CONFLICTS BETWEEN LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND UGANDA WILDLIFE
AUTHORITY IN AJAI WILDLIFE RESERVE
BY
KEPO RICHARD
2006/HD19/7097U
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO MAKERERE UNIVERSITY
FOR PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
AWARD OF A MASTER OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JUNE 2011
1
DECLARATION
I, Kepo Richard, declare that the work presented herein is my own except where
acknowledged and that it has never been presented for an award for Master of Science in
Environment and Natural Resources at Makerere University or any other institution of
higher learning.
Signed
Student: ______________________
____________________
Kepo Richard
Date
i
APPROVAL
This work has been conducted under the supervision of Professor Eric Edroma and
Doctor Vincent Muwanika
Signed: ………………………………
Prof.
Eric Edroma.
Date: ………………..
Supervisor
Signed: ………………………………
Dr.
Vincent Muwanika
Date: ………………..
Supervisor
ii
DEDICATION
To my late Grandfather, Rev Canon Arona Dravu, who did not live to see the fruits of his
grand Son, thank you so much for the love you showed for me, I will always miss you
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank the following people for the support and encouragement they
availed during this research project and the entire course.
First and foremost, to my father, Mr. Ronald Dravu who facilitated me in this course and
my mum Mrs. Milly Dravu for the love you gave and the sacrifices you made to bring me
to this point in my life and enabling me to make this accomplishment.
To my sisters and brothers who have also stood by me. I am grateful for the comfort and
warmth you always give me.
I am grateful to Professor Eric Edroma and Dr. Vincent Muwanika, my supervisors for
their continued support and guidance during the research and study time. You were the
light at the end of the tunnel.
I am indebted to my aunt Mrs. Grace Matua for her encouragement.
I acknowledge the input of Asiku Godwin, Azakozu Judith, Ivan and Comfort for the
fruitful discussions we had together.
Last but definitely not least, to my Lord and Saviour, Jesus who loves me like no other
and in whom I place my complete trust. Everyone needs friends like you.
iv
Abstract
This dissertation examines the conflicts between local communities residing within and
around Ajai Wildlife Reserve and wildlife conservation interests of the Uganda Wildlife
Authority.
Purposive sampling method was used to select three parishes from Ogoko sub-county in
which Ajai Wildlife Reserve lies. In the second stage one village was purposively chosen
from each parish making a total of 3 villages. Out of a population of 13,797, a random
sample of 40 people was chosen from each of the 2 villages while 30 people were
selected from the third village. In addition, 40 employees of Ajai Wildlife Reserve,
National Forest Authority, Government officials and politicians were interviewed.
Results of this study revealed the main conflicts in the reserve as encroachment for
cultivation, grazing and settlement, crop raiding, bush fires and poaching.
The majority of the local people around the reserve have negative attitudes towards Ajai
wildlife Reserve. Some 83.6% of the respondents strongly agree that the reserve is a
liability to the communities. The community wants to be left to freely access the
resources such as wild animals, land for cultivation and grazing and fuel wood from the
reserve. By restricting access to these reserve resources, they feel deprived hence the
occurrence of conflicts. Bush fires are a serious threat to Ajai Wildlife Reserve
(according to 46% of the respondents) since the largest part of it is mainly open grassland
and there are no fire breaks to stop the spread of the fires. Fires have the potential to alter
the ecology of the reserve by killing some animals and plants outright (those not adapted
to fires), hindering tree regeneration and altering vegetation cover in favor of grasses.
According to the FGDs, the biggest problems associated with wildlife include destruction
of farm infrastructure, loss of human life, destruction of crops, injury to human beings
and creation of an environment of fear. Given the above incidents, it is apparent that
conflicts continue to occur between the local community and the reserve management.
Management may need to consider digging trenches to address the issue of problem
animals and consequently reduce conflicts with the local community.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration ……………………………………………………………………………....i
Approval…………………………………………………………………………………ii
Dedication …………………………………………………………………………….....iii
Acknowledgement ……………………………………………………………………....iv
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………….v
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background to the study .......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the problem .......................................................................................... 4
1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 5
1.4 Research Questions .................................................................................................. 6
1.5 Significance of the Study ......................................................................................... 6
1.6 The scope of the study ............................................................................................. 7
1.7 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................ 8
CHAPTER TWO: RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................ 11
2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 11
2.1 Conflicts between protected areas and local communities. ................................... 11
2.2 Perception of local communities towards wildlife reserve .................................... 12
2.3 Impacts of activities of local communities on protected Areas. ............................ 15
2.4 Impact of Wildlife Reserves on local Communities .............................................. 17
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 20
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 20
3.2 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 20
3.3 Population .............................................................................................................. 22
3.4 Economic activities ................................................................................................ 22
3.5 Social settings ........................................................................................................ 22
3.6 Rainfall and temperature ........................................................................................ 23
3.7 Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 23
3.8 Research design ..................................................................................................... 25
3.9 Sample Frame ........................................................................................................ 25
3.10 Sampling Procedure ............................................................................................... 25
3.11 Data collection tools .............................................................................................. 25
3.12 Data management................................................................................................... 26
3.13 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 27
3.14 Limitations of the study ......................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER 4: DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ....................................... 29
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 29
4.2 Characteristics of the respondents. ............................................................................. 29
4.2.1 Status of respondents according to their sex ............................................................ 29
4.2.2 Age group of the respondents .................................................................................. 30
4.2.3: Level of education of respondents .......................................................................... 31
4.2.4 Duration of Respondents in the Reserve. ................................................................. 32
4.2.5 Biggest Constraints to farm Production ................................................................... 34
4.2.6 Main sources of cash income ................................................................................... 35
vi
4.2.7 Sources of information about the Reserve ............................................................... 36
4.3 .Main Causes of conflicts in Ajai Wildlife Reserve ................................................... 37
4. 4 Causes of the conflicts between the local people and UWA in Ajai Wildlife Reserve
........................................................................................................................................... 42
4.5 Perception of local communities towards Ajai Wildlife Reserve .......................... 44
4.6 Impacts of activities of local communities on Ajai Wildlife Reserve. ....................... 47
4.7 Impact of the reserve on the local people ................................................................... 49
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 52
5.1 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 52
5.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 53
5.3 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 54
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 59
APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE LOCAL COMMUNITY ...................... 65
APPENDIX 11: COSTS AND BENEFITS ...................................................................... 67
APPENDIX 111: ATTITUDE QUESTIONS ................................................................... 68
APPENDIX IV: QUESTIONNARE FOR DISTRICT LEADERS ................................. 72
vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background to the study
Evolution of the protected areas system in Africa has its roots in the hunting ethos and natural
history studies that were popular at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century
in the Western World (Beinart, 1994). As a result of these concerns pressure groups mostly
comprised of colonial governors, Aristocrats, Sport hunters and leading land lords in the colonies
began to advocate for game preservation (Mackenzie, 1988). The interest and concern of local
African people were not considered in the establishment of these protected areas. As Mackenzie
(1998) rightly argues, foreign interest and not the interest of the African people influenced the
legislation for wildlife management and protected areas in particular.
In many incidences, creations of these protected areas deprived local people of a resource that they
had been accessing for a long time for both their cultural and economic values (Barrow and
Murphree, 2001). The increasing human population and the resultant increasing pressure on the
land resources increase the conflict between protected areas managers and the neighbouring
communities.
The post-colonial African governments also continued to implement conservation policies that
excluded local communities (Gibson, 1991). Local communities who used to have access to
wildlife resources were excluded from the established protected areas management. This exclusion
was effected through deployment of military trained rangers whose jobs were to enforce wildlife
laws by apprehending law breakers and levying fines on them. Local community members in the
effort to secure their means of survival were culprits of this wildlife management set up. This
resulted into tension and conflict between protected area managers and the local people (Mugisha,
2002).
Uganda is one of the sub-Saharan Africa countries that harbors enormous populations of wildlife
which live both inside and outside gazetted protected areas (Webber, 2006). These animals
interface with humans through avenues such as crop raiding, research, tourism, habituation and
poaching. Although wildlife has coexisted alongside humans in Uganda for generations, recent
trends indicate an increasing level of conflict. This conflict has been attributed to high demand for
natural resources resulting from the ever increasing human population (Archibald et al. 2001). In
addition, Uganda’s wildlife laws do not provide for compensation of damages. This has in turn
1
negatively influenced people’s attitudes toward wildlife conservation. The human-wildlife conflict
is a challenge to wildlife managers in Uganda (Webber, 2006).
Ajai Wildlife Reserve is one of the protected areas of Uganda situated in northern Uganda. The
reserve was specifically gazetted to protect the mammal Ceratotherium simum (CR), which is now
extinct in Uganda due to poaching (BirdLife International 2011). The reserve also holds four out of
the 12 species that are restricted to the Lake Victoria Basin biome (BirdLife International 2011).
The reserve was named after a famous Chief called Ajai who ruled the area from 1905 to 1950. In
1937, Chief Ajai declared the area a Game Sanctuary to protect “unique wild animals”, the White
Rhinoaros (now extinct) on the advice of a British Missionary called Dr. Williams who had a
Leprosy medical centre and Church at Kuluva (about 2 km from present day Arua Town) and used
to collect herbs from the forest (Stewart, 1996).
In 1964 after the death of the Chief, the sanctuary was officially gazetted as Ajai Game Reserve
under the management of the former Game Department with the purpose of strengthening the
protection of the White Rhinoaros. To operationalise the declaration of Ajai Game Reserve,
notices were issued in1965 to local communities who resided in and around the reserve. In 1996
when Uganda Wildlife Authority was created, Ajai Game Reserve management was transferred to
the Uganda wildlife Authority and renamed Ajai Wildlife Reserve in line with the statutory
provisions.
Ajai Wildlife Reserve is located in Ogoko, Okollo and Uleppi sub-counties of Madi-Okollo
County in South eastern part of Arua District. It is 166 km2 in area and the altitude ranges from
700 m to 900 m above sea level. The Eastern point marks boundary with the western bank of the
Nile River. The reserve encompasses two river tributaries (Ala and Acha) whose waters flow to the
Nile through the Ala and Obei swamps. The northern and eastern areas are largely low altitude
wooded savannah with scattered Combretum trees. In the southern section Eramve and Inde ridges
comprises of the wooded savanna and support dry grassland that makes a continuous link with
Ombi hills in the north western part of the reserve.
The reserve is encroached, with two villages Madelli and Degiya established within the
boundaries. At least one of the villages, Madelli, is known to have been in existence before the
reserve was established; the history of Degiya is not clear, although records suggest the main
settlement expansion began in the early 1980s (Muwadi, 1994).
2
Conservation Values of Ajai
The area was established as a White Rhino Sanctuary. However, the Northern White Rhinoceros
(Ceratotherium simum cottoni) became extinct mainly through illegal hunting for meat, traditional
medicine and trophies. The prevailing view among local people living adjacent to Ajai Wildlife
Reserve is that the absence of Rhinos has made the reserve lose its original purpose.
Fishing is done as a tradition in swamps and rivers within Ajai Wildlife Reserve. The swamps and
rivers include Ala, Acha, Foro, Ore, Aliku, Gazi and Muzara. After getting permission from the
local traditional chiefs/elders, residents of all ages equipped with all types of fishing gears head for
their known fishing sites along the swamps and rivers. All types of fish and other reptiles are
scooped out of the water and left to die if not favoured as food. The strong belief within the
community is that anybody not authorized by the chief to go for fishing will not survive. Chances
are that he/she can be bitten to death by a snake. This traditional fishing is done in the months of
February and August as a climax season during the dry season each year.
To induce rainfall in times of rain scarcity, the local communities around the reserve use a
secretive area within Ombi hills in the reserve to perform their traditional rituals. The particular
area has not been disclosed for fear of being misused by the rival clans to induce suffering on each
other. Following cries from the affected families, a traditional chief is contacted to perform the
rituals that end up causing rain to fall and in the event white ants also come out and are collected
for food.
Other areas, which are used by the local communities for their various rituals, include: OsivayiadiLiriva area around Eramve hill for curing various ailments and Eranga area within Ombi hills
where a fig tree exists that is used by women for fertility improvement (ARCOD, 2004)
The Nile wetland system in Ajai Wildlife Reserve comprises of Acha wetland, Obei swamp,
Ala/Gazi river system, Nile river swamps, Linya river system, and Water catchments around
Ombi, Inde and Eramve hills. Wooded savanna predominates with patches of moist woodland and
seasonally flooded and swamp grassland.
During the earlier days when conservation of wildlife was not taken seriously, traditional hunting
among the Madi and Alur inhabitants of the area was done for meat, skins, medicine and trophies.
The Madi used horns in Isego, Mgbiri and Ndara Aguara for traditional dances. Among the Alur
community, the Njige, and Convoy-Rakaraka are the cultural dances. These dances used to be
performed by the hunters to show their bravery while the animal trophies were used to pay loyalty
3
to the Chief. At present the situation has changed in that the traditional dances are performed as
village amusements during parties/ceremonies and as history for the young generation to learn the
old days of living. (ARCOD, 2004).
Beautiful Art and Craft depicting the traditional life styles of the people of the area during the time
of Chief Ajai are made by the talented individuals within the villages and sold in trading centers
and towns such as Pakwach. Unique traditional food dishes such as “Asua” made from white Ants
are also prepared and enjoyed by the communities in and around Ajai Wildlife Reserve.
Ajai Wildlife Reserve has seven distinct vegetation types. These include grasslands, wooded
grasslands, woodlands, riverine woodlands, swamp and riverine grasslands, and papyrus swamps.
The variety of different vegetation types, particularly the wetlands, provides a range of habitats,
which enhance the potential of the reserve to keep the fauna diversity. Poaching in the past
drastically reduced large mammal populations in the reserve. There remain small populations of
large mammals including: Sitatunga (Tragelaphus Spekei), Uganda Kob (Kobus Kob),
Waterbucks, Bushbucks (Tragelaphus Scriptus), and Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus Amphibious),
and primates notably Black and White Colobus, Vervet Monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops) and the
Olive Baboons. An effort to reintroduce White Rhinos (Ceratotherium Simum Cottoni) is highly
welcome by the local communities around the reserve. About 122 bird species have been
inventoried in the reserve and the most popular among them is the Pel’s fishing owls (UWA, 1997)
1.2
Statement of the problem
Most African protected areas were created by colonial administrators without taking into account
the concerns of the local communities. In most cases the people were displaced or deprived of their
traditional use rights of the resources causing them to suffer economic hardships. According to the
Arua District Profile on Environment (1996) the displacement of wildlife animals in Madi Okollo
was due to encroachment on the vast land and clearance of trees by squatters. There has also been
legal settlement of inhabitants who were residents in Ajai Game Reserve prior to 1964 who were
issued certificates. These settlers are believed to have cleared the land for agriculture and for
production of tobacco. As a result of the encroachment there has been loss of habitats forcing the
animals to migrate.
