institutional sustainability and community conservation: a case study from uganda

POLICY ARENA

INSTITUTIONAL SUSTAINABILITYAND COMMUNITY CONSERVATION:

A CASE STUDY FROM UGANDA

MARK INFIELD1* and WILLIAM M. ADAMS2

1African Wildlife Foundation, Kampala, Uganda2Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Abstract: Mgahinga Gorilla National Park is established to conserve gorillas and their

habitats. This is a di�cult task given the pressures on natural resources in Uganda and

the poverty of the people in its vicinity. Since 1991 a community conservation pro-

gramme has operated in attempts to foster conservation while contributing to rural

development. This paper examines this strategy and makes an assessment of its achieve-

ments. Despite its initial success in bolstering support for the Park from neighbouring

communities, both the community conservation programme and the Park itself remain

fragile institutions. Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the post-war period wildlife conservation has increasingly been internationalized inits ideologies and methodologies. Those ideas have also evolved over time. Throughthe 1980s and 1990s, approaches to wildlife management have tried to include, ratherthan exclude, local people from protected areas such as national parks, and sharecontrol over the use of natural resources. This approach, often labelled `communityconservation' has become dominant in conservation thinking globally, and is nowalmost universal in sub-Saharan Africa in the 1980s and 1990s (Adams and Hulme,in press). It has replaced or complimented traditional `protectionist' strategies that

CCC 0954±1748/99/020305±11$17.50Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Journal of International DevelopmentJ. Int. Dev. 11, 305±315 (1999)

* Correspondence to: Mark In®eld, African Wildlife Foundation, PO Box 10950, Kampala, Uganda.e-mail: [email protected]

Contract/grant sponsor: Global Environmental Change Programme.Contract/grant number: L320253211.

relied on coercive `®nes and fences' approaches (Barrett and Arcese, 1995), and havebeen widely applied in and around protected areas (e.g. Lindsay, 1987; Wells andBrandon, 1992; Western and Wright, 1994).

Community conservation (CC) encompasses a broad continuum. At one end lieinitiatives designed to support national parks and their conservation objectives. Atthe other lie initiatives aiming to achieve rural development through the use of wildlifeor other living resources, where biodiversity conservation is a secondary bene®t(Barrow and Murphree, in press). Murombedzi (in this journal issue) describesZimbabwe's CAMPFIRE programme which falls in the latter category. This paperdiscusses a `park outreach' programme in a forest national park in Uganda.

Evergreen forest loss in sub-Saharan Africa has been rapid, both because of loggingand clearance for agriculture (Grainger, 1993, 1996; Ite, 1997). In forest environmentscompetition for land can be sharp between the development needs of local people andpriorities of wildlife conservation (and formal commitments of governments to theConvention on Biological Diversity). Here conventional protected area strategies areincreasingly problematic, in pragmatic terms (because illegal penetration of theprotected forest for meat, timber or farmland is very di�cult to stop), politically andmorally (because those challenging the ecological integrity of protected areas aregenuinely below the poverty line and in great humanitarian need of land, food and asustainable livelihood). In these circumstances, community conservation approacheshave a particular attraction (Ite, 1996; Noss, 1997).

2 THE SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY CONSERVATION

Community conservation programmes must face two obvious questions. First, dothey work, and second, are their positive impacts sustainable? While the rhetoric ofcommunity conservation may be (in the post-Rio aid policy climate) compelling,assessment of the conservation and development performance of such projectssuggests that the `win±win' solution of biodiversity conservation and developmentachieved through a single programme (however balanced between the two objectives)is in practice hard to achieve (Stocking and Perkin, 1994; Barrett and Arcese, 1995;Ite, 1996; Blaikie and Jeanrenaud, 1997).

