; Stark 1991) as a means of increasing current consumption and for the richer households, diversification offers an opportunity for accumulation (Hart 1994). Barrett et al (2001) also argue that diversification of livelihoods may due to complementarity of livelihood activities, for instance livestock offering manure for crops and crop residues acting as fodder for livestock.
It is important to highlight that the choice to diversify livelihoods presents a major disconnect from common economic reasoning since it negates the advantages otherwise realized with specialization, the least of which being increased incomes (Vedeld, Pal et al. 2004). Whether rural people diversify livelihoods as a survival mechanism against failure in one activity,
9
implying a sense of desperation or as a means to increase current consumption, implying proactive choice is subject to discussion (Ellis, Frank 1998; Vedeld, Paul et al. 2007).
2.2.3 Rural household dependence on natural resources
Several studies have illustrated that poor rural people depend on common-pool natural resources for their livelihoods (e.g see Mamo et al. 2007; Narain et al. 2005; Reddy & Chakravarty 1999;
Tumusiime 2006; Upton et al. 2007). Common-pool resources like national park are a source of food, fodder, medicines for local use (Mugisha 2002) but local people also need these common- pool resources as a means of off-farm employment (Cernea, M. Micheal & Schmidt-Soltau 2006) and as gap fillers during times of financial hardship or famine (Scherl et al. 2004). Studies have shown that generally dependence on natural resources declines with income (Fisher 2004; Narain et al. 2005). Poorer households depend more on natural resources although their extraction is usually lower than that for wealthier households (cf Vedeld, Paul et al. 2007).
2.2.4 Rural household income distribution
Rural households can exhibit differences in incomes due to differences in asset endowments and livelihood activities pursued. Environmental incomes from forest resources can reduce income inequalities in rural communities by offering a source of income for asset-poor families (Cavendish 2000; Fisher 2004; Tumusiime 2006).
2.2.5 Community based natural resource management
A lot of debate has recently emerged on the subject of biodiversity conservation and how to reconcile the costs of conservation with the needs and aspirations of rural people dwelling near biodiversity rich ecosystems (e.g Scherl et al. 2004). Early conservation efforts supported the separation of humans from natural resources under a strict protectionist strategy code named
“fortress conservation” or the fines and fences approach (Adams, M. William & Hulme 2001;
Namara 2006; Wells, M. 1992). Criticisms later emerged about the disregard for human rights and wellbeing in pursuit of more protection for nature as it became clearer that protectionist approaches deprived rural people of resources they so much depended on for their livelihoods.
10
The highlight of the people-parks debate has been the birth of two opposing schools of thought;
for and against the establishment of protected areas to conserve nature, with each enjoying hegemony at different times in the recent past. Establishment of protected areas was a popular strategy in nineteenth century and was based on the American notion of parks as pristine areas of biodiversity (Adams, M. William & Hulme 2001). This was quickly adopted especially in sub- Saharan Africa with the creation of so many parks.
Studies on rural livelihoods have shown that rural people depend on natural resources (Fisher 2004; Narain et al. 2005; Upton et al. 2007; Vedeld, Pal et al. 2004). Establishment of national parks with strict protection may therefore deprive local people of livelihood options and impose significant local costs (Ferraro 2001). Deprivation will usually result into conflict and animosity between local people and protected area managers (Hayes 2006) and local people will usually take up illegal activities like arson, poaching and poisoning wildlife to show resentment to the park (Mutebi 2003).
Parks do not only limit access to resources but also can limit the range of livelihood options available to the local people. Cases of crop raiding are reported almost wherever a park exists (e.g Gillingham & Lee 2003; Lepp 2007; Plumptre et al. 2004). Communities affected by wildlife raiding may have to forfeit growing some crops or livestock or otherwise take up labor intensive means of reducing crop and livestock damage.
Generally, it’s well known that local people bear the biggest part of conservation costs (Balmford
& Whitten 2003). This is especially in cases where large tracts of land are set aside for protection of nature. The costs may be attributed to loss of access to resources (Cernea, M. Micheal &
Schmidt-Soltau 2006; West & Brockington 2006) displacement and dispossession of people (Cernea, M Michael 2006; Maisel et al. 2007), creation of criminal spaces (West & Brockington 2006) and rising prices where tourism activities occur (Lepp 2007). Successive World Parks Conferences have acknowledged this fact and since the Bali conference in 1982, there have been increasing calls to reconcile conservation with human needs (McNeely and Miller (1984) in Scherl et al. 2004).
