Bwindi Impenetrable National Park’s Multiple Use Programme
Download as PPT, PDF1 like656 views
The document presents the Multiple Use Programme (MUP) of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, aimed at integrating local communities into park management by allowing controlled access to forest resources. It details the history of resource access restrictions, assessments for sustainable harvesting, and the monitoring of plant impacts over 20 years. Recommendations include enforcing harvesting bans on certain plants, increasing harvesting frequencies, and extending harvesting zones to improve benefits for local communities.
Bwindi Impenetrable National Park’s Multiple Use Programme
- 1. BWINDI IMPENETRABLE NATIONAL PARK’S MULTIPLE USE PROGRAMME Robert Bitariho and Emmanuel Akampulira
- 2. 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
- 3. 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
- 4. BINP’s MULTIPLE USE ZONES
- 5. Prior the Multiple use Programme In 1991 when Bwindi was made 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
- 6. 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
- 7. 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
- 8. “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
- 9. 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 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Salaciaelegans Loeseneriella apocynoides Triumfetta macrophylla Urera Hypselodendron Pristimeragracifolia Securidaca welwitschii Phamnusprenoides Gounnia longispicata Hibiscusgracifolia Rytigyniakigeziensis Hibiscusfuscus Clausenaanisata Rytigynia bugoyensis Rukambura Brideliasp. Draceana afromontanea Adeniareticulata Plant species Stemdensityperhectare Total Stems Harvestable stems
- 10. 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
- 11. 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
- 12. The plants that are monitored in the PSPs A matureA mature LoeseneriellaLoeseneriella apocynoides stemapocynoides stem (>30years)(>30years) Bark harvest fromBark harvest from Ocotea usambarensisOcotea usambarensis Bark harvest fromBark harvest from Rytigynia kigeziensisRytigynia kigeziensis
- 13. 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)
- 14. 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)
- 15. 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
- 16. 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(N yakibazi),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
- 17. 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
- 18. 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
- 19. 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)
- 20. Thank you, to all the partners , funders and well-wishers