Today crop damage and livestock predation by wildlife are major source of economic losses.
Local communities have in turn threatened protected areas by poaching and causing wildlife
habitat loss through encroachment. Loss of the use of land may have serious long term
4
consequence for the local population who depend on the protected areas for reasons such as
sources of firewood, fish, bush meat, medicinal plants and pasture. In its effort to address problems
of human settlements within wildlife-protected areas, Uganda Wildlife Authority with support
from the European Union conducted a nation-wide review of its wildlife-protected area system.
Through boundary re-alignment to exclude heavily settled parts and inclusion of other areas prime
for conservation, this process ensured that most of the estimated 65,000 people living within
wildlife-protected areas in Uganda by 1995 were excluded from the wildlife estate.
It was found out that Ajai Wildlife Reserve was severely encroached, with five villages established
within, or extending into beyond the boundaries. These were Inde, Madelli, Garia, Degiya and
Lali. The history of establishment for these villages is not clear, although records suggest that the
main settlement expansion began in the early 1980s. At the time of the protected area review, over
5,000 people lived and cultivated within the Reserve.The major problem in this area is the
expansion of fishing villages in the reserve, which promotes encroachment by the local people.
The rebel insurgency in the northern part of the country and general instability since 1979 have
paralysed government and local authorities' efforts to carry out effective conservation work in
these areas.
The review process recommended that the boundaries of Ajai Wildlife Reserve be changed to
exclude almost all settlements. However, it was not possible to redesign the borders of the reserve
to exclude Madelli and Degia given their central location within the Reserve. Because local people
have always resided in these areas, excluding them from access to resources without providing
them alternatives may be detrimental to conservation. It is therefore important to conduct research
on conflict mitigation strategies that are likely to hence make rural communities less vulnerable to
crop loss while protecting important wildlife species in Ajai Wildlife Reserve.
1.3
Objectives
The general aim of the research was to examine conflicts between local people residing within and
around Ajai Wildlife Reserve and wildlife conservation interests. Specifically the study aimed to
(a)
Document the main conflicts,
(b)
Investigated the causes of the conflicts between the local people and management
of Ajai Wildlife Reserve,
5
(c)
Assess the perception and attitudes of the local people towards presence of the
reserve,
(d)
Assess the impact of the activities of the local people on the reserve, and
(e)
Assess the impact of the reserve on the local people.
1.4
Research Questions
The research was guided by the following questions:
(a)
What are the main conflicts in Ajai Wildlife Reserve?
(b)
What are the causes of the conflicts between local people and Ajai Wildlife Reserve?
(c) What perception and attitudes do the local people have towards the reserve?
(d)
What are the impacts of the activities of the local people towards wildlife conservation?
(e) What are the impacts of the activities of the wildlife reserve on the local people?
1.5
Significance of the Study
The research was designed at a time when there have been numerous conflicts between the local
people and conservation agencies in Uganda, and the need to encourage the use of natural
resources in sustainable manner is highly desirable. It is hoped that the results and
recommendations of the study may be used to;
(a)
improve local community and reserve management relationships,
(b)
identify ways of reducing conflicts between the local people and wildlife reserves
not only in Ajai but in other protected areas as well,
(c)
provide significant information that can guide similar/ other studies in the related
fields,
(d)
provide useful information to policy makers such as Uganda Wildlife Authority,
Ministry of Lands, Water and Environment and Ministry of Planning and Economic
Development to guide in formulating appropriate policies and programmes to curb
human-wildlife conflicts,
(e)
contribute to improved community livelihoods through UWA participation in subcounty and district planning process where projects shall be identified and the
funding mechanism developed. With the implementation of this plan, it is expected
that tourism in the reserve will pick up and revenue generated shall be shared as per
6
revenue – sharing guidelines of UWA. The funds generated from the revenuesharing shall be used for projects developed according to the community needs.
1.6
(f)
preserve former chief Ajai’s forested homesteads, and
(g)
increase local community awareness on the importance of Ajai Wildlife Reserve.
The scope of the study
The study was conducted within Arua District specifically in and around Ajai Wildlife Reserve to
evaluate conflicts between local people and Wildlife Conservation. The research was implemented
between August and November 2008 in three parishes of ogoko Sub-County. These included
Alivu, Odraka and Pawor parishes. Out of these were 150 respondents randomly selected as a
sample population. Ajai Wildlife Reserve covers an area of 15,800 hectares and is located in the
south eastern part of the district at 255”N and 3125”E in Ogoko sub-County of Madi Okollo
County.
It has a total population of 13,797 as per 2002 population and housing census (Arua District
Statistics Department Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning).
7
1.7
Conceptual Framework
Land for cultivation and
settlement is constant
High population growth
Force population to
encroach on the reserve
-Timber extraction
-Cultivation
-Fuel wood collection
-Grazing
-Hunting
Sustainable management
of the resources
Damage to reserve
ecosystem and biodiversity
-To mitigate the conflict
-Sensitization
-Co-management policies
-Revenue sharing
-Setting up laws
-Evicting people
-Stopping them to use the
resources
UWA intervenes
by
Conflict between
locals and UWA
Fig.1 Conceptual Diagram to show conflicts between local communities and wildlife
conservation
8
The following is an account of how the different components interact with each other and
how these interactions affect the wildlife reserve.
Drivers (increasing population and constant land use)
Due to low incomes of the households, high rate of unemployment and shortage of land for
grazing/cultivation, local communities are attracted to the edge of the wildlife with a hope to
benefit from the wildlife services. This results in population concentration at the edge of the
reserve.
Resource (limited & competition arises)
The benefits derived by the local communities from the wildlife include timber extraction, fuelwood collection (both living and dead), sale of wildlife meat to increase household income,
livestock grazing in the wildlife reserve, farming and hunting.
Stress (exerted to the limited resources, degradation of the reserve)
The above activities exert stress on the wildlife that takes the form of wildlife habitat damage or
loss, tree regeneration hindered, blocking important wildlife corridors, wildlife population reduced,
and some species threatened with extinction.
Effects (Conflict between UWA & the community)
The above forms of stress affect wildlife negatively by causing damage or loss of plant and animal
biodiversity. There is a destructive positive feedback resulting from the effects of the stress exerted
on the wildlife reserve.
Measures
The management of the wildlife ought to respond to the problems created by the local communities
on the wildlife through: Improved enactment and enforcement of the law. Laws that can be clearly
understood by the local communities should be enacted and enforced. These laws should include
by-laws translated into the local languages of the people within and around the reserve. There
should be sections of the law to clearly spell out penalties against illegal activities by any person or
group of persons.
9
Incentives should be provided for sustainable production in the wildlife reserve. Incentives offer an
effective means to resolve wildlife conflicts. The wildlife management needs to create incentives
for the local communities to protect wildlife. Such incentives may include allowing communities
to collect fuelwood, some medicinal plants, and other desperately needed resources from multiple
use zones of the reserve. This will cause the communities to exercise self-restraint and report any
illegal activity to the authorities.
Training residents to promote ecotourism. Residents within the wildlife reserve should be trained
in ecotourism. This may include training them to make arts and crafts that can be sold to tourists.
This will earn income for the local people and improve their livelihoods thereby reducing illegal
activities in the wildlife reserve. Management should help to secure market for these products.
Increased education and awareness-raising efforts should be done in the local communities.
Awareness about the importance of wildlife conservation should be increased among the local
communities. The management should offer part-time/contract employment for some members of
the local communities to sensitize their fellow members about the benefits of conservation to the
local communities. Parents should also be encouraged to send their children to school in order to
improve the level of education among the communities. An educated population is expected to
know the benefits of conservation more easily than uneducated people.
Revised Revenue Sharing Scheme. The famous revenue sharing scheme should be fully
implemented by the management to plough back the 20% tourism entrance fees to the surrounding
communities. The mode of using revenue sharing should include construction of schools in the
surrounding villages, offering scholarships to best performing pupils or students among others.
10
CHAPTER TWO: RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0
Introduction
Conflicts between Humans and Wildlife are escalating and have become a significant issue in the
conservation and land use management. Human population growth coupled with the wealth
creation and agricultural intensification has led to an expansion of human activities. The
fragmentation of the natural habitats have consequently, restricted the distribution and movement
of wildlife species .This in turn has led to direct conflicts between wildlife and people, intensifying
negative
attitude towards wildlife and undermining community based conservation
initiatives.
This biological interaction and the social response of humans is critically threatening wildlife
conservation.
2.1
Conflicts between protected areas and local communities.
The effective long term conservation of Wildlife in and outside protected areas requires the
support of the people who experience the direct impact of the establishment and management of
these areas (Kiss, 1990; Western and Wright, 1994) local people cannot be expected to provide this
support if the costs of doing so outweight the benefits i.e. if the existence of the protected area and
its wildlife have negative impacts on the local livelihood (Murphree, 1996). Conflicts can occur
even if no physical object appears to be damaged. For example people may be afraid to walk
within their home areas across the protected area because they fear dangerous animals such as
snakes, elephants, lions, etc. (Conover, 2002). This makes them to suffer from lack of security and
thus a reduction in quality of their lives.
A study by Madhusudan (1992) in southern India showed that the assertion of state control over
natural resources led to 'severe conflicts with the local populations attempting to maintain their
customary rights to resources. In the process, the local traditions of resource conservation have
been increasingly disrupted. Similarly Jackson (1990) of the World Conservation Union noted that:
All of India's nearly 500 protected areas are virtually islands surrounded by villages and
agriculture land, where people are desperately short of the basic resources of life, such as
firewood, building materials and grazing areas for their livestock. Inevitably they invade the
reserves and come into conflict with the authorities. Poaching of animals, timber and other forest
11
produce is rife, and cattle and goats are found in most reserves. Resentment at the wildlife
authorities' attempts to control the situation has exploded in violence against officials and guards.
Livestock-wildlife conflicts are primarily focused on access to grazing and water resources, as in
the cases of Amboseli National Park and the Maasai Mara Reserve in Kenya, but predation and
disease are also significant issues for livestock-owners (Bourn and Blench, 1999).
Mackinon et al (1986) observe that one of the causes of conflict between local communities and
protected area managers is problem of animals. Vermin from protected areas destroy nearby crops,
yet there are no mechanisms for compensating farmers for crop damage.
Crop raiding is a cause of much conflict between farmers and wildlife throughout the world. In
Africa, the great dependence of a large proportion of the human population for their survival on the
land, coupled with the presence of many species of large mammals leads to many sources of
conflict between people and wildlife (Hill, 1998). This in turn creates increasing friction between
protected area managers and local communities living in the regions that border these protected
areas.
Conflicts always also arise due to pressures of growing population, widespread poverty and
unsustainable land use practices outside protected areas. But rural people may be poor, sometimes
to the point of mere subsistence and may have few options for coping with the challenges of
making a living. Through loss of access to resources they otherwise could use, they often pay most
of the costs of conservation (Bryers, 1996).
2.2
Perception of local communities towards wildlife reserve
Understanding residents’ attitudes is key to improving the protected area people relationship
because it can provide the guidance for policy and management decision (Parry and Campbell,
1992; Hill, 1998). People are more likely to act in accordance with what they believe their peers
believe. In other words when people perceive their peers to have more positive attitude towards the
park, they will exhibit more positive reaction to it. They do this in order to either gain social
currency or to avoid sanction from their peers. Alternatively people may develop their own internal
belief system and value using their peer as referenced group for this development (Emerton, 1965).
12
Despite the contribution realized from wildlife sector, a number of problems make wildlife a
concern especially to the socio economic status of the communities’ bordering wildlife protected
areas. These problems include: conflicts with other land uses, poaching, habitat loss, pollution,
global warming and introduction of exotic species. The failure of wildlife to compete effectively
with other land uses in sustaining the livelihoods of the adjacent communities exacerbates these
problems. As a result, local people look at wildlife as a liability (Gamassa, 1998).
Some previous studies of rural communities in developing countries have found that access to
conservation related benefits can positively influence local attitude (Infield, 1998; Lewis and
Jackson, 1990). However benefits are perceived as small in relation to losses or inequitably
distributed, they may not achieve this required effect (Homewood et al, 1997). An attitudinal
survey in Botswana also found that rural people have negative conservation attitude despite
receiving substantial benefits from the licensed hunting of wildlife (Parry and Capbell, 1992).
A review of 38 North American and European quantitative studies on attitudes toward wolves
across social groups from 1972 to 2000 shows that rural residents and farmers and ranchers had
the lowest percent positive attitudes (Williams, 2002). Whereas 55% of respondents in a random
sample of all residents had positive attitudes toward wolves. Livestock losses to wolves and the
risk of livestock losses are, at times, direct costs to farmers on lands surrounding Parks. However,
the risk of disease transmission also directly affects some farmers near protected areas. These
farmers may benefit from wolves as predators on wild ungulate populations. Higher density of a
host species can sometimes lead to increased disease prevalence because of increased transmission
rates (Scott, 1988), and wolves may therefore play a positive role in managing diseases such as
bovine TB by decreasing the size of prey populations.
According to Stephen Kellert's 1996 "Typology of Wildlife Attitudes", as adapted by Richard
Mordi in Attitudes toward Wildlife in Botswana. At least ten discrete attitudes can be identified
and assessed: (1) naturalistic attitudes (2) ecological attitudes (3) humanistic attitudes (4) moral
attitudes (5) scientific attitudes (6) aesthetic attitudes (7) utilitarian attitudes (8) dominionistic
attitudes (9) negativistic attitudes (10) theistic attitudes.
In a study of attitudes toward wildlife in Botswana, (Mordi, 1991) identified a similar set of
attitudes. He reported that while scientific and negativistic attitudes were expressed across the
population, utilitarian attitudes toward wildlife were the most prevalent, followed by strong theistic
13
attitudes. Certainly Cameroonian children expressed strong negativistic and utilitarian attitudes,
with some scientific/ecological sentiments.
Results presented here do not support theistic
attitudes. This difference may reflect the fact that Mordi sampled a diverse population over the age
of 16. Older children in our study did express some theistic attitudes, indicated by the positive
correlation between age and the use of gorillas in worship. Perhaps theistic attitudes develop later
in life. Our results may also reflect a contemporary trend in much of urban Africa, the influence
and limited integration of western values into African world views, (perhaps reducing traditional
theistic values?).
Previous studies have highlighted the importance of age on attitudes. (Pomerantz ,1987) noted that
children under the age of 7 manifest exploitative attitudes, prefer pets as opposed to wild animals,
and are fearful of predators. According to Piaget's theory of cognitive development children only
begin to develop a basis for a land ethic after the age of 9, by classifying the world according to
natural laws. This stage of cognitive development is known as the "organizational stage".
However, it is only after the age of 14 that children begin to understand basic ecosystem concepts,
and links between humans and the natural environment. At this time, preference for wild animals
increases, based on ecological, moralistic and naturalistic sentiments (Pomerantz, 1986). The
majority of students in this study were under the age of 13. Negativistic, dominionistic and
utilitarian attitudes expressed in this survey may result in part from the age of respondents.
However the degrees to which these studies are applicable cross cultures have not been fully
explored.
In the Value of Life (Kellert, 1996) identifies three other factors that influence attitudes towards
animals and the environment. First, characteristics of a species, size, aesthetic appeal and similarity
to humans, have important implications. Indeed, students commented on the similarities between
gorillas and humans. Perhaps this perceived similarity contributes to the idea that gorillas can be
taught to become human, and can become less dangerous through domestication. Another factor
that influences attitudes is the established relationship between humans and wildlife within a
society. Sentiments of danger and the fear aroused by gorillas may reflect historical perceptions
towards the forest. In a study of community conservation projects in southwest Cameroon, (Sharp,
1998) reported that entry into the forest was historically seen as entering a world of dangers. As