Outreach programmes can in¯uence attitudes towards national parks among localcommunities, as the Mgahinga programme shows, without materially altering thebalance of costs and bene®ts experienced by them (Bergin, 1995; Hulme and In®eld,in press; Kangwana and Ole Mako, in press). They achieve conservation objectiveswithout contributing greatly to local development, a `win±lose' result. They can,however, create a degree of bene®t for local people by creating new ®nancial oppor-tunities ( for example through ecotourism), or by allowing material bene®t ¯ows tocommence or re-commence ( for example if CC allows people to harvest productsfrom a formerly closed reserve). However, the cost of such community conservationprogrammes is high, and claims that ®nancial savings in protected area managementwould result from improved relations with local communities have not beendemonstrated. The ®nancial and institutional sustainability of community focusedinitiatives is therefore a matter of considerable signi®cance to protected areamanagers, local people, governments and international aid `experts' (Barrow et al.,in press; Kangwana and Ole Mako, in press).

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Int. Dev. 11, 305±315 (1999)

306 M. In®eld and W. M. Adams

Constancy of approach and application is critical to the success of CC programmes.It is not an approach that can easily be put down once taken up. The failure orreversal, for example, of community resource access arrangements might easily createmore negative attitudes towards the Park than if the programme had never beenstarted. In the Ugandan case, Community Conservation must be ®rmly embedded inthe institutional structure of the Uganda Wildlife Authority if consistency is to beachieved. This will partly depend on the level of enthusiasm for communityapproaches within the professional culture of UWA, both at headquarters and at thepark level.

Uganda's CC programme developed, like many others, through the innovationof international conservation NGOs (Barrow et al., in press). The degree to whichthe verbal support of the national authorities will convert to investment in CCremains to be seen. The recent contraction of UWA's Community Department fromfour o�cers to one does not suggest strong commitment, or augur well forinstitutional sustainability. In hard times, especially if funds are short, park managersmay well revert to what many in UWA still see as their core role, law enforcement.Notwithstanding the plethora of community programmes supported by projects thisdecade, the professional culture within UWA remains coercive and law-enforcementremains the dominant management activity (Hulme and In®eld, in press; Ratter,1997).

The CC programme analysed in this paper has as its primary objective thestrengthening of the integrity of the Mgahinga Gorilla National Park (hereafter`Mgahinga') and especially the conservation of a population of the endangeredmountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla beringii) and their forest habitat. The project'scontributions to rural livelihoods and community institutions result from thesee�orts, and are thus means rather than ends.

3 MGAHINGA GORILLA NATIONAL PARK

Covering only 340 ha, Mgahinga conserves an important remnant of the onceextensive Albertine Rift Afromontane forests. In recent centuries, forest clearance foragriculture has been extensive (Hamilton, 1984; Butynski and Kalina, 1993).Mgahinga has high biological diversity, including eleven species of primate, mostnotably the mountain gorilla and the golden monkey (Cercopithecus mitis sp.). It wasbelieved to have been a faunal refuge during the late Pleistocene arid phase.Formal conservation e�orts began with the declaration of a Game Sanctuary toprotect the gorillas in 1930 and a Forest Reserve in 1941. The National Park wascreated in 1991 on the line of former protected area boundaries (Uganda NationalParks, 1996).

Below the protected area, the slopes are intensively cultivated and densely settled byBufumbira farmers and a few landless Batwa people (Kingdon, 1990). Populationdensities are amongst the highest in rural Africa, reaching up to 500 per squarekilometre with annual population growth rates estimated to be 3.5 per cent. Womenoutnumber men in the area, re¯ecting male out migration to ®nd work. The agri-cultural frontier appears to have closed before the Second World War. At that timethe government recommended that people with too little land emigrate to otherdistricts (Adams and In®eld, in press).


Institutional Sustainability and Community Conservation 307

There has been a long history of local e�orts to secure farmland. In 1941±45, theCounty Chief successfully requested a reduction in size of the then Forest Reserve toprovide land for agriculture. In the 1970s and 1980s, when civil war raged in Uganda,there was illegal encroachment and much of the Forest Reserve became used forcattle grazing, and harvesting of forest resources, especially bamboo, grasses, fuelwood and timber. The collection of water in the dry season ( from swamps high onthe Rwanda border) was also important. Conservation authorities responded to thethreats presented by encroachment and regular illegal entry by attempting to securethe protected area's boundaries, and expand them when possible. Despite thesee�orts, at the time of the creation of the national park, the area was found to betraversed by more than 12 heavily-used footpaths to Rwanda. Animal snares werefound in 63 per cent of the Park, honey barrels in 30 per cent and, most seriously( from the point of view of gorilla conservation) 1,773 people in 272 households wereliving in the new Park. There were 113 houses, 2 bars, 4 stores and a church. Inaddition 680 more farmed there, while a total 4,020 non-resident people werepartially dependant on Park land (Werikhe, 1991). The illegal use of the ForestReserve by local communities was perhaps inevitable. Government capacity andapparent commitment to protect it was low and communities around the Park werepoor. Communication and collaboration between the Game and Forest Departmentswas very limited, and conservation e�orts were slight until the 1980s.