11
The preceding presentation shows that parks and local people are in direct conflict with each other. This is not universal truth. There are several cases where local people have embraced parks and reported significant benefits. Under such cases, conservation agencies have maintained some degree of access to resources from the park by local people and/or instituted other transfer mechanisms to ensure that local costs are transferred to national and international levels (Balmford & Whitten 2003). These approaches range from revenue sharing like in Uganda (Archabald & Naughton-Treves 2002) and implementation of other types of integrated community development projects (ICPD) (Barrett & Arcese 1995; Brandon & Wells 1992;
Johannesen & Skonhoft 2005). Implementation of ICDPs may include infrastructural developments like local schools and health centers (Lepp 2007; Makombo 2003). Such infrastructural developments improve local attitudes towards the park. More telling success stories can be found in southern Africa like the Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project (LIRDP) in Zambia (Child & Dalal-Clayton 2004). Several debates arise about the effectiveness of any conservation strategy with some researchers stating that parks are the most effective way to conserve biodiversity (Bruner et al. 2001).
2.2.6 A case for community involvement in conservation
The main argument is that community based resource management is characterized by empowerment and control of forest resources by the community, which in turn leads to efficient, effective, equitable and sustainable forest management (Namara & Nsabagasani 2003).
One of the strengths of community conservation is its ability to instill cultural pride and identity (Roe et al. 2000) of the communities surrounding the park. The communities apply and rediscover indigenous knowledge of controlling, monitoring and managing the parks. They feel responsible for the management of the protected as they get involved in management decision making. This however in some schools of thoughts is seen as the weakness of the discourse because in most cases traditional methods fail to define issues beyond the wildlife and its habitat.
The socio-economic value of the resource is rarely known due to technical incapabilities. Kiss (1990) observed that ‘….wildlife management and utilization (beyond informal hunting) may require various types of knowledge, skills and capabilities which the people do not have, and
12
investment which they cannot make….They also may not be aware of the real value of wildlife ..
particularly the recreational values…’
The fortress approach creates conflict and animosity between local populations and protected area managers, with activities such as local communities setting sections of protected areas ablaze or poisoning wildlife in protest (Mutebi 2003). Community based conservation on the other hand meant to reduce animosity between communities and protected area authorities and extend benefits to local communities as incentives for them to assume responsibilities to support conservation (Namara & Nsabagasani 2003).
In addition, most governments have neither the financial, human or institutional capacity to affect protectionist approaches to natural resource management. Conservation agencies manpower resources are already over stretched and cannot cope with the task of managing all protected areas (Wells, P. M. & McShane 2004). This is exacerbated by the poor enumeration of staff and corruption. The use of the local communities who live nearest the protected area resources and on which their livelihoods is based can be enlisted and could be a better alternative.
There are other benefits from the parks under community management. Community members get paid employment for scouting or general management work especially when some special projects are done in the area. For instance the people around Bwindi national park in Uganda and also direct benefits the community gets from gate collection fees. Roe, Mayers et al. (2000) reported that the Sankuno protected area of Botswana employs about 16% of the local people under a joint venture agreement with other stakeholders on tourism.
2.2.7 A case against community involvement in conservation
Critics have raised concerns about the over simplification of community participation in natural resource management as a sustainable mechanism (Ribot 2002). The main arguments arising from this discourse include: concern that without adequate and appropriate institutional forms and powers, community participation may not deliver expected benefits such as efficiency, equity, improved service provision and development (Ribot 2002) secondly, due to the
13
differentiated nature of the communities, community involvement may benefit certain elite, social classes and ethnic groups while other resource users are marginalized thus ruling out equitable benefits, as communities are more dynamic and highly differentiated than assumed (Leach 1999 cited in (Namara & Nsabagasani 2003). As noted by Mutebi (2003) there is a danger of capture by influential or elite groups who can further disenfranchise the weak and poor. According to Barrow and Murphree’s (2001) the strength of a collaborative management agreement is subject to the level of benefits 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).