forest animals, gorillas may be perceived as dangerous. Similarly(Kellert ,1985) wrote that, "To
14
the pioneer American, the wolf was despised as emblematic of wilderness; regarded as both a
perceived threat to personal safety and livestock, and as an impediment to progress and
civilization". Finally cultural values towards wildlife can play a strong role in the formation of
attitudes. Substance-oriented economies emphasize practical and material value of wildlife (Mordi,
1991) believes that if wild animals are valued for their utility, they cannot be appreciated
emotionally. "A person who perceives a zebra as a creature of beauty to be played with (rather than
a wild animal to be feared).
Arguably, the most important influence on children’s attitudes beyond culture is education.
Inadequate access to education results in widespread "environmental illiteracy" in countries in
Africa and Latin America (Fihlo, 1998). Virtually all cultures hold belief systems which appear
inconsistent to the outsider.
2.3
Impacts of activities of local communities on protected Areas.
Conflict is regarded as almost inevitable, failure to recognize its significance can result in local
resistance to the environmental initiative e.g. trespassing, poaching, trapping (Little 1994; Knight,
2000) and negative attitude to wildlife and reduced support for conservation (Newmark, 1993;
Deboer& Baquete, 1998; Naughton-Treves, 1998). These problems can have a detrimental effect
on the long term success of conservation program and especially significant where rural lively
hood are dependent on Agriculture.
The human activities are believed to be the major cause of biodiversity loss in Africa. For example
9 animals’ species are believed to have gone local extinction in Lake Manyara National Park due
to habitat destruction, over exploitation, introduction of exotic species and pollution (Silkiluwash,
1998).
There have been recent reports of encroachment on Queen Elizabeth National Park by the
Basongora and the claim that the land in the Park belongs to them. Associated with human
settlement within the park are a range of activities which the park management views as impinging
directly upon the integrity of the park. General feature have a clear negative impact upon the
integrity of the park, these include collecting poles for construction, grazing livestock, burning
15
pasture, encroachment into park territory for building, illegal poaching and poisoning of wildlife
(New vision, 4 August 2007).
According to the Arua district profile on Environment (1996), the displacement of game animals in
Madi Okollo was due to encroachment on the vast land and clearance of trees by squatters. There
has also been legal settlement of inhabitants who were residents in Ajai Game Reserve prior to
1964 who were issued certificate. These settlers are believed to have cleared the land for
agriculture purpose and for production of tobacco. As a result of the encroachment there has been
loss of habitats forcing animals to migrate hence a reduction in the number of wildlife.
Habitat loss has emerged the most severe threat to biodiversity worldwide (Brooks, 2002; IUCN,
1998) threatening some 85% of all species classified as threatened and endangered in the IUCNs’
Red list IUCN) Human activities such as over grazing, deforestation, bush fires, mining,
urbanization and cultivation are the principle cause of habitat destruction (Shemweta, 1999;
Kidegesho, 2000). These activities are expanding in line with human population growth and
poverty.
According to the World Resource Institute report on the status of the world habitat in the late
1980s, local extinction of fauna species and increased number of species that are prone to
extinction in different localities manifested the impact of this loss (Gamasssa, 1993; Brooks,
2002).
'The concept of wilderness as the untouched or untamed land is mostly an urban perception, the
view of people who are far removed from the natural environment they depend on for raw
resources. The inhabitants of rural areas have different views of the areas that urbanites designate
as wilderness, and they base their land-use and resource management practices on these alternative
visions. Indigenous groups in the tropics, for example, do not consider the tropical forest
environment to be wild; it is their home.' (Gomez-Pompa and Kaus, 1992).
16
2.4
Impact of Wildlife Reserves on local Communities
Various commentators have argued that development goals have been achieved at the expense of
conservation goals, through human activities such as, urbanization, industrialization and
agriculture. A common criticism has been that local pastoral inhabitants see very few benefits from
wildlife. Conservationists, on the other hand, argue that livestock mismanagement underlies the
decline in pastoral livelihoods. However, the need for alternative sources of income is highlighted
by the widespread decline in the ratio of livestock to people among pastoral populations, attributed
largely to human population growth and shortages of grazing land. Concerns over the impacts of
cultivation, and the compatibility of wildlife and agro-pastoralists have led to suggestions that
community-based tourism and improved livestock management, may make a growing contribution
to livelihood (Potkanski, 1997).
In Mkomazi Game Reserve in Tanzania, access to grazing and water resources has been restricted
and the local livestock economy has collapsed; fuel wood gathering from the Reserve is punished;
and local participation in decision-making is limited (Homewood, 1997). An unhappy truth which
conservationists have only recently come to admit is that the establishment of most national parks
and protected areas has had negative effects on their prior inhabitants. So powerful has been the
notion that conservation is about preserving wilderness that conservationists have been intensely
reluctant to admit that indigenous peoples and other local residents have any rights in protected
areas. The facts are, however, that most protected areas are inhabited. Recent figures for Latin
America suggest that 86% of protected areas in Latin America are inhabited (Kemf 1993; Amend
and Amend, 1992). Some 80% of the protected areas of South America have indigenous peoples
living inside them. In Central America, the figure is 85% (Alcorn, 1994). Worldwide, according to
the IUCN's figures for 1985, some 70% of protected areas are inhabited (Dixon and Sherman,
1991).
Forced relocation to make way for national parks has been a particularly severe problem for
indigenous people in watershed forests which are often accorded strong protection to conserve
soils - and thus prevent the siltation of downstream engineering projects. Thus the Dumoga-Bone
National Park in Sulawesi, Indonesia, was noted as a successful example of buffer zone
management by the World Conservation Union (Sayer, 1991).
17
National Parks established to protect mountain gorillas in Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda
and Rwanda have also entailed the expulsion of Batwa 'pygmies', who’s extremely marginal
position in the local political economies has resulted in them being apparently entirely ignored by
subsequent attitudinal surveys of affected people (Wells and Brandon, 1992). Nevertheless, the
Batwa achieved international notoriety in the feature film 'Gorillas in the Mist', where they are
explicitly blamed for the murder of the conservationist Diane Fossey thus perpetuating the myth
that conservation in Africa can only be achieved through violent confrontation with indigenous
peoples (Adams, 1992).
The study of forced resettlement has become something of a science due to its increasing
frequency as an adjunct of 'development' programmes (the World Bank, for example, had planned
to forcibly relocate & at least 3.1 million people in the years from 1986 to 1996 (World Bank,
1993).
These stresses include 'psychological stress' including the 'grieving-for-a-lost-home
syndrome', 'anxiety for the future' and 'feelings of impotence associated with the inability to protect
one's home and community from disruption'. These stresses may become so great as to cause
problems under the second category of stress: 'physiological', discernible as an actual increase in
health disorders. While such conditions may be reversible, the stress factors that come under the
rubric of 'socio-cultural stress' may not be. The 'cessation of a range of familiar and satisfying
economic, social and religious activities which are tied to the old home' are related to an overall
breakdown in society, particularly political structures (Partridge et al, 1982).
Indigenous people, unaccustomed to dealing with land as a saleable commodity, frequently fall
easy prey to the unscrupulous. Summarizing the experience of years of work trying to mitigate the
impact of forced resettlement programmes, Thayer Scudder of the University of California has
noted that 'forced resettlement is about the worst thing that you can do to a person short of killing
him' (Claxton, 1986).
The environment too often suffers as a result of forced relocations. Traditional balances between
humans and their environments are disrupted. People are confined to small and inappropriate land
areas; traditional social institutions and patterns of land management and tenure, which used to
regulate access to resources, are undermined. Short term problem solving behaviours replace long
term planning. The net result is environmental degradation (Colchester, 1985).
18
Conservationists now face another problem. As a result of their success in generalizing a
conservation model that excludes people, national parks legislation in many countries necessarily
requires the removal of residents - such laws are the norm in South America for example (Amend
and Amend, 1992). As a result, conservationists find that they are legally obliged to resettle people
from national parks even though there is no evidence that their presence poses a threat.
A case in point is the Korup National Park in Cameroon, a 126,000 hectare forest inhabited by
about one thousand people and used by several thousand more. According to the legal decree
under which the park was established, these villagers will have to be resettled (Sayer, 1991). But
researchers developing a management and resettlement programme for the park have been sharply
divided about both the necessity and advisability of the resettlement. Early surveys suggested that
with the exception of one community in the very south of the proposed park, which was engaged
in a vigorous trade in bush meat across the border to Nigeria, the levels of hunting, farming and
gathering were probably sustainable. Subsequent more detailed research did not disprove this,
although levels of hunting were found to be higher than previously thought (Infield, 1988). On the
other hand, these studies revealed that hunting was the single most important source of cash for the
majority of villagers, representing more than half of their meager income, yet the restrictions
imposed by parks regulations meant that development of alternative means of generating a cash
income would also be illegal (Infield, 1988).
19
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
This chapter describes how the research was carried. It covers the research design, area of study,
the population of study, sampling design, data collection and management.
3.2
Study Area
Location
Ajai Wildlife Reserve is located between Ogoko, Okollo, and Rhino Camp and Uleppi subcounties of Madi-Okollo County in south-eastern part of Arua District. It lies within the following
geographical coordinates of 20 55” and 30 00’ North, and 310 05” and 310 25”E. It is bordered by
the seasonal rivers of Linya and Ala to the west, and Acharo to the south - east. It touches the
Albert Nile to the east. The River Nile forms the major drainage for the reserve in the east, while
the Acha, Ala and Linya rivers drain the peripheries into the Nile. Between June and January of
most years the swamp is flooded, cutting off the island from the mainland. This is one of the
factors responsible for the survival of wildlife in the reserve. It is situated more than 300 km by
straight line north of the capital city Kampala (See Figure 2). Ajai Wildlife Reserve can be
approached
via
Kampala-Pakwach-Wadellai-Inde/Ajai
or
Kampala-Pakwach-Nebbi-Arua-
Inde/Ajai-Pakwach routes. The types of transport mainly used are bicycles, motorcycles and pickups. Its headquarters is at Inde next to Ogoko sub-county headquarters.
20
Figure 2: the location of Ajai wildlife Reserve in Arua
District
21
Figure 3: Map of Ajai Wildlife Reserve
3.3
Population
According to the 2002 national population and housing census, the Ogoko sub-county has a
population of around 13,797 people and of these 50% interfere with the boundary of this Ajai
protected area. The people live mainly in huts made of mud and wattle and grass and most of the
building materials especially thatching materials are obtained from Ajai Wildlife Reserve. Other
materials got from the reserve include: ropes, fibres, twigs and papyrus.
3.4
Economic activities
The population practices shifting cultivation, grows sorghum, simsim, millet, groundnuts, tobacco,
cotton, cow peas and cassava. Sedentary cultivation is practiced on the river banks and swamps of
Ala and Acha where crops like sugar canes, yams, okra, potatoes, bananas, rice and tomatoes are
planted.
Fishing is done in rivers Ala, Acha, Foro, Ore Aliku, Gazi, Muzara using scooping baskets, hooks,
small size nets, torch and spear and fish dug out by hoes and pangas during the dry season. The
species caught include Clarias spp commonly known as “ase” (Madi – Lugbara), Tilapia “foro”,
and Protopterus spp “Owhi”. The local people also hunt for meat, and gather wild fruits like odu
Borassus fruits, shear nuts Tamarindus, agbirici and medicinal plants like rokoroko from the
reserve.
The local communities also engage in small scale trading mainly in locally produced food stuffs
like fish, local brew, charcoal, papyrus mats, honey, medicinal herbs and wild meat. They also
trade in finished goods in Ayavu, Odraka, Uleppi, Baribu, Pawor, Matangacia, Ojidriku, and Rhino
camp, Anguibo and Ajia markets.
3.5
Social settings
The population around the Ajai Wildlife Reserve comprises of mainly the resident Madi Okollo
and Alur tribes and the Maracha, Vurra, Aringa and Terego Lugbara speaking tribes who have
immigrated to cultivate the still virgin vast lands in Madi – Okollo County. The Madi and Alur
tribes live under clan-structured arrangements, which are clustered in units, and they keep growing
bigger resulting into formation of villages.
22
3.6
Rainfall and temperature
Ajai Wildlife Reserve experiences a bi-modal rainfall pattern with light rains from April to
October. The wettest months are August and September. The average annual rainfall is 1250 mm
and monthly evaporation lying between 130 mm and 180 mm. The dry season commences in
December ending in March during which period high temperatures are experienced. The mean
annual minimum and maximum temperatures are 17.5˚C and 30˚C respectively (Uganda Atlas,
1998). The prevailing wind is from the east to the west with frequent windstorms during the dry
season (Macmillan social studies, 1998).
3.7
Vegetation
The northern and eastern areas are largely low altitude wooded savanna merging into a swamp
(Fig.4). In the southern section a ridge (854 m) rises up out of the wooded savanna and supports
dry grassland on the north-eastern slope. There is a range of wetland habitats within the reserve
associated with a moisture gradient. Wooded savanna predominates with patches of moist
woodland and seasonally flooded and swamp grassland fringed by palm swamp forest, grading to
permanent swamp. The wildlife Reserve is characterized by six distinct vegetation types in
addition to cultivated land namely:
Wooded grassland: Wooded grassland forms an open canopy of 10-40% cover with a herbaceous
layer characteristically dominated by a grassland association and an intermediate layer usually
absent with grass species comprising more than 75% (White, 2001). The vegetation type is a
mosaic community, which varies in character over the reserve with different associated tree and
grass species. Monocultures of the primary associates occur although never in areas greater than
200 sq. meters.
Woodland: The wooded grassland grades into woodland with indistinct borders between the low
vegetation types. Only two major areas of woodland occur, both adjacent to the permanent swamp.
The woodland is 40 – 75% with forbes being more dominant in herbaceous layer and shrubs in the
understorey (White, 2001).
23
Riverrine woodland: The vegetation assemblage occurs as thin as 10-20 m wide with
sparse
trees with wide strips along rivers or swamp fringes often blending into Phoenix reclinata swamp
forest fragments.
Papyrus swamp: Papyrus swamp occurs mainly in the east of the Obei swamp adjacent to the
Nile, but also as frequent small patches throughout the rest of the permanent swamp. Overall, it is
permanent standing water with a herbaceous layer almost exclusively dominated by papyrus with
no other vegetation layers present.
Figure 4: Vegetation of Ajai Wildlife Reserve
24
3.8
Research design
The study applied both qualitative and quantitative research methods and where qualitative method
was used to collect data that could not be subjected to statistical tests. This included laws, byelaws,
policies, community’s opinions, activities and ways through which these activities have been
implemented. On the other hand, quantitative design was used in areas where the data collected
were capable of being subjected to statistical analysis. This type of data is presented in form of
graphs, tables, averages and other statistical presentations.
3.9
Sample Frame
Representative samples were taken from the local communities surrounding Ajai Wildlife Reserve,
the Reserve Authority and the leaders of the districts surrounding the Reserve. These parishes were
sampled in order to capture data from wide coverage. In addition, the comparative part of the study
required selection of the parish located at a distance (1-2 km) between each other to avoid chances
of receiving duplicated information
3.10 Sampling Procedure
Purposive sampling method was used to select three parishes from Ogoko sub-county in which
Ajai Wildlife Reserve lies. This was judgmentally selected on the criteria of being wildlife
management area. In this second stage one village was purposively chosen from each parish
making a total of 3 villages. Since the ultimate sampling unit was the local people from the
surrounding community, out of a population of 13,797 (Ajai Wildlife Reserve Management Plan
2009), a random of 40 people was chosen from each of the 2 villages while 30 people were
selected from the third village. The two villages had 40 people each selected because they are the
nearest to the wildlife reserve. In addition 40 employees of Ajai Wildlife Reserve, National Forest
Authority, Government officials and politicians were sampled in order to search for more
information to cover up any gaps. This took the total sample size to 150 respondents.
3.11 Data collection tools
These were the tools used to facilitate the collection of the information from the respondents. They
included the following:-
25
Self-administered questionnaire
This was a set of pre-set questions, which had both closed and open-ended questions that were
administered to l respondents. The questionnaires were in English and were taken to the selected
respondents to fill. In cases where the respondent could not read and write the researcher read out
the questionnaires and asked the respondent to answer and the researcher filled the answer given.
In cases where the respondents never understood English or Madi, an interpreter was used and the
answers given were recorded.
Observation
Economic activities carried out by the communities were seen and problems faced by the people
arising from the Reserve (like crop raiding by animals) were observed.
Focus Group Discussion
A total of 5 focus group discussions were conducted, two from each of the two villages closest to
the reserve and one in the distant (third) village. Each focus group had 10 participants and was
composed of people with similar socio-economic backgrounds so as to limit bias and to ensure free