4 WHY COMMUNITY CONSERVATION?

When the Government of Uganda o�cially gazetted the Mgahinga Gorilla NationalPark in May 1991, all human settlement and use of resources within the Park becameillegal. Local resistance led the Director of Uganda National Parks (UNP) and theresponsible Minister to attend a stormy public meeting. The resulting Memorandumof Agreement, signed in June 1992, required all farmers and residents to leave the Park.In return, Uganda National Parks agreed to pay `compensation'1 and seek donor sup-port to improve agricultural self-reliance. The Park was duly cleared and all resourceuse (and access) stopped, compensation averagingUS$27 per person and ranging fromUS$1200 to US$6 was paid (Cunningham et al., 1993), and CARE Uganda agreed toextend their Development Through Conservation Project to Mgahinga.

Despite the Agreement, a widespread local perception remains that land had beenacquired in the Park improperly and was unfairly `seized' by the government. Thesettlement was not new: three households had lived there before it became a GorillaSanctuary in 1930,2 26 per cent had been given land by the Forest Departmentbetween 1920 and 1979, 71 per cent claimed to have inherited their land there, andover half to have been born there (Werikhe, 1991). Local people argue that thecompensation was inadequate, and not enough to allow replacement land to beacquired (Adams and In®eld, in press).

These perceptions, and the resulting negativity towards the Park, are exacerbatedby the poverty of the people, itself partly associated with and created by the Park.

1 Strictly these payments did not comprise compensation, since government was not obliged to compensatefor land not registered as a legal title. USAID was, in any event, unwilling to pay `compensation' at formalgovernment rates. Payments were for ®xed assets and improvements, not for the land.2 Batwa families had lived and used the forest even prior to the arrival of the Bakiga farmers.



Local people lost access to resources, especially land, and gained little. Research inparishes adjacent to the Park (Adams and In®eld, in press) revealed a series ofproblems that local people believed it had brought (Table 1). These were identi®edprimarily as the eviction from their land and the resulting poverty and hunger, and theinadequacy of compensation. At one meeting, 6 people out of the 20 present claimedto have had houses within the Park, while 12 had land. Clearly, and unsurprisingly,Mgahinga faces a challenge to its legitimacy within the local community. The`community conservation' programme was developed to tackle this.

5 THE COMMUNITY CONSERVATION STRATEGY

Protected area outreach can involve a wide range of activities (Adams and In®eld, inpress; Barrow et al., in press). Those activities involved in the community programmeat Mgahinga are shown in Table 2. The programme at Mgahinga is the result ofcollaboration between UNP, international donors and NGOs, local government

Table 1. Proportion of people in Parish meetings listing di�erent problems arising from thecreation of the Park.

Inner Parishes (%) Outer Parishes (%) Women's groups (%)

Poverty 16 0 10

Crop Raiding 4 3 0

Eviction1 74 69 66

Inadequate `compensation' 26 20 15

Harassment by Rangers 1 0 0

Interahamwe2 5 13 0

Loss of resources3 0 14 10

1The eviction is viewed as a major contributing factor to land shortage and hunger (Adams and In®eld,in press).2Interahamwe, a term deriving from the troubles in Rwanda, refers to armed bandits or ®ghters of variouskinds. Some argued that Interahamwe were being blamed for more ordinary thieving.3Lost resources speci®cally referred to were water, ®rewood and grazing. Access to many other less criticalresources was also lost.

Table 2. Components of the community conservation programme at Mgahinga.