14
CHAPTER III: STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 Study area
3.1.1 Location, physical and demographic characteristics
Bwindi impenetrable national park is located in southwestern Uganda between latitude 0031`- 108`S and longitude 39035`-29050`E (Mwima & McNeilage 2003), and about 540 km from the capital city; Kampala. It covers the districts of Kisoro, Kanungu and Kabale. It is among the largest of Afromontane forests covering a total area of 330.8 km2 (Babaasa et al. 2004). The topography is extremely rugged with narrow steep sided valleys running in various direction with hills of between 1400 and 2500 meters above sea level (Harcourt 1981). Mean annual temperature is 130 C and annual mean rainfall of 1440 mm, ranging between 1130 and 2390 mm (Kamugisha et al. 1997) the wettest months are March- April and August- November.
BINP is an enclave for at least twelve species known to be threatened with global extinction and is home to half the world population of the critically endangered mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla beringei) (Archabald & Naughton-Treves 2002; Hamilton et al. 2000; Namara 2006). The area is extremely rich in biodiversity with 120 species of mammals documented including the red-tailed or white-nosed monkey Cercopithecus ascanius, blue monkey Cercopithecus mitis, L'Hoest's monkey (Cercopithecus L 'Hoestii), black and white colobus (Colobus guereza), , chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) olive baboons (Papio cynocephalus anubis) and mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) (Harcourt 1981; Kamugisha et al. 1997).
The park is surrounded by some of the most densely populated areas in Uganda, district average population densities of Kisoro, Kanungu and Kabale are 324, 163, 281 respectively all of which are well above the national average of 122.8/km2 (Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2002b). The dense population implies increased pressure on resources both inside and outside the park.
The areas around the park have a multi ethnic composition but the Bakiga, Bafumbira are the biggest tribes (Korbee 2007). The area is also home to the Batwa one of the poorest, heavily forest dependent people who live in small communities previously inside the forest and detached from the general populace. The Batwa pygmies are indigenous to the area.
15
Low input subsistence agriculture is the main economic activity among the local people (Korbee 2007). Crops grown include bananas, sorghum, millet sweet potatoes and beans. Tea is also grown as the major cash crop for sale at Kayonza tea factory. Tourism is the most vibrant economic activity and BINP is one of the leading tourist areas in Uganda largely due to the mountain gorillas in the forest.
Figure 2 Map of Uganda showing location of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park
3.1.2 Management of Bwindi forest prior to becoming a national park
The area occupied by BINP was first gazetted as two separate forests in 1932 by the colonial government due to its economic and ecological importance. In 1942, the two forests were combined and gazetted as impenetrable central crown forest. In 1961, it was declared a game sanctuary with the aim of protecting the Bwindi population of the mountain gorillas (Gorilla
16
gorilla beringei) (Makombo 2003). Hence, management of the forest reserve was vested with the colonial government and communities had to seek permission to access forest resources in the reserve (Mutebi 2003).
From 1964 to 1991 Bwindi impenetrable forest was managed as both a forest reserve under the forest department and a game sanctuary under the game department (Mutebi 2003).
3.1.3 Management of Bwindi forest as a national park
The impenetrable forest came under national park status by the resolution of the National Resistance Council (Parliament) in 1991, to be known as Bwindi impenetrable national park BINP. The park was declared a world heritage site (WHS) in 1994 (Namara & Nsabagasani 2003). The purpose of conserving Bwindi as park can be summarized as conservation of high value and high biodiversity ecological resources, protection of important economic resources, and protection of the Bwindi mountain gorillas as a gateway to increased tourism revenues.
Traditionally, the forest department allowed free extraction of non-timber products from the forest. With the uplifting of the forest status to a national park level in 1991, all activities in the park like entrance to the park without permission from the park management and use or extraction of any forest resources by community members was henceforth illegal. The improved protection accorded to the forest resources, coupled with the costs incurred from wildlife crop raiding on community land and livestock loss to wild animals that contributed to poverty, was marked by heightening hostility between the park staff and the local communities who resented the escalating loss of access to traditional resources (Makombo 2003). Due to this, a new management approach was introduced in BINP.