deliberations of the discussants. Focus group discussions were used to collect only qualitative data.
The focus group discussions were used among others, to get information on the problems
associated with wildlife.
Source of Secondary data
The study made use of secondary data from: reports from Uganda Wildlife Authority, National
Forest Authority and Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs), News Papers, University libraries,
District Environment departments, and internets.
Discussion
Discussions were conducted with Reserve staff to get their views about the legal and illegal
activities carried out in the reserve, the programmes carried out in the communities and how they
benefit the people and the people involvement in the reserve planning and decision making.
3.12
Data management
Quality control
This was done before, during and after data collection to ensure that the data got is free of bias and
ensure that there is no information that is missed. Quality control was done through coding, editing
and asking probe questions.
26
Before data collection the researcher first reviewed literature which was intended to ensure that the
study did not duplicate other studies and also to help the researcher get a better understanding of
the problem he was going to study. Questionnaires were made and at least 30 pre-tested on a
population sampled using the methods already stated above. The pretest area was selected because
it is close to Ajai Wildlife Reserve. The questionnaires were pre-tested so as to ensure precision
and helping to get the expected answers from the respondents without disparities. After the pre-test
the questionnaires were edited so as to come up with more precise questions, which were then used
to collect the data. The questionnaires were coded according to the place where the respondents
stay, this was intended to help the researcher make follow up of the respondents in case the
answers had problems and needed to be rectified.
3.13 Data Analysis
Qualitative data was analyzed thematically using descriptive master sheet analysis where data were
cleaned, edited and coded. Quotations of some key informants and focus group discussants were
used to give the final report a deep and well-backed analysis. These are presented in a descriptive
form. On the other hand, quantitative data were analyzed using computer packages of SPSS and
Excel. This was after cleaning the questionnaires and coding the answers given by the respondents.
The coded answers were entered in SPSS and analyzed in line with the study hypotheses and
objectives. The data were presented in form of frequencies, averages and other statistical diagrams
as graphs and tables.
3.14
Limitations of the study
A major constraint encountered in data collection was the lack of official records on the
interactions between the Ajai wildlife Reserve and the community. For example, there were no
data on incidence of wild animal invasions into the surrounding community, on losses of
agricultural investments (such as crops, livestock and granaries) and human lives. There were also
no data on the incidence of poaching within the park. Such data could have given
quantitative support to the confirmations by the key respondents that these problems of interaction
do occur. This lack of data limited the statistical analysis of the balance between the costs incurred
and the compensatory benefits accruing to the community from the Ajai Wildlife Reserve.
Consequently, the frequencies of wild animal invasions derived from responses to the
questionnaire were taken as a crude quantitative indicator of the magnitude of the costs. In spite of
27
this problem, the study the still gave useful insights into the problem of interactions between the
Ajai Wildlife Reserve and the surrounding community.
The research was also constrained by inadequate transport facilitation since the data were collected
from three villages in the sub-county each of which covers a wide area. The time factor also posed
a challenge as the study took a long period of time. The research was also faced with information
asymmetry where by some respondents gave biased information in order to gain appraisal.
The however some of these constraints were solved by the following measures:Problem of transport was solved by using cheap and available means of transport like bicycles
(“boda boda”). Increased number of field enumerators made data collection easy. The problem of
information asymmetry was solved by thorough explanation of the purpose of the study to the
respondents before they started giving the information that was needed from them.
28
CHAPTER 4: DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents data gathered from the field. They include views gathered from respondents,
focus group discussions and key respondents as well as a discussion of these findings.
The general aim of the research was to examine conflicts between local people residing within and
around Ajai Wildlife Reserve and the wildlife conservation management. The variables selected
for the study include; human wildlife conflicts, perception of local people towards the reserve,
impacts of the activities of the local people on the reserve and impact of the reserve on the local
people.
This chapter therefore presents the results relating to the variables identified above. The
characteristics of samples studied were analyzed so as to answer the research questions in
chapter1.
4.2 Characteristics of the respondents.
This part describes the characteristics of respondents interviewed in this study by gender,
education level and age.
4.2.1 Status of respondents according to their sex
The majority of the respondents were male making up 76% of total respondents included in this
study, while females represented 24% of the total respondents interviewed in this study.
The dominance of men in the community increases the likelihood of conflicts because, it is usually
men who are involved in illegal activities in protected areas such as poaching and deforestation
just to mention. The difference in the ratio sex could also be mainly because women in the
community where the study was conducted are still not empowered enough.
29
24%
Male
Female
76%
Figure 5: Distribution of respondents by sex
4.2.2 Age group of the respondents
Fig 6 summarises the age characteristics of the respondents broken down into the main age
categories. Majority of the respondents were of active age group of 21-30 years with percentage of
47.5%, followed by 41-50 age group with 32.3%, years and 50 above with 6.8% and then 20 years
and below with 13.4%. This therefore implies that the information obtained is fairly reliable since
the potential for conflict is high among individuals 21-30 years of age. It is this age group that is
often engaged in a lot of activities which include poaching and deforestation to earn income. This
is also very ambitious age group with very high expectations and demand that drives them to
undertake such illegal activities.
30
47.5
50
Percentage
45
40
32.2
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
10.2
6.8
3.4
0
<10
11 to 20
21 to 30
41 to 50
>50
Age
Fig.6: Age distribution of the respondents
4.2.3: Level of education of respondents
Table 1 reveals the level of education of the respondents. The data reveal that most of the
respondents had attained primary education with a percentage of 39.3%, followed by ordinary
level school certificate of 29%, post-secondary 17.7%, the advanced level school certificate with
4.9%, and 8.1% of the respondents have never been to school. Education affects many aspects of
life, including how individuals relate to and perceive the Reserve and its natural resources. The
level of education also determines the respondents’ type of work and level of income. The
population in Ajai Wildlife Reserve is dominated by people with low levels of education and such
people depend so much on wildlife resources such as wild animals for meat, fuel wood, timber,
medicine,
herbs, edible plants etc., for their survival. This increases the occurrence of conflicts
between local communities and the Reserve.
31
Table.1: Education level of the respondents
Level of education
Frequency
Percent
None
11
7.3
1-7 (Primary)
53
35.3
8-11 (O level)
42
28.0
12-14 (A level)
8
5.3
15++ (Post-secondary)
35
23.3
Total
149
99.3
4.2.4 Duration of Respondents in the Reserve.
The duration of residents in the reserve was significantly different, with majority of the
respondents, (55%) having resided in the reserve for more than 21 years. This is evident with
communities living in Madelli and Degiya villages established within the boundaries of Ajai
wildlife reserve (Fig.7). The percentage of respondents who have stayed in the Reserve less than
five years was only 11.7%. Since most members of the community have lived within the reserve
for a long time (>21 years), they consider the Reserve as their own property and expect to be given
unrestricted access to the Reserve. Any attempt by the management to restrict access to parts of the
reserve as required by the Uganda Wildlife Authority automatically results into conflicts with such
people.
Household size and occupation are not dependant upon the length of time that a person has lived in
their respective villages, and so contributes a great amount of general information about the
lifestyles of people in this region. The majority of inhabitants are subsistence farmers with an
average family size of 6 to 10 persons/household.
32
11.70%
1.70%
13.30%
<5
5 to 9
10 to 14
55%
15 to 20
18.30%
>21
Fig .7: Duration of respondents within the reserve in years
Land holdings
Land holding varied from being <0.5 acre with (23.3%) of the respondents to 20.0% with 2.0-3.0
acres of land, 8.7% of the respondents own Land between 1.0-2.0 acres of land and 42.0 % of the
respondents own 3.0-4.0 acres. Although majority of the population seems to have fairly big plots
of land, there is considerable number of people with less than 0.5 acres of land (23.3%). Shortage
of land drives the community to move into the reserve in search of land for grazing, cultivation
among others since the community depends mainly on subsistence agriculture for their livelihood.
This breeds conflicts between them and the reserve management. Even if the people with small
landholdings do not directly encroach on the reserve for farming, they may engage in a lot of
extractive activities such as poaching and illegal cutting of trees for firewood, thereby exerting
excessive pressure on the reserve which may eventually be a precursor of conflicts between the
local communities and the park authorities
33
42
45
40
Percentage
35
30
25
23.3
20
20
15
8.7
10
5
0
<0.5
1.0-2.0
2.0-3.0
3.0-4.0
Land holding
Fig .8: Percentage of respondents with different Land size holdings
4.2.5 Biggest Constraints to farm Production
Lack of land was reported by 60.0% of the respondents as the major constraint to production
(Table.4).The cattle keepers in Ajai Wildlife Reserve with larger areas of land may still desire to
have more land for their cattle .The other constraints is Crop raids by Wild Animals reported by
20.7% and lastly infertile soils with 11.3% of the respondents.Traditional thinking in development
has emphasized the ability of the peasant farm system to adapt itself during periods of intense
population pressure, land shortage, infertility of soils. Adaptation typically takes the form of
intensifying the exploitation of existing land for expansion of the resource base. For this situation
Ajai Wildlife reserve happens to be the only alternative to address this problem with rapid social
and institutional change, environmental degradation, and rampant increases in population,
adaptation cannot be relied on to maintain equilibrium. This provides basis for the
recommendations made here in relation to Farmers in Ajai Wildlife Reserve (Table .2). The
Findings suggest that Ajai Wildlife Reserve is experiencing serious demographic and
environmental problems. In light of these findings, it is clear that special attention must be focused
on policy initiatives geared toward reducing population growth, facilitating innovation/information
diffusion, restructuring the extension service, and reducing gender biases.
34
Wildlife tends to roam around the lands adjacent to the Reserve. Intruding wildlife damages crops,
competes for the scarce grazing land with Livestock, and otherwise reduces agricultural
productivity. It also presents a threat to property and to the population. The ecological interaction
between wildlife and farm production is assumed in this paper to be unidirectional, a negative
effect from wildlife to agriculture, but not vice versa. For example, wildlife roams into the
farmland, but in Ajai, the local community is not allowed to take its livestock into the Reserve.
Thus the extent of wildlife conflict can be depicted simply as a function of agricultural rents that
decline with the stock of wildlife, which tends to increase the likelihood of intrusions.
Table. 2: Biggest constraint to farm production
Biggest constraint
Insufficient land
Crop raids
Infertile soils
Total
Frequency
90
31
17
138
Percent
60.0
20.7
11.3
92.0
4.2.6 Main sources of cash income
Sources of income were significantly different with majority of the respondents (57.3%) citing
farm produce as the main source of income. Labour hire (39%) is another source of income as well
as charcoal burning by 30.5% of the respondents. Employment in the Reserve as a benefit to the
communities was minimal with 12.0% saying the Reserve did not employ them (Table 3).
Although the questionnaire survey revealed that the unemployment rate for the sample was 12%,
the respondents indicated that unemployment was a major problem within the community. The
disparity between the actual perceived magnitude of the unemployment problem and the statistical
figures revealed by the questionnaire survey could be due to the fact that the survey was addressed
to a restricted sample frame. The survey therefore possibly excluded other members of households
who were not heads of households but were part of the community's labour force.
The high dependence on farm produce for income (stated by 57.3%) compounds the problem of
land shortage. To increase their incomes, the community needs to increase farm produce which
requires more land since technology for farming in the area is still poor (improved farming
35
methods are hardly practiced). In such situations, encroachment onto the reserve for more land
becomes almost inevitable.
There are also indications that some people do not regard the reserve as being important. This is
because many claim the reserve does not employ them which is an indirect way of saying it does
not benefit them. All the above scenarios provide a fertile ground for conflicts.
Table 3: Main sources of income
Main source of income
Percentage mentioned
Sale of farm produce
57.3
Sale of household labor
39
Hunting
0
Charcoal burning
30.5
Petty trade
24.7
Work in the Reserve
12.0
4.2.7 Sources of information about the Reserve
Main sources of information (Table 6) were significantly different, the largest proportion (50%) of
the respondents said that they get their information from regular meetings organized by the
Reserve officials. Friends (36.7%) were also mentioned as an important source of information for
respondents; meanwhile Newsletters and Radio were cited as sources of information by 24% and
22% respectively. Lack of information appears not to be a major source of conflicts since the
community apparently gets up to date information about the Reserve (a bigger proportion gets it
directly from Ajai Wildlife Reserve officials). However, this may not change the attitudes of the
conservative ones towards the Reserve.
36
Table. 4: Sources of conservation information
Source
Percentage mentioned
Radio programs
22.0
Project/protected area newsletters
24.0
Friends from the community
36.7
Regular meetings organized by the reserve
50.0
4.3 .Main Causes of conflicts in Ajai Wildlife Reserve
Local people in the vicinity of the reserve still have few means of earning money and so need to
supplement their income to provide a reasonable livelihood. The resources in reserve remain a
tempting supplement to a subsistence existence. This is shown by 77% of the respondents who
have ever gone to the reserve against 18% of the respondents who said they have never encroached
on the reserve.
To determine whether people were moving closer to Ajai Wildlife reserve simply because such
lands were ecologically superior for farming, cattle grazing or exploitation of natural resources, the
research further refined their analysis to focus on comparisons of buffer population growth with
rural areas that were not only in the same country but also ecologically similar to the reserves.
According to Whande et.al. (2003), protected area border communities are marginal, illiterate and
have no effective political voice at the various political levels. The top-down manner in which
decisions are made (for example, who actually decides on the contents of policy guidelines)
undermines the principles of democratic governance and local autonomy. Examples of decisions
that are usually driven by UWA in a top-down manner include decisions about who gets
concessions to operate businesses within protected areas and decisions about what resources
communities can access from the protected areas, in what quantities and where. Some of these
decisions are justified by references to ‘science’, which is itself a reflection of power relations that
determine whose ‘science’ is accepted as legitimate. ‘Science’ is often used to support the
dominant paradigm subscribed to by the powerful and privileged. This probably explains why the
communities living in and around Ajai Game reserve continue to rely on the reserve supplement
their livelihood options.
37
Table.5: Main conflicts in Ajai Wildlife Reserve
Main Conflicts
Percentage
mentioned
1. Encroachment
a) Cultivation
42
b) Grazing
32.7
c) Settlement
23.0
3.Crop raiding
22
4. Bush fires
8.0
5. Poaching
5.0
The main causes of the prevailing conflicts are encroachment onto the wildlife habitat. The
community surrounding the reserve is now locked up in conflict over agriculture land with 42%,
grazing 32.7% and illegal and legal settlements with 23%. Human activities taking place in the
reserve are cultivation and grazing. Squatters have occupied few localities in the reserve. There has
also been legal settlement of inhabitants who were residents in the reserve prior to 1964 who were
issued with certificates.
The resolution of these conflicts would require the involvement of the lower local governments.
However, Blomley (2003) postulated that, despite the fact that Local Councils in Uganda wield
judicial and adjudication powers some park staff on the ground remain unwilling to involve local
leaders in resolution of conflicts involving local people, even in instances where conflicts are
officially supposed to be resolved with the consultation of communities or their leaders. Some staff
members, especially those in remote ranger posts, may do this to extort bribes from the culprits,
and thus have to keep the case out of the public spheres. Others have an attitudinal problem: they
believe communities have no authority over park affairs. To some park staff, increased powers in
local community hands threaten their own basis of authority and power. Attempts to decentralize
effective decision making over natural resources management are usually resisted by those
institutions or individuals who will lose power in the process. This leaves communities confused,
as the rhetoric and practice do not tally. Conflict between the central and local bodies is bound to
occur due to competing interests.
38
Yet excluding local authorities from resolution of park-related conflict (especially illegal access to
resources) hinders the success of resource protection. When park staff arrest and extort bribes from
the culprits, excluding local institutions from settling the cases, it perpetuates the illegal activities.
These issues point to the important issue of legitimacy of local actors (Blomley 2003).
According to the research findings, a number of factors caused encroachment into Ajai Wildlife
Reserve. These were listed by the Focus Group Discussions as being