Activity Agent2 Source of funding

Conservation education CCU Tourism/USAID

Public relations CCU/Senior Park Sta� Tourism

Funding Community Projects CARE, MBIFCT, EDF USAID/World Bank/EU

Reducing costs of having park as a neighbour CARE/CCU (Bu�alo Wall) Tourism/USAID

Social infrastructure investment MBIFCT/EDF/CARE World Bank/EU/USAID

Revenue sharing CCU/MGNP Tourism

Community participation in park management1 CCU/MGNP/PMAC/PPC Tourism/USAID

Support for community institutions CCU/MGNP/CARE Tourism/USAID

Improved land use outside the Park CARE USAID

Community access to park resources MGNP/CARE Tourism/USAID

1The Park Management Advisory Committee represents a transitional stage to `collaborative manage-ment', `co-management' or `joint management'.2For details of these agents see section 5 of this paper.



and community institutions. Mgahinga has been supported by projects fundedand implemented by international organizations since its creation in 1991. ThePark's Community Conservation Unit (CCU) comprises a Community ConservationWarden who directs three Community Rangers, one allocated to each Parishimmediately adjoining the Park boundary. These Rangers, recruited from theboundary parishes, do various kinds of work, educating school children, mobilizingcommunities and o�ering lectures and exhortations of many kinds. They act as achannel for communication between the Park and the people. They also play a keyrole in the implementation of the Revenue Sharing Scheme of the Uganda WildlifeAuthority (UWA),3 which sets aside a proportion of Mgahinga's earnings (currently20 per cent of Park entry fees) to fund community development projects.

CAREUganda implements the Development Through Conservation Project whichprovides support for improved agriculture and social infrastructure as well as forprogrammes designed to reduce con¯ict, such as construction of a bu�alo wall andcontrolled access to bamboo shoots for planting on farms. The Mgahinga and BwindiForest Conservation Trust (MBIFCT) uses the proceeds from a trust established witha donation from the World Bank to fund community development projects. Otherdonors have provided funds for the development of a water reticulation system tobring clean water from the Park to communities, and for the construction of schoolsand clinics. Local government departments play a wide range of partnership roles inmost of these projects.

UWA established a Park Management Advisory Committee (PMAC), to bringtogether various governmental, non-governmental and local interests. The MgahingaPMAC has seven members, two from each of three Parish Park Committees(PPC) and the Senior Warden. Other interested parties (including developmentNGOs, researchers and local government o�cials) are ex-o�cio members. The cost ofPMAC meetings is considerable (US$500 per meeting, to cover accommodation,transport and other expenses). This expenditure is not covered by revenue sharingfunds, but from the Park's own budget, as are many other costs associated withcommunity institutions.

6 THE IMPACT OF COMMUNITY CONSERVATION

The impacts of the CC programme are hard to assess accurately without a majormonitoring programme. Indicators of success include:

(i) the incidence of illegal entry and resource use (identi®ed from Park records);(ii) degree of recognition of institutions engaged in the CC programme at parish

meetings;(iii) extent to which the community perceived bene®ts of being a park neighbour at

parish meetings (Adams and In®eld, in press).

The level of illegal activities in the Park have declined. Data show that the numberof people arrested, the number of snares removed, and the number of cattle or goatsfound in the Park for the years 1991 to 1997 have reduced over time. Law enforcement

3 In 1996 Ugandan National Parks (UNP) and the Wildlife Department were merged into a single agency,the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA).



sta� con®rm this reduction since the development of the CC programme. The levelsof arrests and snares removed during the years of 1996 and 1997 are low by anystandards, as are levels of other illegal activities, especially given the former economicimportance of forest resources. However, it is not clear whether the low level of illegalactivity reported is actually the result of the CC programme, or a tightening of lawenforcement. These ®gures may not give a true indication of illegal activities `on theground'.