The management of BINP as from 1991 falls under the wider decentralization strategy and can be described as comprising of collaborative management, under which the government has devolved some powers and responsibilities to the local authorities including those governing management of natural resources (Namara & Nsabagasani 2003). The collaborative-management approach recognizes that interested parties have to work together on a mutual basis in order to
17
meet their various interests. To enlist community participation in the management of the park, Community Protected Area Institutions (CPIs) which are supported by the Community Protected Area Institutions Policy have been instituted to represent the interests of all parishes bordering particular protected areas (Namara 2006). CPIs comprise of Community Protected Areas Committees (CPAC), operate at the community and protected area level of organization and are linked to the local governments system through the Production and Environment Committees (PECs) (Makombo 2003). Its membership is drawn directly from parish-level local government of the three districts that surround the park (Namara 2006). This management approach ensures that there is representation of local community, local government, national and international community interests (Infield & Adams 1999). International interests are represented through organizations such as DANIDA funded CARE-Development Through Conservation (DTC) Project., Mgahinga and Bwindi Impenetrable Forest Conservation Trust (MBIFCT) which is a World Bank-GEF initiative. National interests represented by the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) mandated by the Wildlife Statute to manage wildlife in the country on behalf of the people of Uganda and National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) which deals with all matters related to natural resource management.
The CPIs are an avenue of communication and advocacy between the local communities and park management and also roles such screening and selecting parish-level projects for funding under the UWA revenue sharing program and to identify any excessive conduct of the park staff and report this to park management (Namara 2006).
Communities are allowed to use the park through resource user agreements (RUAs) signed between resource user groups (RUGs) and UWA to allow use of specific resources from the park in what was called the multiple use-zones (MUZs). Resources considered under this arrangement are medicinal plants, craft materials, seed collection for on-farm planting outside the park, and also the utilization of the park for placement of bee hives for honey collection (Makombo 2003), but also forbidding some other uses like hunting, timber extraction which are assumed to have a negative effect to the park. The memorandum of understanding specified the roles of the communities and those of the park in ensuring that sustainable extraction of the resources is
18
maintained. The program has created a sense of ownership of the park by the communities, enabled dialogue between the communities and the park management (Makombo 2003).
Under the resource-use program, resource user groups were expected to voluntarily monitor illegal activities within their respective multiple-use areas, and to report to relevant authorities if they detected any (Namara 2006).
3.2 Methodology 3.2.1 Site selection
The park is chosen because was one of the first parks in Uganda to start collaborative management approach to park management (Namara & Nsabagasani 2003), and also as Namara (2006) observes, BINP was among the first parks to institutionalize a framework for local government participation in park management and decision making. Being a gorilla park, it is one of the parks with the highest income (Kazoora 2002), this represents a greater potential to have a contribution to the incomes of local communities. The park is also a wise selection because there is general satisfaction from the community with the management approach and there are calls for the program to continue (Ibid).
3.2.2 Data collection
Collection of data was done from October to December 2007. It involved both qualitative and quantitative methods; to address issues of institutional arrangements enforced by park management and collect data on income, activities and assets possessed by households respectively. Data was collected using a seven page pre-tested questionnaire (Appendix viii).
Also focused group discussions with community opinion leaders were held to gauge community attitudes and perceptions about the management strategy in place.
The survey units were stratified based on their proximity to the nearest park boundary. The strata were at distances of less than two kilometers, between three and six kilometers and more than six kilometers. In addition, 30 more households were selected from a list of 53 resource users of Karangara resource users group. This is one of the few villages around the park were the local
19
community members have entered into an agreement with park management for the permission to access selected resources from the park under agreed conditions. Karangara village is also located at distance of less than two kilometers from the park. It was expected that survey units at different distances to the park would show variation in key livelihood gradients as a result of difference in benefits accruing at different distances from the park (Howard 1995). The sampling frame was a list of households in villages at distances as stated in the stratification procedure; 0-2 km (Buhoma, Mukono, Nkwenda), 3-6 km (Kanyashade, Kimbugushu), 6+ km (Rugando) and 0- 2 km with resource user agreement (Karangara).