Land pressure in the surrounding area

Fairly fertile soil in the wildlife reserve

Shortage of pasture

Legal settlement prior to 1964.

Boundaries of Ajai Wildlife Reserve are not yet clearly demarcated.
The vegetation in the reserve has been degraded by illegal cattle grazing and frequent vegetation
burning by 8% within the reserve to provide fresh grass. The local people living adjacent to the
reserve regularly set fire to the vegetation in the entire area surrounding the reserve .including the
hills. This burning is sometimes carried out more than once in the year resulting into severe
degradation of vegetation (personal communication from the warden and park records). More
importantly the fires are uncontrolled. These fires often spread into the Reserve, causing further
degradation of already over burned vegetation. It may also affect the ability of the hills and
adjacent land to hold water with possible consequences for water table on the plains, including the
area of the reserve, which may result into arid environment.
During the interview (22%) of the respondents mentioned Crop raids by wild animals as one of
the main conflicts in Ajai wildlife Reserve. The predation of crops by wildlife serves as a
contributing factor to the generation of local community hostility towards the wildlife, it warrants
consideration as a major problem to wildlife managers in its own right due to its magnitude.
Raiding of crops is a burden to farmers adjacent to Ajai wildlife Reserve where the economic
damage from the crop raiding probably exceeds potential benefits from the reserve to individuals
which has resulted in heightened community attitude towards crop raids.
39
Namara (2006) observed that, damage to crops and property by wildlife is one of the most
widespread and significant problems faced by ‘frontline’ communities living next to forest and
wildlife protected areas in Africa. Due to the problems of remoteness and isolation, households
living immediately adjacent to national parks often have the most limited options and opportunities
to diversify and sustain their livelihoods. This is reinforced by the very real threat of crop
raiding—which places additional costs on already stretched households. A common coping
mechanism involves the deployment of children as crop guards during daytime and older family
members at night, while crops mature and ripen. Some household therefore have to deny children
educational opportunities to provide the needed labour of crop guarding, further reducing their
opportunities for breaking out of poverty (Namara 2006).
According to Nyamwaro et.al. (2007), wildlife damage crops and property, and disrupt social life
by tying up people’s time and resources in guarding fields from attack. When the latter role is
given to children, they often end up missing school thus raising levels of illiteracy in the frontline
communities. Women are also affected because they are the main cultivators of fields to feed and
cater for other basic household needs. Crop raiding means women reap less from the farms to feed
their families and get surplus for sale.
Musaasizi et.al. (2005) further observed that, determining who should compensate for wildlife
damage and how wildlife resources are managed to minimize conflicts between people and
wildlife, are contentious issues. While the responsibility for managing key conservation-based
conflicts has been devolved, there has been no corresponding transfer of financial resources and
many local governments are unwilling to absorb these costs. State-implemented benefits-sharing
arrangements alone do not provide sufficient economic incentives for local communities to
conserve wildlife amid crop and property losses.
The impact of crop predations are not only restricted to economic losses on the part of the farmers
but also carry high social components in terms of time labour expanded for example parents in
Ajai use their school aged children during holidays to guard their crops, physical insecurity caused
by wild animals themselves, and in severe instances there is migration by entire family due to
persistent and sever crop degradation. This study is consistent with the findings of Webber (2006)
who argued that the problem Human-wildlife conflict especially resulting from crop raiding is a
40
significant threat to global conservation efforts. Archibald et al. (2001) noted that, in many tropical
regions where large populations of wildlife exist tend to cause conflict hence affecting local
support for protected area conservation.
Poaching of wildlife for subsistence was also mentioned by (5%) of the respondents as one of the
main conflicts of Ajai wildlife Reserve. This has caused an alarming decline in population of
wildlife within the reserve and has resulted into extinction of several species. The surroundings
areas have been heavily hunted leaving the Reserve as the only area with reasonable wildlife .the
current wildlife present in Ajai wildlife Reserve according to Uganda Wildlife Authority (2006)
General Management plan 2006-2016 for Ajai Wildlife Reserve include
Hippopotamus,
Antelopes Bush, Warthog and Monkeys.
The main causes of poaching are:

Lack of awareness on the importance of wildlife

The negative attitude of the local people towards conservation

Political turmoil and lawlessness which prevailed in the district in 1980
As a result of encroachment, the wildlife habitat has been disturbed. In some areas it has led to
complete loss of habitat forcing the animals to migrate. This is evident with Degiya and Medelli
villages in Odraka and olivu parishes. All these have not only caused reduction in the number of
wildlife but even led to complete extinction of some species especially the white Rhino.
If humans are drawn to protected areas for the economic opportunities they provide, international
funding for conservation may, ironically, exacerbate the same threats to biodiversity it aims to
alleviate.
Over 77.3% indicated that they are directly dependent on resources from the reserve through their
access to building material (79.7%) water (71.2%) getting firewood, (55.9%) livestock grazing
(30.5%) bush meat (5.1%) and lastly due to health related issues (15.3%). A small number of
respondents (18.0%) denied having ever gone to the Reserve because they cited some fear of being
arrested by rangers (by 24%) fear of wild animals (by 15%) and for not being interested in going to
the reserve.According to Namara (2006) many community members are still illegally accessing
resources from protected areas, including game meat, timber, building wood, bamboo and weaving
material. The occasional arrest of culprits, snares and other signs of illegal activities found in the
protected areas reflect this. This raises questions about the adequacy of the range and amount of
41
resources allowed to be collected officially. Who really decides on what resources the community
needs from the protected areas? Illegal exploitation is a form of protest against existing
restrictions. Recent research has revealed that the social costs associated with reporting illegal
activities (basically, enmity created in the community) are a big hindrance to community cooperation.
However, communities have also identified the inability of park staff to respond to reports of
illegal activities made by community members. This inability exists partly because the parks are
understaffed. It also exists sometimes because the park rangers themselves collaborate with illegal
harvesters for personal gain. People can never be certain of the affiliations of the ranger force
member they are reporting to, who, too, could be part of the racket. This poses quite a risk for
community reporting (Namara 2006).
Table. 6: Respondents who ever went to the reserve
Response
Yes
No
Total
Frequency
116
27
143
Percent
81.1
18.9
100.0
4. 4 Causes of the conflicts between the local people and UWA in Ajai Wildlife Reserve
Communities, except where it borders River Nile, wholly surround Ajai Wildlife Reserve. Many of
them exist on subsistence farming, and most survive on the reserve through engaging in various
illegal activities within the reserve such as, collecting building materials (constituting 79.7%)
water for domestic purposes and for livestock (71.2%), fuelwood collection (55.9%), grazing
(30.5%), health related issues (15.3%) and poaching of wildlife (5.1%) for subsistence or for
profit.
These illegal activities especially poaching have caused alarming declines in the wildlife
populations within the reserve and have resulted in the local extinction of several species (Table
7). Illegal extractive uses of the reserve such as collection of building materials and extraction of
firewood appear to be so rampant in the reserve that they might undermine conservation efforts in
the reserve. This is somewhat consistent with the argument advanced by Kiss (1990) and Western
and Wright (1994) that the effective long term conservation of wildlife in and outside protected
areas requires the support of the people who experience the direct impact of the establishment of
42
these areas. The local people cannot be expected to provide this support if the cost of doing so
outweigh the benefits i.e. if the existence of the protected areas and its wildlife have negative
impacts on the local livelihood ( Murphree,1996).
These and other findings suggest that the current conservation efforts may achieve poverty
alleviation strategy, but at a direct cost to the biodiversity protection. Given the high population
growth in the area, many communities have ended up establishing farms and settlements very close
to the boundary of Ajai Wildlife Reserve, resulting in crop raiding by wild animals especially
hippos. This has prompted the communities to either poison them or become antagonistic towards
conservation programs.
Byers (1996) indicate that conflicts may also arise due to pressure of growing population, wide
spread poverty and unsustainable land use practices outside protected areas. But Rural people may
be poor, some times to the point of mere subsistence and may have few options for copying with
the challenges of making a living through loss of access to resources they otherwise could use,
they often pay most of the cost of conservation. The case of Ajai Wildlife Reserve appears to be
partly in conformity with this assertion with some people expressing the need to free more land
from the reserve for settlement and farming as opposed to the option of conserving the reserve in
its current state.
Wild animals such as hippopotamus, warthogs, and bush pigs have always been hunted down
whenever they entered the community surroundings, where they destroy crops leading to conflicts
with the local communities. The main pressure behind poaching include:-the meat from wild
animals for food and cash income. Poaching has caused the decline in number and even extinction
of some wildlife in Ajai wildlife reserve such as the white rhinos.
In an endeavor to get enough food, water, shelter (habitat) and space, both people and wildlife in
Ajai wild life Reserve have found themselves in competition for the aforementioned resources.
The competition has given rise to unprecedented conflict: a conflict for survival. Consequently,
wildlife has been largely viewed as the property of the state.
43
Table. 7: Reasons for going to the reserve
Reasons
Percentage
Health related
15.3
Bush meat
5.1
Building materials
79.7
Firewood
55.9
Grazing
30.5
Water
71.2
4.5
Perception of local communities towards Ajai Wildlife Reserve
Table 9: below shows the responses to behavior questions .An overwhelming majority (83.6%) of
the respondents strongly agree that the Reserve is more of a liability while 80.9% believe that the
Reserve is just to serve foreign interest.
Table 8: Perception of the local communities towards the Reserve
Perceptions
Strongly Agree
Neutral Disagree
agree
Reserve is more of a
Strongly
disagree
83.6
5.5
5.5
80.9
6.4
12.8
73.1
15.4
5.5
liability
The reserve is just for
foreign interests
The reserve should be
5.8
5.8
5.8
59.6
degazetted
To restrict access to
26.9
7.7
resources in the reserve
is a good idea
The relationship
56.3
12.5
12.5
between management
of the reserve and the
locals is good
44
18.8
The majority of the local people around the reserve have negative attitudes towards Ajai wildlife
Reserve. Some 83.6% of the respondents strongly agree that the reserve is a liability to the
communities. They believe that the reserve has not benefited them at all since its gazettment. The
community wants to be left to freely access the resources such as wild animals, land for cultivation
and grazing and fuel wood from the reserve. They seem to be unbothered about the consequences
of such actions on the reserve resources and biodiversity conservation in general. By restricting
access to these reserve resources, they feel deprived hence the occurrence of conflicts.
During the interview most of the respondents (71.3%) expressed their desire to have the reserve
degazetted since they don’t understand why such a big area is left to waste when they don’t have
land for cultivation. They believe such land should be freed for settlement and cultivation. This
group feels their interests would best be met if the reserve was degazetted. These interests are
mainly selfish for firewood, wild animals, land for grazing and cultivation, medicinal plants among
others.
Another multitude of the respondent (80.9%) believes that the reserve is just to serve interest of
foreigners since most of the people working there are not the natives. They feel some positions
should be reserved for them irrespective of the requirements for such positions moreover some of
these positions merit high levels of experience and academic achievements which the community
members do not have, given their educational backgrounds (Table 3). This perpetuates conflicts
between the community and the reserve.
Conservation activities need to produce sufficient and appropriate values to stakeholders to create
incentives for them to engage in the reserve protective activities if they are to succeed. In turn
communities must be willing to engage in the program and they must be helped to develop the
capacity to effectively manage the resources. This could have been lacking in Ajai wildlife reserve,
leading to resentment on the part of the community members.
Access to resources is one of the key factors that greatly influence Ajai wildlife community
relationship because the natural resources form the bulk of the local people’s basic needs for their
livelihood. The negative attitude could be a manifestation of unsatisfied needs of access to
resources. This could be explained by the fact that communities are expected to comply as a
45
reciprocation of community based conservation activity. Communities take the chance of not being
arrested (loopholes in surveillance) to illegally exploit reserve resources.
During the focus group discussion, a 59 years old key informant from Garia village within Ajai
Wildlife Reserve made this strong statement:
-Towards the Reserve. Our village gave land to the Reserve but we got nothing. We do not even
know what the park staffs are doing. We have information that the Reserve is supposed to share
20% of its income with our community but we have seen nothing so far. If the government really
wants the Reserve and the wildlife, we should get all the benefits and then we will have an interest
in having the Reserve in our area.”
According to the study findings the key determinants of people’s attitude towards Ajai Wildlife
Reserve include level of benefits derived from the reserve, income source, and level of education,
age, family size and number of livestock.
Namara (2006) argued that since most protected areas were created in a very forceful manner and
people who had legitimately lived in them for many years were evicted, no attempt was made to
work with the local people and none of the people evicted were compensated in any way or given
alternative land to settle. As a result of this, the local communities living around the protected
areas tend to be very negative towards the parks/reserves. Resource access conflicts between the
park authorities and the people increase the tendency for people to be negative as they view the
park as a waste of valuable resources, which they need and from which they have been wrongly
excluded.
The negative attitudes of people towards the parks/reserves mean that it is very hard for the
park/reserve managers to keep people out of the park/reserves and a lot of policing has to be in
place. The people also feel excluded from use of a resource that they considered theirs
traditionally. Without cooperation of the local communities, the effort of the reserve management
to conserve the resources is very difficult and bears minimal positive results.
Wickama et.al. (2005) postulated that, devising appropriate institutional arrangements to bring
about long-term positive results within the complexity of human–wildlife conflicts is complicated.
46
The arrangement should take into account the stakeholders involved and the distorted distribution
of power and information, and should be based on encouraging collective action by the poor,
compensating them for their role in protecting wildlife, increasing incomes and building capacity
of local communities, participation of all and accountability.
4.6 Impacts of activities of local communities on Ajai Wildlife Reserve.
The activities of the local communities that affect Ajai wildlife reserve were identified by the
reserve staff and the communities as bush fires (46%), illegal use of resources (40%),
encroachment (21%), and poaching (18%) as shown in table 9 below.
Table 9: Threats to Ajai Wildlife Reserve
Threats
Percentage
Poaching
18
Bush fires
46
Illegal use of resources
40
Encroachment
21
Incidences of bush fires in Ajai wildlife reserve are largely attributed to the fact that, the largest
part of it is mainly open grassland and there are no fire breaks to stop the spread of the fires. Both
the rangers and the poachers set the fires themselves. Fires have the potential to alter the ecology
of the reserve by killing some animals and plants outright (those not adapted to fires), hindering
tree regeneration and altering vegetation cover in favor of grasses. This indirectly affects wild
animals that depend on some specific plants for pasture and further destroys their eventually
driving them away hence an increased risk of extinction.
Illegal use of resources such as poles for building, grass for thatching, firewood for cooking stated
by 40% of the total respondent. It was also found out that Ajai Wildlife Reserve is encroached with
villages such as Medelli, Garia, Degiya and Lali. Encroachment in this study was confirmed by
21% of the total respondents. Shemweta (1999) and Kidegesho (2000) noted that human activities
such as over grazing, deforestation, bush fires, mining, urbanization and cultivation are the
principle cause of habitat destruction. These activities are expanding in line with human population
47
growth and poverty. The situation in Ajai Wildlife Reserve is partly attributed to these human
activities.
The problem of encroachment on Ajai Wildlife Reserve and its associated impacts conforms to the
observation contained in Arua district profile on Environment (1996) that the displacement of
game animals in Mado Okollo was due to encroachment of the vast land and clearance of trees by
squatters. There has also been legal settlement of inhabitants who were residents in Ajai Game
Reserve prior to 1964 who were issued certificates. These settlers are believed to have cleared the
land for agricultural purposes and for production of tobacco. As a result of the encroachment there
has been loss of habitat forcing animals to migrate hence a reduction in the number of Wildlife.
With relative security in the area, some animals like Uganda kob, waterbucks, hippopotamus, and
warthogs are commonly sighted in the Reserve. However few poachers still exist within the
communities around the Reserve, stated by 18% of the total respondents. The poachers mainly use
metal traps, wire snares and sometimes guns to kill Wildlife mainly for domestic consumption and
the surplus for sale. Poaching was further confirmed by the warden Ajai wildlife reserve who
indicated its existence within the reserve area adjacent to the Garia, Degiya and Lali villages.
Conservation programs change people’s attitude if local people derive tangible benefit from
program.
A 56-years old male key informant from Degiya village stated during the focus group discussion
that
“In earlier times, our grandfathers used to hunt different wild animals in our area, but now there
are very few animals left to hunt. Large areas of their habitats have gone already and the animals
have also disappeared. We now face problems from water shortages and low agricultural
production. Therefore, in my view if the government supports us, we are willing to conserve the
wild animals.”
Regarding the time spent on collecting resources from the reserve, the responses(Table 10)
indicated that 54.2% spend 1-3 trips per week, 21.4% spend 4-6 trips per week and 13.4% spend 79 trips per week. Although majority of the respondents seem to make fewer trips to the reserve per
48
week, this does not necessarily mean that they extract less resources from the reserve. This is
because they may be extracting much more resources per trip than those who make many trips per
week. Furthermore, the kind of resources they extract from the reserve is another factor that
determines their level of extraction of reserve resources. The end result may be that, a lot of
resources are extracted from the reserve per week irrespective of the number of trips made.
Table 10: Number of trips made per week
Number of trips Percentage
1-3
54.2
4-6
21.4
7-9
13.4
4.7 Impact of the reserve on the local people
According to 66.7% of the respondents, problem animals are a major source of conflict between
management and communities in Ajai Wildlife Reserve. The animals destroy people crops,
animals and homes and they cause injury to humans as well as death especially if attacked.
The local communities do believe that the Wild animals that move outside the Reserve transmit
diseases especially to the livestock stated by 36.7% of the total respondents. Unless such cases of
raiding of people’s crops, animals and homes by wild animals are noted and compensated for, the
community will continue to have resentment about the presence of the reserve thus leading to
persistence of conflicts.
The end result of this conflict of interest has far reaching economic and social dimension. The
following were listed by FGDs as being the biggest problems associated with wildlife.