Venn diagrams drawn by participants at parish meetings sought to identify theextent to which the agents planning and implementing the CC programme wererecognized. These suggested that CARE was the most visible organization, followedby the Ministry of Health and the Water Development Department (re¯ecting theperceived importance of the water scheme). The organizations connected speci®callywith the Park (park sta�, PMAC and PPC) did not score highly, although it was clearthat they and the Community Rangers werewell known.4 In only one of six communitymeetings was the PPC placed in the groups of organizations viewed as closest to thecommunity. The PMAC tended to be placed in the second group that were lessaccessible and less useful. The Park itself, as an institution, was generally in a thirdgroup of organizations viewed as being distant from the community. Its appearanceat all on a diagram of organizations `helping' the village was often disputed during ourmeetings with villagers.

Participants in the same parish meetings were asked to identify any impacts of thePark that they perceived to be positive to assess whether the endeavours of the CCprogramme were recognized as bene®ts. This question usually evoked much noisyincredulity, but eventually some bene®ts were identi®ed (often following prompting,and often with dissent being strongly expressed). These included the construction ofschool buildings and of roads, and the water ¯owing from the Park in streams.Tourists were not generally seen to have brought bene®ts. People said `only the nationbene®ts, the people do not'; noting that `tourists pay a fee to government, but nothingto the people here'. Only one person volunteered the argument that tourists bringmoney, of which a proportion was used to build classrooms. One parish argued thatthe gullies draining Mt. Muhavura no longer deposit stones on farm land or sweptpeople away because land is no longer cultivated in the Park. The bene®ts toindividuals from employment was also recognized.

Despite problems of interpretation, communities seem to have accepted therestrictions imposed by the Park on access to land and resources. The ability ofcommunities to identify the players in the CC programme, and the bene®ts broughtby them and the Park con®rms the e�ectiveness of the CC programme in helping topartially defuse tensions and persuading the communities to accept the Park. It isclear, however, that the bene®ts experienced do not out-weigh the perceived costs oflost agricultural production, lost grazing and natural resources (bamboo, water,thatching grass, medicinal plants and sites for beehives). It is also apparent that thegreatest loss perceived by the community was land, and that the park was primarilyimagined as past or future ®elds, from which people were excluded.

4 In Rukonge the Community Warden and Ranger were identi®ed by name, but then the Ranger was aspectator at the meeting!



7 THE SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY CONSERVATIONAT MGAHINGA

Community support for, or at least tolerance of, Mgahinga has been bought throughinvestment in the CC programme, and is thus dependent on the programme'ssustainability. Funds for CC come largely from two sources, international donors andinternational tourism (Table 2). Donor investment re¯ects the current (post-Rio)international priority placed upon biodiversity conservation, and the huge symbolicimportance attached to the mountain gorilla. Continued funding will depend oncontinued donor interest (and public interest whose expressed concerns governmentsseek to respond to) in the `biodiversity agenda', and especially forests and rare speciessuch as mountain gorillas. Though interest is currently strong, there are `fads' indevelopment and continued public interest is by no means assured. Furthermore,Uganda's continued position as a favoured nation in international aid terms cannotbe guaranteed. A major reduction in development aid to Uganda would haveimmediate impacts on the CC programme at Mgahinga.

Tourism income underpins the revenue sharing programme which contributestowards the construction of local social infrastructure. It also supports CCprogrammes, PMAC meetings, and much else. The continued availability of touristrevenues for CC programmes cannot be taken for granted, however. First, touristincome is subject to powerful claims from UWA to meet institutional needs (orwants), including the costs of subsidising other national parks which earn littlerevenue of their own (i.e. meeting UWA's national mandate). Second, tourist numbersare dependent on political stability in the region. Tourism, nationally has not grownas planned as planned, partly because of the regional picture, and instability in theneighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo, which led to the recent kidnapping oftourists while trekking gorillas. Such incidents greatly harm the tourist industry.5

Recent reports of corruption in the gorilla trekking industry in Uganda is also ofconcern as it will reduce the ¯ow of funds through UWA, and thus the availability offunds to support the CC programme.