The four strata have been named as follows: - 0-2 km - Buhoma, 3-6 km - Kanyashande, 6+ km - Rugando and 0-2 km with resource user agreement – Karangara.
From each of Buhoma, Kanyashande and Rugando, 40 households were randomly selected from a list of village households to be interviewed. Together with the 30 members of Karangara resource user group, these comprised the total sample of 150 households. Household head were interviewed or in their absence the oldest family member. The household was used as the smallest unit from which to measure income flows and stocks.
Some of the livelihood gradients used were similar but not restricted to those by Ellis and Bihiigwa (2003). In order to do poverty level comparisons of the different strata, poverty indicators similar to those suggested in the Poverty Measurement Index (PMI) by Hayati et al.
(2006) are adopted. These have undisputable relevance and validity (Hayati et al. 2006).
3.2.3 Data handling, estimation and analysis
Quantitative and qualitative data from the survey were analyzed using Stata10 and SPSS respectively. Descriptive statistics are used to present household socio-economic characteristics and relative incomes are used to show dependence on income sources. Like other studies in the field, e.g Vedeld, Pal et al. (2004), relative income from park resources is used as a proxy for measuring household dependence in park income.
Generally
20
RPI = relative park income =
TI API
Whereby
API = absolute park income; TI = absolute total income
Diversity will is shown by the Simpson diversification index DITI = Diversification index, total income =
∑
=
⎟⎠
⎜ ⎞
⎝
− n ⎛
i i
TI I
1
2
1
Whereby
Ii is the income from the ith source in a set of n sources and TI is the total income.
The Gini coefficient for total income is used to show income inequality (Cheong 1999).
The Gini coefficient for total income is calculated as GTI =
μ
2
1 1
2n TI TI
n
i n
i
j
∑∑
i= =
−
Whereby
µ = Mean household income n = Total population
TIi= Share on individual i of total household income TIj = share of individual j of total household income
Further, a Gini coefficient is obtained for Karangara with park income excluded from total income to reveal if park income has an income equalizing effect.
The contribution of the park to livelihood is estimated by using park income, which is the value of all the products collected from the park. Value is obtained by multiplication of quantity of
21
products by selling price (for products sold in the market) or reported market price (for products consumed by the household). Income from agriculture is measured using the reported price of agricultural products.
Ordinary linear regression OLS analysis is used to estimate determinants of total household income. In the analysis, total household income is transformed using natural logarithms to control for variance and to ensure normality. A graphical presentation of the results for total household income transformation is provided in Appendix ii.
Weighted least square regression was used to estimate the determinants of household income diversity. Weighted least square regression was used because one of the variables (dependence on off-farm income) was heteroscedastic. Weighting was done using the squared fitted value type (xb2). The residual versus dependence on off-farm income and residual versus fitted values plots are shown in Appendix iii and Appendix iv respectively.
3.3 Proxies for internal household factors
All household internal factors (access to human, social, physical and financial capital) are measured by use of proxies.
3.3.1 Human capital
Human labor often offers the only other input aside from land that can be used to increase productivity. In order to approximate human capital, it’s important not to use head count numbers without adjusting them for age and sex characteristics of each household member. Age and sex will affect the quality and quantity of human capital (Murphy et al. 1997). To adjust household head count for age and sex, equivalent scales are used. Adult equivalence scales such as those developed by the World Health Organization (Table 1) factor in the differences in households caused by differences in age and sex of each household member (Cavendish 2002). The scales used are similar to scales developed from elsewhere for instance adult scales in the TCH model by Tedford, Capps et al (1986). The use of equivalent scales brings more accurate analysis than
22
using unadjusted household size in income analysis (Lanjouw & Ravallion 1995) despite their many shortcoming as those discussed by Cavendish (2002).
The quality of human capital for each household is estimated using the number of years spent in school by the head of the household. Only the household head is used because in most rural areas, it is only the household head that is involved in gainful employment. Therefore the household head education level can give a good indication of the quality of labor available to the household.