Destruction of farm infrastructure

Loss of human life

Destruction of crops

Injury to human beings

Creation of an environment of fear
49
The responses to what the communities do to avoid conflict with Ajai Wildlife Reserve vary.
Some, as depicted in Fig .9, 64% of the respondents said they had to ensure that they do not get in
trouble by avoiding any arrest and 36% said that they had started their own tree nurseries to ensure
provision of resources they need from the Reserve.
36%
Started my nursery
64%
Ensure am not caught
Wildlife is a major foreign exchange at national level. However, it is perceived by some
disadvantaged communities as a cause of poverty and a source of hunger and diseases for
livestock. There is no doubt therefore that wildlife related costs outside Ajai wildlife reserve
should be reduced significantly.
The majority of the respondents agreed that wildlife cause them problems. The biggest was
destruction of property such as crops, livestock and fences. A large proportion (83.9%) of the
respondents said they report wildlife problems to the reserve authorities while 69.6% of the
respondents said they guard their property. A group of (7.1%) of the respondents believes in using
bait/ trap to kill the offending wild animals. Given the above incidents, it is apparent that conflicts
continue to occur between the local community and the reserve management. Management may
need to consider digging trenches to address the issue of problem animals and consequently reduce
conflicts with the local community.
More respondents indicated that they wanted to see Ajai wildlife reserve management address the
problem animal issue and also wanted the reserve be fenced to resolve the human-wildlife
50
conflicts. Respondents were especially concerned about problem animals. This would be expected
because problem animals inflict damage to property and cause loss of income.
The study found that there were movements of wild animals from Ajai Wildlife Reserve to the
surrounding area, as well as movements of livestock from the rural community to the reserve.
66.7% of the respondents indicated that they had experienced serious incidents of wild animal
'invasions' within the past five years. These incidents ranged from losses of entire standing crops,
repeated raiding of the same fields and gardens, losses of livestock and to damage of property such
as granaries.
None of the households that had incurred such losses had been compensated either within the past
five years or prior to that. This appeared to constitute a major grievance for the community living
around Ajai wildlife Reserve. It also appeared that, to date, there was no legislative instrument to
facilitate compensation for losses incurred by rural community members from invasion by wild
animals from the Reserve. This study found that, in the absence of such legislation, Uganda
wildlife authority had put forward a 'buffer zone' management plan which incorporated the
compensation of the neighbouring communities.
The magnitude of the costs incurred by members of the community, who do not receive any form
of compensation for the damage caused by wild animals from the Ajai wildlife reserve, can
probably be best appreciated in terms of the relatively high cost of loss of crops or livestock
against the relatively low income earned by the average rural household. Due to the absence of
reliable data on the actual value of the losses to wild animal invasions, this study was unable to
quantify the exact amount of the indirect costs of wildlife conservation to the communities living
around Ajai wildlife reserve. However, the issues raised through the FGDs as being the main
problems faced by the local people as a result of the reserve and the associated effects can best be
understood using Webber’s account of human-wildlife conflicts. According to him (Webber 2006),
although wildlife has coexisted alongside humans in Uganda for generations, recent trends indicate
an increasing level of conflict. This conflict has been attributed to high demand for natural
resources resulting from the ever increasing human population. In addition, Uganda’s wildlife laws
do not provide for compensation of damages. This has in turn negatively influenced people’s
attitudes toward wildlife conservation.
51
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
Despite the contribution realized from Ajai wildlife reserve, a number of problems make it a
concern. These problems include; conflicts with other land uses, poaching, loss of habitat,
pollution, global warming and introduction of exotic species. The failure of wildlife to compete
effectively with other land uses in sustaining the livelihood of the adjacent communities exacerbate
these problems. As a result, local people look at wildlife as a liability rather than an economic and
social status advantage, thus making wildlife conservation efforts to be perceived a contradiction
to the socio-economic endeavours of the local communities.
At the broader level, the future of Ajai wildlife reserve hinges on the degree to which the basic
concerns, needs and aspirations of the local people are addressed.
Bridging the gap between wildlife conservation and local communities remains a challenge. In
forging new strategies for sustainable rural development, however, it is perhaps the basis of change
rather than change that may ultimately determine the sustainability of protected areas such as Ajai
wildlife reserve. While the potential economic and ecological values of the reserve to the nation
and indeed the rest of Ugandans cannot be ignored, it is probably when the participation by the
neighboring communities translates into meaningful socio-economic benefits that the sustainability
of protected areas may perhaps be assured.
52
5.2 Conclusions
Main causes of conflicts in Ajai Wildlife Reserve
The main causes of the prevailing conflicts are encroachment onto the wildlife habitat, crop
raiding, bush fires and poaching respectively. Encroachment is caused by land pressure in the
surrounding area, fairly fertile soil in the wildlife reserve and shortage of pasture among others.
Perception of local communities towards Ajai Wildlife Reserve
The majority of the local people around the reserve have negative attitudes towards Ajai wildlife
Reserve. For example, 83.6% of the respondents strongly agree that the reserve is a liability to the
communities. Impacts of activities of local communities on Ajai Wildlife Reserve
Bush fires are a serious threat to Ajai Wildlife Reserve according to 46% of the respondents. This
is because the largest part of the game reserve is mainly open grassland and there are no fire breaks
to stop the spread of the fires.
53
5.3 Recommendations
Action must be taken to minimize conflicts over wildlife resources to a level and in a form that
ensures equitable benefit sharing. The following policy implications must be considered.
Governments must put in place appropriate cost-recovery mechanisms for communities who bear
the costs of living with wildlife.
Through decentralization, local governments must re-orient expenditure and planning to emphasize
crop losses to wildlife as a development problem and a poverty issue.
Conflicts between conservation and development concerns increase poverty by depriving people of
their assets and increasing their vulnerability. Therefore, attempts to reduce poverty must be
mainstreamed into conflict-minimizing strategies.
Out-reach and environmental education is a fundamental catalyst in changing people’s perceptions
and creating situational awareness. It has been found that often local communities don’t know the
main aims of the protected area leaving them to feel excluded and marginalised (Ormsby and
Kaplin, 2005). Through outreach and education programmes, understanding of the importance of
the protected area, coupled with pragmatic alternatives for local livelihoods can contribute to the
reconciliation of people-protected area conflicts.
Collaborative management. Collaborative management is now a common approach to protected
area management in Africa. Collaborative management is focused upon conservation with some
rural livelihood benefits on state-owned resources.
Although there has been mixed successes in the management of protected areas, this method is
recommended for situations where governmental institutions are not sufficient enough to maintain
resource management.
54
A-To the Government

Awareness about the importance of wildlife conservation should be increased among the
local communities. The management should offer part-time/contract employment for some
members of the local communities to sensitize their fellow members about the benefits of
conservation to the local communities. Parents should also be encouraged to send their
children to school in order to improve the level of education among the communities. An
educated population is expected to know the benefits of conservation. The government and
UWA should therefore Increase education and conservation awareness-raising efforts in the
local communities.

Understanding the traditional methods of conflict management will help civil societies,
education institutions, governments and the community as a whole, design intervention
strategy that are acceptable and relevant to communities within which they will be
implemented. Presently there are no such studies done. Therefore is there need to carry out
research on traditional methods of conflict management.

As noted in literature review, there are few studies done on the subject matter and most
studies have tended to concentrate on government intervention, leaving out the role of civil
society and local communities. There is therefore need for more studies to be carried out on
the nature and form of peace strategies adopted by Uganda Wildlife Authority and the
community so as to have conceptual understanding of such approaches and evaluate which
approaches work for different community settings.
B-To Local Authorities
As homes are built on lands that were formerly wildlife habitats, animal populations increasingly
come into contact with humans. This sometimes leads, to conflicts. Therefore human approach to
human wildlife conflict is based on three general principles:

Respect for the environment

Tolerance and understanding of living things

A willingness to resolve conflict using nonlethal means.
The natural environment we share with living things is one of the most important components
of wildlife conflict resolution. Often the first and the best defense is to let natural forces
resolve the issue without human intervention. Human tolerance and understanding are also
55
crucial since many wildlife problems arise out of our irrational fears. For example, realizing
that White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum cottoni) is not a threat but a member of a natural
community removes immediate impulse against or to the White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium
simum cottoni) removed.
Nonlethal conflict resolution is an area most people have only just began to investigate and
understand. The following six step evaluation will help to resolve wildlife conflict safely and
humanely.
Determine the problem—and consider whether it is a problem at all. Learning about the habits
of your wild neighbors will help you decide. For example, if a family of woodchucks’ moves into
the backyard will they attack your child or your pet? Educating yourself about the natural history
of these animals will help you see that they aren't a threat.
If there is a problem, collect information to better deal with the problem. It is necessary to
positively identify the species involved, the extent of the damage, how long it has been happening,
whether there are young animals present and what can be done to resolve the issue in a humane
and permanent way.
Assess the seriousness and extent of the problem. Important considerations involve safety or
health concerns to people or pets, likelihood of recurrence, and whether the damage appears to be
seasonal or ongoing.
Take action, but only after all the facts have been collected. Taking action should be one of
your last steps, and it should not have to involve killing animals. Exclusion, environmentally sound
repellents, changing human cultural practices, and habitat modification are all viable, nonlethal
strategies.
Evaluation. Did your action resolve the problem or merely addressed the symptoms? Your
solution should get at the underlying cause of the problem and be effective over the long-term.
Seek help. You may not be able to resolve the problem by yourself, but seek help.
C- To Uganda Wildlife Authority
 The management of the wildlife resources is often affected by varied and often opposing
viewpoints and interests especially where matters of resource allocation, accessibility are to
be decided. Many times the local communities surrounding the Wildlife Protected Areas
56
are not involved in the protection of wildlife. For protected areas to be sustainable and
effective, a balance must be struck between benefits to local communities and the goals of
biodiversity conservation. Management should therefore involve the local communities in
the protection of the reserve.

This study has shown that only 12% of the respondents are employed. Redundant labor in
the rural area next to Reserves can trigger illegal access for resources in the Reserve in
order to sustain a living. There is therefore need to address the unemployment concern of
local communities surrounding Ajai Wildlife Reserve.

The Uganda Wildlife Authority should implement Revenue Sharing Scheme. The famous
revenue sharing scheme is not being implemented in Ajai Wildlife reserve purportedly due
to lower revenue collected from the reserve yet the communities know about it. The
scheme should be fully implemented by the management to plough back to the surrounding
communities. The mode of revenue sharing should include construction of schools in the
surrounding villages, offering scholarships to best performing pupils or students among
others.

There is need to strengthen the Reserve management to ensure that there is effective
surveillance and high level of detecting illegal activities. Findings in this research indicate
that law enforcement is a factor that influences people’s behavior. if there are high chances
of being detected members will choose to obey rather than violate the laws and

Improved enactment and enforcement of laws. Laws that can be clearly understood by the
local communities should be enacted and enforced. These laws should include by-laws
translated in the local languages of the people within the reserve. There should be sections
of the laws to clearly spell out penalties against illegal activities by any person or group of
persons.

Incentives for sustainable production in wildlife reserve. Incentives offer an effective
means to resolve wildlife conflicts. The Reserve management needs to create incentives for
the local communities to protect wildlife. Such incentives may include allowing
communities to collect fuel wood from selected areas in the Reserve, allowing them to
collect some medicinal plants from the reserve, to mention a few. This will cause the
communities to exercise self-restraint and report any illegal activity to the authorities.
57

Training residents to promote ecotourism. Residents within the Wildlife
Reserve should
be trained in ecotourism. This may include training them to make arts and crafts that can be
sold to tourists. This will earn income for the local people and improve their livelihoods
thereby reducing illegal activities in the game reserve. The park management should help
to secure market for these products.

There is need for collaborative management to help offset some of the lost opportunity cost
of local communities and justify conservation as a form of land use.