Ultimately, the sustainability of CC will depend on the communities themselves,and the way in which they pursue their legitimate demands and interests. In UgandaCC has moved from education, to revenue sharing, to consumptive resource use inunder 10 years. Political pressure at local and national level played a major role in thespeed of change (Barrow et al., in press), as the Mgahinga `Memorandum ofUnderstanding' between UWA and local people demonstrates. As communities aretaken more seriously as potential partners in conservation, and as their capacity andauthority grows, pressures to sustain CC programmes may also grow. Park manage-ment may no longer simply be reaching out to neighbours. Their neighbours maystart to reach in, seeking a greater say in how parks are managed. In the context ofMgahinga, such a transition would o�er novel and exciting challenges. It would alsopresent complex institutional and policy questions. How, for example, would thecommunity be de®ned, and by whom? Who would allocate rights and responsibilitiesand mediate between interest groups? How would con¯icts of interest betweencommunity and government be resolved?

5 Shortly before this issue went to press a group of tourists visiting nearby Burindi National Park werekidnapped and murdered. This incident is likely to reduce tourist numbers signi®cantly.



Community conservation in Mgahinga is also partially underpinned by thedecision to turn gorillas into a resource capable of yielding US dollars in quite largequantities. New rates were set in April 1998 at $250 per visitor per gorilla viewing trek.With six trekkers per day, this gives a possible revenue of $1,500 per day at Mgahinga(perhaps $200,000±500,000 per year). Although this sum is large, this is not a magicsolution to either conservation or local development problems. It has achieved aremarkable job of ®nessing the controversial evictions; it has bought time and somegoodwill; and, it has initiated the development of institutions that can address bothlocal economic needs and conservation goals. However, these institutions remainfragile and it is not clear how they might grow and be structured in the future. Nor is itclear who decides what form they might take, and who supports their future develop-ment and operation. The institutional and ®nancial sustainability of communityconservation at Mgahinga must remain, therefore, in question.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This chapter draws on research at Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, in South-WestUganda, in March and April 1998 by Mark In®eld and Bill Adams. We would like tothank David Nkuriyingoma, who guided us through the ®eldwork. We are verygrateful for his wise advice and energy, to the sta� of the Mgahinga Gorilla NationalPark for their support in Kisoro, to the sta� of the Amajambere Iwacu CommunityCampground for looking after us and to all those people who agreed to be inter-viewed. David Basanye (Population O�cer, Kisoro District) supplied census data.Above all we would like to thank the people of Kisoro District for their tolerance andhospitality during our ®eldwork.

REFERENCES

Adams, W. M. and Hulme, D. (in press). `Conservation and communities: changing narratives,

policies and practices in African conservation'. In Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (eds)

African Wildlife and African Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community

Conservation. Oxford: James Currey.

Adams, W. M. and In®eld, M. (in press). `Park outreach and gorilla conservation. Mgahinga

Gorilla National Park, Uganda'. In Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (eds) African Wildlife and

African Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation. Oxford:

James Currey.

Barrett, C. S. and Arcese, P. (1995). `Are integrated conservation-development projects

(ICDPs) sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in Sub-Saharan Africa', World

Development, 23(7), 1073±1084.

Barrow, E. and Murphree, M. (in press). `Community conservation from concept to practice: a

framework'. In Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (eds) African Wildlife and African Livelihoods:

The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation. Oxford: James Currey.

Barrow, E., Gichohi, H. and In®eld, M. (in press). `Community Conservation in East Africa: a

comparative analysis'. In Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (eds) African Wildlife and African

Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation. Oxford: James

Currey.



Bergin, P. (1995). Conservation and development: the institutionalisation of community

conservation in Tanzania National Parks. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Development Studies,

University of East Anglia, Norwich.

Blaikie, P. and Jeanrenaud, S. (1997). `Biodiversity and human welfare'. In Ghimire, K. B. and

Pimbert, M. P. (eds) Social Change and Conservation. London: Earthscan, 46±70.

Butynski, T. M. and Kalina, J. (1993). `Three new mountain parks for Uganda', Oryx, 27(4),

214±224.

CARE International In Uganda (1997). EIA Study of the Proposed Upgrading of the

Kabiranyuma Gravity Flow Water Scheme in Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, Uganda.

Kampala: CARE International in Uganda.

Cunningham, A. B. (1996). People, park and plant use: recommendations for multiple-use

zones and development alternatives around Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda.