Table 1: Adult equivalent scales
Age Adult equivalents
Male Female
0-2 0.40
3-4 0.48
5-6 0.56
7-8 0.64
9-10 0.76
11-12 0.80 0.88
13-14 1.00 1.00
15-18 1.20 1.00
19-59 1.00 0.88
60+ 0.88 0.72
Source: Cavendish (2000)
3.3.2 Physical capital
Physical capital available is estimated by considering land and livestock assets. Different types of livestock are kept ranging from cattle to poultry. In order to make comparisons, all livestock were converted into a single unit; cattle equivalent units which express livestock in terms of price ratios compared to cattle price. Such conversions have been done in other studies e.g. Ellis and Ntengua (2003). Cattle equivalent units are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Livestock conversion factors
23
Type of animal Cattle equivalent
Cattle 1
Goats 0.12
Sheep 0.10
Pigs 0.14
Poultry 0.02
Source: (Ellis, Frank & Bahiigwa 2003)
Land assets were measured in total land owned (hectares). Another factor that has been included to analyze land assess relates to land fragmentation, since fragmentation affects the productivity and returns to land (Jha et al. 2005; Niroula & Thapa 2005). The number of parcels of land owned was recorded. More number of parcels represents more fragmentation.
24
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Basic household characteristics
The average household size for the whole sample was found to be 5.37 persons. Household size is similar to other forested areas in Uganda for instance around Mount Elgon National park, family size is estimated at 6.5 persons (Katto 2004). Household size in the study area is much higher than the national average of 4.7 and also higher than 4.8 persons for most rural areas in Uganda (UBoS 2002). Large households require more resources to meet their livelihood needs;
this increases demand for resources. It is expected that this will increase pressure on common- pool resources like the park since most rural people like around BINP have few private assets.
The four strata did not differ significantly in respect to household size (p= 0.01). However, there is a significant difference (p< 0.01) in adult equivalent units (AEU). Buhoma had the largest family size probably because it covers Nkwenda and Buhoma that are bigger trading centers being located closest to the tourist camp at Buhoma. Closeness to the tourist camp is expected to offer employment opportunities that will attract many young people. Younger household heads often have younger household members. In this study, the correlation between age of the household head and adult equivalent units is significant (p<0.01), this can explain why Buhoma did not have the highest adult equivalent units. On the other hand, Karangara had the highest adult equivalent units probably because it has the highest average age for household head, which was 49.3 years.
Male-headed households were 87.3% while female-headed households were 12.7%. Age of the household head varied from 20 years to 90 years. There was a significant difference (p< 0.01) in the age of the family head among the four strata.
25
Table 3: Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the four strata and whole sample
Variable Buhoma Kanyashande Rugando Karangara Whole sample n = 40 n = 40 n = 40 n = 30 N = 150
Mean (std.dev)
Mean (std.dev)
Mean (std.dev)
Mean (std.dev)
Mean (std.dev)
F
statistic p-value Adult equivalent
units
4.823 (1.55)
3.81 (1.41)
3.82 (1.56)
5.16 (1.96)
4.35
(1.70) 6.58 0.0003***
Age of household head (years)
43.7 (13.19)
38.58 (14.37)
34.38 (13.18)
49.33 (16.03)
40.97
(14.98) 7.31 0.0001***
Cattle equivalent units
0.514 (0.49)
0.77 (1.13)
1.21 (1.78)
1.25 (1.74)
0.92
(1.38) 2.53 0.0598 Consumer worker
ratio
1.2058 (0.71)
1.04 (0.63)
1.11 (0.96)
0.81 (0.52)
1.06
(0.74) 1.72 0.166
Distance from nearest dispensary (km)
1.2625 (0.54)
3.40 (2.08)
8.78 (1.61)
3.40 (2.50)
4.26
(3.37) 129.08 0.0000***
Distance from nearest hospital (km)
62.875 (0.5352629)
57.93 (1.91)
53.45 (1.69)
41.73 (3.20)
54.81
(7.71) 596.14 0.0000***
Distance from nearest market centre (km)
19.675 (2.246222)
19.30 (3.22)
10.30 (1.87)
5.70 (1.01)
14.28
(6.23) 318.01 0.0000***
Distance from nearest primary school (km)
1.57 (1.57)
1.01 (0.76)
0.51 (0.49)
1.29 (0.79)
1.08
(1.07) 8.03 0.0001***
Distance from nearest secondary school (km)
19.80 (2.41)
17.75 (3.05)
14.28 (2.67)
3.20 (1.24)
14.46
(6.50) 286.76 0.0000***
