5/2/2013
Forest income and rural livelihoods: A
case study of Bwindi’s Multiple Use
Programme, South West Uganda
ROBERT BITARIHO, PhD
Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation
Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda
5/2/2013
Presentation breakdown
Introduction
Methods used
Results
Conclusions
Recommendations
Acknowledgements
5/2/2013
1 INTRODUCTION
Presently wild plants provide an important source of income to local people world wide (>25% of human population rely on forests)
Over 2/3rds of 600 million people in Africa rely on forest products, either in form of subsistence uses or cash incomes
The CBD, MDGs and other International agreements explicitly connect conservation to poverty alleviation
The 5th WPCs in 2003 (Durban-SA) stressed the importance of PAs in the reduction of poverty among rural poor people
The Uganda government priority programs are now geared towards prosperity for all (bonna bagagawale)
5/2/2013
Introduction (cont’d)
In Africa almost 90% of rural people live below the poverty line (earn <1usd a day) and rely on forests for livelihoods
Most countries in the tropics have shifted attention to PA forests to alleviate rural local people from poverty
However most of these PAs are fragile ecosystems and are home to rare and endemic species that are susceptible to human activities (e.g. mountain gorillas)
It is important to find a balance between PA conservation and the needs of local people livelihoods in a stainable manner
5/2/2013
Introduction (cont’d)
In 1994, Bwindi introduced a multiple use programme (MUP) for local people to access forest resources for livelihoods (medicinal & basketry plants/ beekeeping)
The MUP was originally aimed at using forest resources for domestic purposes only and not for sale
The need for local people’s livelihoods and changing political & economic perspectives caused changes in Bwindi forest use (domestic purposes to sale for income)
This study investigated whether Bwindi’s MUP is contributing to the alleviation of poverty among the rural poor people neighboring Bwindi
5/2/2013
Bwindi’s multiple use programme
5/2/2013
METHODS
Village interviews & Market surveys
Inventory of forest products sold in 10 local markets around Bwindi Interviewing local people from Bwindi parishes stratified into 3 categories of: Plant harvest zones Beekeeping zone Non-multiple use zones
5/2/2013
RESULTS Status of local people interviewed
Majority of HHs depended
on sale of both agricultural
and forest produce (85%)
None of the HHs
depended on the sale of
forest products alone or
agricultural produce alone
Few household heads
were formally employed
(15%)
Rutugunda (N = 46 households)
15%
85%
0%
Employed
Sells both home &forest products
Sells forestproducts only
Preferences for forest resources by local
people
5/2/2013
Resources permitted
for extraction
frequency of
mention
Resources prohibited
for extraction
frequency of
mention
Dioscorea praehensilis
(Wild yams)
100% Bush meat (various) 100%
Smilax anceps (basketry) 86% Dioscorea preusii 94%
Rytigynia kigeziensis
(medicinal)
62% Wild honey 81%
Ocotea usambarensis
(medicinal)
47% Fish 80%
Marantochloa leucantha
(basketry)
40% Firewood 69%
Piper guineense
(medicinal)
39% Loeseneriella
apocynoides
65%
5/2/2013
People perceptions
People from beekeeping & plant use zones greatly appreciate the importance of Bwindi NP (socio-economic benefits)
87% of the people in the non-MUZs parishes did not appreciate the importance of Bwindi NP (no economic benefits)
95% of people in the MUZ parishes felt they benefited from the park through the MUP (income and other livelihoods)
Karangara parish (N = 44 households)
56%
5%
25%
14%Buys products from RU
No benefit
Source of income/livelihood
Source of medicine
Bujengwe (N = 69 households)
13%
87%
0%0%
Buys products from RU
No benefits
Source of income/livelihood
Source of medicine
5/2/2013
Forest resource use and preferences
Digging for wild yams (Dioscorea spp) i An improvised ladder for wild honey
collection
5/2/2013
Forest resource use
A man after harvesting Winnowing trays materials Women harvesting basketry materials
5/2/2013
Forest products sold in local markets
Bamboo baskets Winnowing trays and hoe handles
Tea harvest baskets Small baskets
5/2/2013
Types of forest product vendors
Primary forest resource user
vendors constituted the highest
percentage of forest products
vendors (69%)
The “middle men” vendors (buy
& resell products) constituted
the least (31%)
The Emergency of the ‘’middle
men” vendors perhaps is an
indication of some level
commercialization of the forest
products
March 2009 (N = 70 vendors)
31%
69%
"Middle men" vendors
Resource user vendor
5/2/2013
Annual incomes from forest products sell
There is a significant difference in mean annual incomes of local people who sell forest products from parishes involved in MUP and those not involved
Beekeeping for honey is the most lucrative of all forest products incomes with a mean annual income of 298,000ushs/= per resource user (828/= per day = 0.31USDS per day)
Sell of products made from forest raw material in the plant use zones is 2nd to beekeeping with a total mean annual income of 138,750ushs per resource user = 385/= per day = 0.15USDS per day)
Baskets made from non-forest raw materials (banana fibers and other alternatives) in the non-multiple use zones sell the least ( total mean annual income of 51,500/= per resource user = 143/= per day = 0.05USDS per day)
5/2/2013
CONCLUSION
The MDG target of poverty reduction to atleast 1USD per day/per person cannot be achieved with the MUP alone (Forest resource offtake is restricted in Bwindi, Perpetuating poverty??)
Income diversification is one strategy the rural poor people living around Bwindi have adapted as a safety net to cater for the shortfall
Beekeeping for honey collection is the most lucrative of the MUP activities for the local people around Bwindi
With its restrictions, the Bwindi’s MUP alone cannot alleviate poverty among the local people nor compensate for crop raiding costs they incur
5/2/2013
CONCLUSION
The MUP is an important component of the ICDP that contributes to the socio-economic development of the rural people but needs improving (resource offtake)
Combined with other ICD strategies such as tourism and revenue sharing programs, the MUP may help contribute to the Uganda government programme of poverty alleviation
Forest products sale in Bwindi are more for subsistence purposes than for commercial purposes (more primary forest vendors than middle men)
5/2/2013
RECOMMENDATIONS
Need to expand the MUP to include other parishes not benefiting from the programme and review resource offtake restriction in Bwindi
Local people should be encouraged and helped to form other income generating activities such as village loan & savings schemes (VSLA), livestock raring & fruit growing in order to achieve the MDG target
Beekeeping for honey should be encouraged in all the MUP parishes since it provides the highest income to local people and has less stress on the forest.
5/2/2013
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding is through:
Bwindi Mgahinga Conservation Trust (BMCT),
Mbarara University of Science and Technology
5/2/2013