People and Plants Working Paper 4. Paris: UNESCO.

Cunningham, A. B., Wild, R., Mutebi, J. and Tsekeli, A. (1993). People and Wild Plant Use:

Mgahinga Gorilla National Park. Kampala: CARE International, Uganda.

Grainger, A. (1993). `Rates of deforestation in the humid tropics: estimates and measure-

ments', The Geographical Journal, 159, 33±44.

Grainger, A. (1996). `Forest environments'. In Adams, W. M., Goudie, A. S. and Orme, A. R.

(eds) The Physical Geography of Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 173±195.

Hamilton, C. A. (1984). Deforestation in Uganda. Nairobi: Oxford University Press.

Hammett, J. (1998). Mgahinga Gorilla National Park Management Plan Revision 1998±2000.

unpublished ms.

Hulme, D. and In®eld, M. (in press). `From criminals to citizens? Community conservation at

Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda'. In Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (eds) African

Wildlife and African Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation.

Oxford: James Currey.

Ite, U. E. (1996). `Community perceptions of the Cross River National Park, Nigeria',

Environmental Conservation, 23(4), 351±357.

Ite, U. E. (1997). `Small farmers and forest loss in the Cross River National Park, Nigeria',

The Geographical Journal, 163(1), 47±56.

Kangwana, K. and Ole Mako, R. (in press). `The Impact of Community Conservation

Initiatives around Tarangire National Park, Tanzania (1992±1997)'. In Hulme, D. and

Murphree, M. (eds) African Wildlife and African Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance

of Community Conservation. Oxford: James Currey.

Kingdon, E. (1990). `Caught between two worlds: moral problems relating to conservation in

south-west Uganda', International Journal of Moral and Social Studies, 5(3), 235±249.

Lindsay, W. K. (1987). `Integrating parks and pastoralists: some lessons from Amboseli'.

In Anderson, D. M. and Grove, R. H. (eds) Conservation in Africa: People, Policies and

Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 149±68.

Murombedzi, J. (in press). `Committees, rights, costs and bene®ts; the question of natural

resource stewardship and community bene®ts in Zimbabwe's CAMPFIRE programme'. In

Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (eds) African Wildlife and African Livelihoods: The Promise

and Performance of Community Conservation. Oxford: James Currey.

Noss, A. J. (1997). `Challenges to nature conservation with community development in central

African forests', Oryx, 31, 180±88.

Ratter, A. (1997). Participatory Evaluation: Community Conservation for Uganda Wildlife

Authority Project. Kampala, Uganda.



Stocking, M. and Perkin, S. (1992). `Conservation-with-development: an application of the

concept in the Usambara Mountains, Tanzania', Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers (n.s.), 17, 337±349.

Uganda National Parks (1996). Mgahinga Gorilla National Park Management Plan 1996±

2000. Kampala: Uganda National Parks.

Wells, M. and Brandon, K. (1992). People and Parks: Linking Protected Areas with Local

Communities. Washington DC: World Bank.

Werikhe, S. E. (1991). An ecological survey of the gorilla game reserve (GGR), South-West

Uganda. M.Sc. Thesis, Makerere University.

Werikhe, S. E. (not dated). Socio-demographic Survey of the Encroached Area of the Proposed

Mgahinga Gorilla National Park in South-West Uganda. Kampala: CARE International,

Uganda with the Impenetrable Forest Conservation Project of the World Wildlife Fund, US.

Western, D. and Wright, R. M. (1994). `The background to community-based conservation'.

In Western, D., Wright, R. M. and Strum, SC (1994) (eds) Natural Connections: Perspectives

on Community-Based Conservation. Washington: Island Press.

Wild, R. G. and Mutebi, J. (1996). Conservation through community use of plant resources:

establishing collaborative management at Bwindi Impenetrable and Mgahinga Gorilla

National Parks, Uganda. People and Plants Working paper 5, Paris: UNESCO.

Wild, R. G. and Mutebi, J. (1997). `Bwindi impenetrable forest Uganda: conservation through

collaborative management', Nature and Resources, 33(3&4), 33±51.



institutional sustainability and community conservation: a case study from uganda

Documents