Distance from nearest tertiary school (km)
47.40 (2.58)
46.40 (3.64)
32.00 (7.88)
34.07 (6.18)
40.36
(8.87) 83.87 0.0000***
Household head count
5.88 (1.62)
4.98 (1.61)
4.83 (1.72)
5.93 (2.23)
5.37
(1.83) 3.92 0.0100**
Household head education (years)
4.88 (2.85)
4.63 (2.87)
5.43 (3.37)
4.53 (3.49)
4.89
(3.12) 0.61 0.6075
26
Number of parcels of land
2.45 (0.88)
2.28 1.11 ()
2.55 (1.22)
2.23 (1.14)
2.39
(1.09) 0.68 0.5635 Total land owned
(hectares)
1.68 (0.68)
0.94 (0.38)
1.49 (0.60)
2.16 (2.01)
1.46
(1.53) 4.39 0.0055***
F statistic and p-value show differences between the four strata: Buhoma (0-2 km), Kanyashande (3-6 km), Rugando (>6 km) and Karangara (0-2 km), from the park boundary. Karangara households are members of Karangara resource user group.
*** = significant at p<0.01, ** = significant at p<0.05
Large families struggle with available incomes (Mamo et al. 2007), but families with a large proportion of working members can pool incomes to obtain increase household income. The consumer/workers ratio is computed for all strata and the whole sample, ANOVA reveals no significant difference among the strata. This means that the effect of one unit of income from a working household member on household welfare is similar among the strata since the dependence ratio is the same.
The average number of years in school by the household head was found to be 4.89 for the whole sample and there were no significant differences among the four strata. This falls under the primary level of education. This is very characteristic of most of rural Uganda (Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2002a). With such low levels of education, there is reduced ability and capacity to get involved in off- farm employment.
With such low levels of education, the occupations of family heads were almost predictable. 83 percent of all household heads reported farming as their primary occupation. Peasant farmers were understood to be those people who carry out own land cultivation as a means of livelihood.
The recent national census in 2002 reported that around 90 percent of people in western Uganda report crop farming as the main economic activity (Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2002a). Regular employment is not common in the area due to remoteness. Working as casual labor is not common either in the area due to prohibitively low wages of labor which make it unattractive to offer own labor for casual employment.
There were differences in number of household heads involved in different occupations especially salaried employment. The most remote of the four strata i.e. Karangara reported no salaried employment.
27
Park related employment such as tourist rangers or working in tourist camps was reported only in Buhoma because it covered villages nearest to the tourist camps at Buhoma. While the randomly selected sample did not reflect salaried employment in Buhoma, there are a number of households whose members are employed as park staff.
Table 4: Main occupations of household heads
Occupation Frequency Percent
Peasant 124 82.7
Student 1 0.7
Casual laborer 2 1.3
Salary employment 7 4.7
Service provider 3 2.0
None 10 6.7
Ranger 3 2.0
Total 150 100.0
All households had access to land. On average, the whole sample shows total land owned of 1.46 hectares. There were significant differences (p< 0.01) among the four strata. Karangara had the largest amount of land owned, followed by Buhoma. Kanyashande had the smallest amount of land owned. Remoteness of Karangara relative to other strata can explain why they possessed more land. The reason for more land owned in Karangara could be the fact that they households interviewed had older family heads.
There is usually a relationship between the age of the family head and the amount of land owned.
In this study, age of the family head was found to be positively correlated with amount of land owned (p< 0.01). Most of the household perceived their land as being fertile. None of the respondents had a land title; it was not considered important to get a land title. The cost of getting a land title may also be prohibitively high especially in rural areas where land markets are so poor. This may have implications on the ability to access financial credit in conventional lending institutions like banks since only titled land is used as collateral. While the study did not probe
28
