BWINDI IMPENETRABLE NATIONAL PARK’S MULTIPLE

USE PROGRAMME Robert Bitariho and Emmanuel Akampulira

PRESENTATION BREAKDOWN

What is the multiple use progamme? Bwindi’s multiple use programme Pre-resource harvest assessment Implementing the MUP Post-resource harvest assessment Further investigations Research to policy meets MUZ

WHAT IS THE MULTIPLE USE PROGAMME?

The term “Multiple use" initially meant multiple land-uses of Bwindi forest (Wild 2001)

Biodiversity conservation, tourism and low impact forest resource use

It later evolved to only low impact forest resource use (Wild, 2001)

Under the programme local people access non-timber forest products and beekeeping at the park periphery

BINP’s MULTIPLE USE ZONES

Prior the Multiple use ProgrammeIn 1991 when Bwindi wasmade a national park:

Local people were stopped from accessing the forest for their livelihood requirements

The people protested this by setting up numerous forest fires and harassment of park staff

5% of Bwindi forest park was burnt between 1991 and 1992

Bwindi’s Multiple Use Programme

In 1994, UNP (now UWA) together with its partners such as CARE, ITFC and IGCP started a CFM in Bwindi called MUP

This led to the integration of NTFPs harvest into park mgt in Bwindi

The main objective of the MUP was to involve local people in park mgt as they help in policing the park like reporting illegal activities

Bwindi’s Multiple Use Programme

The programme has now been in existence for 20 years

Local people access plants for basketry & medicinal uses and place beehives in the park

In the past couple of years Batwa have been allowed to harvest wild yams

Restricted; fishing, wild honey, poles, stakes, timber cutting, firewood and hunting

“Pre-plant harvest resource assessment

We use PRAs to list plants desired by the local people

Herbarium specimen collections of the desired plants are then made

Forest inventories made in the proposed multiple use zone

Recommend plants to be harvested basing on their stem density, distribution and 1% of available stock

An example of recommended lianas/shrubs based on stem density/ha (Cutt-off = 10 stems/ha)

Lianas/shrubs (10m x 10m plots-cutoff/threshold=10 stems/ha)

36.7

0 0 0

46.7

33.3

0 0 0

106.7

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

36.7

0 0 0

46.7

33.3

0 0 0

70

0 0 0 0 0 0 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Sa

lacia

ele

ga

ns

Loesenerie

lla

apocyn

oid

es

Trium

fett

am

acro

ph

ylla

Ure

raH

ypse

loden

dro

n

Pristim

era

gra

cifo

lia

Securidaca

welw

itsch

ii

Pham

nus p

ren

oid

es

Go

unnia

longis

pic

ata

Hib

iscu

s g

raci

folia

Ryt

igyn

ia k

igezie

nsi

s

Hib

iscu

s f

uscu

s

Cla

use

na a

nis

ata

Rytig

ynia

bug

oye

nsis

Ruka

mbura

Brid

elia

sp.

Dra

cean

aafr

om

onta

nea

Adenia

re

ticula

ta

Plant species

Ste

m d

en

sit

y p

er

hecta

re

Total Stems

Harvestable stems

An example of recommended weaving plants annual offtakes (1% of available stock)

Plants Species Part Used Estimated stems in whole zone (available

stock)

Recommended maximum annual harvest stems (1% of

available stock)

Draceana

laxissima Stem 270,900 2,709 stems

Smilax

anceps Stem 28,000 280 stems

Salacia

elegans Stem 25,900 259 stems

Pristimera

Gracifolia Stem 32,900 329 stems

Securidaca welwitschii

Stem 23,100 231 stems

Post-plant harvest(harvest impact monitoring)

ITFC has set-up PSPs in the plant harvest zones and non zones to monitor plant harvest impacts

Presently three highly demanded plants are being monitored

The plants: Rytigynia kigeziensis, Ocotea usambarensis and Loeseneriella apocynoides

The plants that are monitored in the PSPs

A mature A mature LoeseneriellaLoeseneriella apocynoides stem apocynoides stem (>30years)(>30years)

Bark harvest from Bark harvest from Ocotea usambarensisOcotea usambarensis

Bark harvest from Bark harvest from Rytigynia kigeziensisRytigynia kigeziensis

Harvest impact monitoring results

Results show no negative harvest impact of the two medicinal plants (R. kigeziensis and O. usambarensis)

The commercially utilized weaving plant L. apocynoides, appears to have suffered a negative harvest impact

Results further show a decline in the amount of medicinal bark harvested annually by local people

Probably coinciding with government health outreach programmes around Bwindi (almost every parish around BINP has a health facility)

Other questions that have been investigated

1. How are resource use programs conducted elsewhere in Uganda (WILDWEST PROJECT -2011)

2. What are the sustainable harvest levels (yields, regeneration and mortality rates) of the monitored plants (UTRECHT UNI MSc STUDENTS-Else & Suzanne-2011)

3. Socio-economic contributions of the MUP to the local people? (BITARIHO R PHD -2012)

4. Does the Multiple Use Programme help reduce illegal activities? (BITARIHO R PHD -2012)

5. Is the Multiple Use Programme worthwhile given the costs involved? (BITARIHO R PHD-2012

6. How can we improve the MUP (WILDWEST PROJECT-2012)

Other questions investigated or being investigated

Simple and participatory plant harvest monitoring tool for local community use in Bwindi’s MUZ(BMCT-2013)

Annual Plant harvesting impact monitoring in the MUZ and Non MUZ of BINP 2014-2017(BMCT)

Monitoring: Rytigynia kigeziensis, Loeseneriella apocynoides , Ocotea usambarensis and Prunus africana

More research needed on other highly demanded plant species especially in the south of BINP

Recommendations

Need to enforce the ban on the harvest of Loeseneriallaapocynoides (Omujega) from BINP

Another plant to be considered for harvest ban is Maratochloamannii(Ebitatara) used to make small baskets

Harvest off takes for Octoteausambarensis, piperguineese(Rukokota),Rytigyniakigeziensis(Nyakibazi),Draceanalaxssima (enchenche )and Smilax anceps(enshuri) increased from 1% to 5%

Annual plant harvest frequencies be increased from twice year to six times a year for all resources

On farm substitution be encouraged

CTPA’s R 2policy meets MUZ

Following CTPA’s recommendations on increasing local benefits.

One of the programs considered was MUZ

And already we had recommendations from years of research, on how the MUZ program can be more beneficial to local communities

CTPA’s R 2policy meets MUZ

Basing on that foundation ITFC and ACODE met 7 resource user groups around BINP

The objectives were to:-Disseminate results from CTPA and MUZ research

-Facilitate resource users to request UWA follow up on the recommendations of MUZ research. If they wanted

CTPA’s R 2policy meets MUZ-Observations

Local people generally happy that we shared our research findings with them.

Some of recommendations do not cater for resource users in the south. Eg Octoteausambarensis piperguineese(Rukokota) and Rytigyniakigeziensis harvest off takes from 1% to 5%

Resource users in the south more interested in species like Dombeya and Bamboo( Bamboo not allowed). More research need??

Increment on the harvesting frequencies not helpful if harvesting zones are not extended(>2km)

Thank you, to all the partners , funders and well-wishers