Translocation programmes should be initiated in partnership with the different stake
holders to enhance crashing population strategic management intervention such as antipoaching, boundary marking, community conservation, monitoring and research among
others to address threats to wildlife conservation in Uganda.
58
REFERENCES
Adams, W. (1992). Community Conservation Research in Africa. Principles and Comparative
Practice: Community Conservation at Mgahinga Gorilla National Park. Institute for Development
Policy and Management, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
Alcon, J.B. (1994). Indigenous people and conservation. Conservation Biology, 7:424-426
Amend, S. and Amend, T. (1992). National parks without people. The South American
experience. Gland Switzerland: IUCN
Anon (2007). Basongora encroachment into Queen Elizabeth National Park. New Vision (4
August): 7 (Kampala).
Archibald, K. & Naughton-Treves, L. (2001). Tourism revenue sharing around national parks in
western Uganda: early efforts to identify and reward local communities. Environmental
Conservation 23:135-149. Foundation for Environmental Conservation.
Arua District Environment Profile (1996). State of the Environment Report for Arua 1996.
Barrow, E. and M. Murphree (2001). Community Conservation: From Concept to practice. A
Review of analytic issues. In: D. Hulme and M. murphree. African Wildlife and Livelihoods.
Beinant, W. (1994). Twentieth Century South Africa. Oxford University Press. Oxford, NewYork.
BirdLife International (2011). Important Bird Areas factsheet: Ajai Wildlife Reserve.
Blomley, T. (2003), ‘Natural Resource Conflict Management: The Case of Bwindi Impenetrable
and Mgahinga Gorilla National Parks, South Western Uganda’, in Natural Resource Conflict
Management Case Studies: An Analysis of Power, pp 231-250, Rome, FAO Community Forestry
Unit.
Bourn, D. and Blench, R. M. (1999). Livestock, Wildlife and people in the semi-arid rangeland
of Eastern Africa.
Brooks, B .W (2002). Explaining the Pleistocene Mega faunal extraction models. Chronological
and assumptions. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science U.S.A
Bryers, B.A. (1996). Understanding and Influencing Behaviours in Conservation of Natural
Resource Management. African Biodiversity Series, No. 4. Washington D.C Biodiversity Support
Programme.
Claxton Nicholas (1986). ‘The Price of Progress’. Central Television, Documentary.
59
Colchester Marcus (1985). The Health and Survival of the Venezuela Yanoama.
Colchester Marcus (1987). Indigenous rights and the collective conscious Anthropology today
18:1-3.
Conover, M (2002). Resolving human-wildlife conflict: the science of wildlife damage
management. Florida: CRC press.
De Boer,W, F. & Ntumi, C. (2001). Elephant crop raid damage and electric fence construction in
the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique.
DeBoer, W.F & Baquet, D.S (1998). Natural Resource use. Crop damage and attitude of rural
people in the Vicinity of Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environmental Conservation
25:208-218.
Dixon John, A. and Paul B. Sherman (1991). Economics of Protected Areas: a new look at
benefits and costs.
Elizabeth Kemf (1992). Integrated Protected Area System GEF Appraisal Mission SocioEconomic and Community Participation Programmes.
Emerton, J . (1965). Balancing the opportunity costs of wildlife Conservation for Communities
around Lake Mburo National Park.
Gamassa, D.M. (1998). Stakeholder analysis for the conservation and management of critical
wildlife corridors in the northern Tanzania. Technical Report submitted to UNDP. 17 pp.
Gibson, C. (1991). Political and poachers: the political economy of Wildlife policy in Africa.
Cambridge University press, Cambridge United Kingdom.
Gomez-Pompa, A and Kaus .F. (1992). Taming the wilderness myth. Bioscience, 42:271-279.
Hill, C.M (1997). Crop raiding by wild Vertebrates: the farmer perspective in an agricultural
Community in Western Uganda. Intern .J.of pest Management, 43(1):77-84.
Hill, C.M (1998). Conflicting attitudes toward elephants around the Budongo Forest Reserve.
Uganda .Environmental Conservation.
Hill, C.M. (2000). Conflict of interest between people and baboons. Crop raiding in Uganda.
International Journal of Primatology, 21:299-315.
Homewood, K., Kiswahili, H. and Brockington, D. (1997). Conservation and development? The
case of Mkomazi, Tanzania. Report to ESCOR. London: FID.
Homwood, K.M. (1997). Biodiversity Conservation and Development. Global Ecology and
Biogeography 8:301-313.
60
Infield, M. (1988). Attitudes of rural Community towards conservation and a local conservation
area in Natal, South Africa. Biological Conservation 45:21-46.
IUCN (1998). United Nations List of Protected Areas. Cambridge and Gland.
Kangwana, K. (1996). Assessing the impact of human elephant interaction .In: Studying
Elephants, AWF technical Hand book series, ed. K. Kangwana, pp.138-147.
Kellert, S. 1985. Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote. Biological
Kellert, S. 1996. The Value of Life. Island Press, Washington.
Kemf, Elizabeth. (1993). In search of a home: People living in or near protected Areas. In the law
of the mother. Protecting indigenous people in protected Areas. Edited by E. Kemf .San Francisco:
Siarra Club Books.
Kiss, A. (1990). Living with wildlife. Wildlife Resource Management with local participation in
Africa. World Bank technical paper 130. (African Technical Department Series).
Kiss, A. (2004). Is community based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds?
Knight, K. (2000). Introduction in natural enemies: people & Wildlife conflict in Anthropological
perspective, pp.1-35.
Lewis, J. & Jackson, E. (1990). Safari. Hunting and conservation on communal land in southern
Africa. In people and wildlife: Wildlife coexist.
Lindsay, W. K. (1987). Integrating parks and pastoralists: some lessons from Amboseli.
Little, D.P. (1994). The link between local participation and improved conservation: A review of
issues and experience.
Mackenzie, J. (1985). The Empire of Nature. Hunting, Conservation and British Imperialism.
Manchester University Press, Manchester United Kingdom.
Mackenzie, J. (1988). The Empire of nature. Hunting, Conservation and British Imperialism.
Manchester University Press Manchester, United kingdom
Mackinon, J., Graham, C., and Thorsell, J. (1986). Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics.
IUCN Gland.
Macmillan Social Studies (1998). Atlas for Uganda.
Madhusudan, M.D. (1992). Living amidst large Wildlife: Livestock and crop predation by
mammals in the interior of Bhadra Tiger Reserve, South India
Makombe, K. (1993).Sharing the land, Wildlife, People and Development in Africa. ROSA.
Environmental Issues Series No. 1.
Mordi, R. (1991). Attitudes toward wildlife in Botswana. Garland, New York.
61
Mugisha, J.R. (2000). Parks and people – conservation and livelihoods at the cross roads: Four
case Histones .Technical Report 17. Nairobi, Kenya: Regional Soil conservation unit / Swedish
International Development Agency (SIDA).
Murphree, M. (1996). Approaches to Community Participation. A paper presented at the overseas
Development Administration, 18th, April 1996. African Wildlife Policy Consultation, London.
Musaasizi J, Andama E, Ruta D. & Byamukama B. (2005). Management of conservation-based
confl icts in southwestern Uganda. ECAPAPA report. Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 2,
2006, pp. 39–68.
Muwadi John (1994). Report on Categorization of people residing in Ajai’s Game Reserve.
Namara, A. (2006). From Paternalism to Real Partnership with Local Communities? Experiences
from Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (Uganda).
Naughton-Treves, L. (1998). Predicting patterns of crop damages by wildlife around Kibale
National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology, 12:156-168.
Newmark, W.D. & Hough, J.L. (1994). Conserving wildlife in Africa: Integrated Conservation
and development projects and beyond .Bioscience, 50:585-592.
Newmark, W.D. (1993). Conservation attitudes of local people living adjacent to five protected
areas in Tanzania. Biological Conservation, 63:177-183.
Newmark, W.D. (2000). Conserving Wildlife in Africa: Integrated Conservation and development
projects and beyond. Bioscience 80:585-592.
Nyamwaro SO, Murilla GA, Mochabo, MOK. & Wanjala KB. (2007). Conflict-minimizing
strategies on natural resource management and use: the case for managing and coping with
conflicts between wildlife and agropastoral production resources in Transmara District, Kenya.
ECAPAPA report.
Parry, D. & Campbell, B. (1992). Attitudes of rural Communities to animal and wildlife and its
utilization in Chobe Enclave and Mababe Depression, Botswana. Environmental conservation,
19:245-252.
Petrides, G. A. and W. G. Swank (1965). Population densities and the range carrying capacities
for large mammals in Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda. Zool. Afri, 1:209 – 225.
Petrides, G.A (1982) Management of the big game resources in Uganda: E African Trans. NAN –
Wildlife Natural Resource conservation, 23:461-477.
62
Pomerantz, G. (1986). Children and Wildlife: research implications for successful information.
Potkanski, T. (1997).
Pastoral economy, property rights and traditional mutual assistance
mechanisms among the Ngorongoro and Salei Maasai of Tanzania Pastoral Land Tenure. Series
Monograph 2. London: IIED. Sikoyo, G. and Ashley, C. (forthcoming) Economic and livelihood
impacts.
Robinson, J. G. & Redford, K. H. (1994).
Community-based approaches to wildlife
conservation in Neotropical forests. In: Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based
Conservation (edited by D. Western and R. M. Wright), pp. 300 – 319. Island Press, Washington
DC, USA.
Sayer, J. (1991). Rain Forest Buffer zones: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. IUCN,
Newbury.
Scott, J.C. (1988). Everyday forms of peasants Resistance: Journal of Peasant Studies 12(2):5-35
Sharp, B.1998. 'First the forest': conservation, 'community' and 'participation' in
Shemweta,K and Kidegesha,W. (2000). Human Wildlife conflict in Tanzania .What Research
and extension could offer to conflict resolution proceedings of the University wide conference,
Volume 3.
Silkiluwasha, F. (1998). Biodiversity Conservation in Lake Manyara biosphere reserve. A paper
presented at the 4th Braaf Workshop: 30th March -2nd April 1998. Arusha, Tanzania.
Stewart, W.P. (1996). Ecotourism and commodification: protecting people and places.
Biodiversity conservation.
Tchamba, M.N. (1996). History and the present status of the human/ elephant conflict in the
Waze-Logone region, Cameroon, West Africa. Biological Conservation, 755:35-41.
Uganda Government (1964). The Game (Preservation and Control) Act. CAP 226. Revised
Edition.
UNEP. (1995.) Global biodiversity assessment: Summary for policy-makers. V.H. Heywood
University Press. 46 p.
UWA (1997). Ajai Wildlife Reserve. Preliminary Assessment Report.
UWA (1997). Strategic Plan 2001-2006 Kampala.
UWA (2006). Ajai Wildlife Reserve General Management Plan 2006-2016.
63
Webber, A. (2006). Primate crop raiding in Uganda: Predicting, understanding and mitigating the
risk. Preliminary PhD report submitted to Uganda Wildlife Authority (June 2006). Unpublished
report.
Wells, M. and K.Brandon (1992). People and parks: linking protected areas Management with
local communities. World Bank publications, Washington, DC.
Western, D. & Wright, R.M. (1994). The background to community based Conservation
Western, D. (1994). “Ecosystem Conservation and rural development: the case of Amboleli,” in
Natural connections. Perspectives in community based conservation.
Western, R.M.T. Wright, R.M (2007). Failure of a conflict mitigation project. In: natural
connections: perspective in community Based Conservation.
Wickama J, Ngailo, J, Masuki K. & Mkalimoto D. (2005). Eviction of pastoralists from
Mkomazi Game Reserve in northeastern Tanzania: analysis of new conflicts and impact on the
affected communities. ECAPAPA report.
Whande W, T. Kepe & Murphree, M., eds. (2003) ‘Local Communities, Equity and
Conservation in Southern Africa, A Synthesis of Lessons Learnt and Recommendations from a
Southern African Technical Workshop’, Proceedings, PLAAS, University of Western Cape, Cape
Town.
White, D.R. (2001). African Rain Forest Ecology and Conservation.
Williams, C.K.G. (2002). Quantative summary of attitudes towards wolves and their
reintroduction. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:515-584.
World Bank (1993). Uganda Agricultural sector memorandum. Volume 2 Washington, D.C,
USA.
World Bank (1996). Development in Practice: towards environmentally sustainable development
in Sub-Saharan Africa. A World Bank Agenda. The World Bank Washington, D. C.
World Resource Institute (1995). World Resource Report 1994-1995. A guide to the global
Environment.
64
APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE LOCAL COMMUNITY
Background Information
1.
Sex
(i)
Male
(ii)
Female
2.
Age
(i)
< 10
(ii)
11 – 20
(v)
> 51
(iv)
3.
4.
What is the last year of education you have completed?
(a)
None
(b)
1 -7 = Primary Level
(c)
8 – 11 = O level
(d)
12 – 14 = A Level
(e)
15+ = Post-secondary
For how many years have you lived in this particular community?
(b) 5 – 9
(a) < 5
5.
6.
41 – 50
21 – 30
(iii)
(c) 10 – 14
(d) 15 – 20
(e) > 21
How big is the size of the land that is under control of your household?
(a)
> 0.5 acres
(b)
1.0 – 2.0 acres
(c)
2.0 -3.0 acres
(d)
2 > 4 acres
What main crops do you grow and what is their acreage?
Crop
Banana Coffee
Cassava Potatoes Beans
Acreage
65
Peas
G. Nuts Others
7.
Of the following, what would you consider as the four biggest constraints to your farm
production?
8.
9.
(a)
Insufficient land
(b)
Shortage of labour
(c)
Infertile soils
(d)
Wildlife, raids
What are the main sources of cash income for your household?
(a)
Sale of farm produce.
(b)
Sale of household labour (specify where sold).
(c)
Hunting
(d)
Charcoal burning
(e)
Petty trade (specify type of trade)
When there is no much work on your farm, where else do you or your household members
work?
10.
(a)
Work in the Reserve
(b)
Work in other private property for pay
(c)
Go to Arua or Nebbi town to trade
(d)
Engage in hunting
(e)
Engage in charcoal burning
What are your main sources of information about conservation issues and protected area
related views?
(a)
Radio programs
(b)
Project/protected area news letters
(c)
Friends from your community
(d)
Regular meetings organized by the Reserve Staff
(e)
Others specify
66
APPENDIX 11: COSTS AND BENEFITS
1.
Do you ever go into the Reserve?
Yes
2.
3.
4.
or
No
If No why don’t you ever go there?
(a)
Fear of rangers
(b)
Fear of animals
(c)
No interest
(d)
No time
(e)
Too far
(f)
Others specify
If yes, what do you go to do there?
(a)
Health related
(b)
Bush meat
(c)
Building materials
(d)
Firewood
(e)
Grazing
(f)
Water
(g)
Worship
(h)
Others specify
Of the items you collect from the Reserve; how many working hours do you spend per trip,
including time of travel to and from?
67
5.
How many trips do you do per week?
6.
What amount of items do you collect per trip?
Item
Hours/Trip
Trips/Week Amount/Type Total/Month
Firewood
For domestic use
Building materials
Hand craft materials
Water for livestock
Bush meat
Mechanical plant
Grazing
APPENDIX 111: ATTITUDE QUESTIONS
Please choose the most appropriate response according to your opinion.
Strongly Agree
Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree
1.
Disagree
This Reserve is more of a 1
2
3
4
5
liability
2.
This
reserve
is
just
for 1
2
3
4
5
should
be 1
2
3
4
5
foreigners
3.
This
reserve
abolished
4.
What are the reasons for your choice in question 3 above
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
68
Strongly Agree
Neutral Disagree Strongly
agree
5.
Disagree
To restrict access to resources 1
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
in this reserve to community
members is a good idea
6.
The relationship between the 1
management of this reserve
and our community is cordial
7.
What are the reasons for your answer in question 6 above? (Probe)
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………...
8.
On monthly basis, what do you estimate your loss to be due to wildlife?
Type of Damage
Amount
of
damage Approximate
(acres/number of livestock)
(Shs.)
Livestock loss
Crop damage
Loss of grading land
Others
9.
10
What do you do to address such a problem?
(a)
Report to the Reserve authorities
(b)
Guard my property (specify how)
(c)
Bait/trap and kill the offending wildlife
(d)
Invite hunters to remove the wildlife
(e)
Others specify
Do you get problems with P.A. officials (rangers/warden)?
69
Yes or No
cost
11.
12.
13.
If yes what kind of problems?
(a)
Was arrested due to poaching of game.
(b)
Was arrested due to illegal use of resources
(c)
Others specify
What measures have you taken to avoid such problems?
(a)
I have to ensure I am not caught
(b)
I have started my own free nursery.
(c)
Others specify
What would you like to see being done about the wild life situation in this reserve?
(a)
Give it to us to manage and use.
(b)
Bring more animals
(c)
Hunt it all until it is finished.
(d)
Take the animals to the zoo.
(e)
Educate neighboring communities about its use and generate revenue for our own
use.
14.
15.
How do you feel about the way this reserve is being managed?
(a)
Very satisfied
(b)
satisfied
(c)
(d)
Disappointed
(e)
Very disappointed
average
What charges would you wish to see being implemented as far as management of this
reserve is concerned? (Probe)
16.
Our community can better manage this reserve, 1
2
3
if we were given full responsibility to manage
17.
Does wildlife cause you any problem?
Yes
70
or
No
4
5
18.
If yes what type of problem? (Probe)
(a)
Destroy my property (crops, fences, and livestock)
(b)
Transmit disease to my live stock
(c)
Transmit disease to my people.
(d)
Compete for resources (grass, land and water)
(e)
Others specify
71
APPENDIX IV: QUESTIONNARE FOR DISTRICT LEADERS
Name of District……………………………………………………………………………
Date………………………………………………………………………………………..
Title of Respondent………………………………………………….
1.
2.
How would you describe the status of the boundary of the Reserve?
(a) Very good
(b) Good
(c) Neither good nor bad
(d) Very bad
(e) Very good
(f) Good and bad
How would you describe the status of the resource in this reserve?
(a) Very good
(b) Good
(d) Bad
(e) Very bad
(c) Neither good nor bad
3.
Are there any kind of illegal activities in the above mentioned reserve manage?
4.
Do local councils get involved in the resolution of the Reserve/Community Conflict?
Yes or No
5.
If yes how?
6.
How is the tourism industry organized in this Reserve?
7.
Do local people get involved in the organization of tourism based on this Reserve?
Yes or No
8.
If yes how do they get involved?
9.
Does this Reserve enjoy political support from?
(a)
Central Government
(Yes
No)
(b)
Local Government
(Yes
No)
(c)
Does not involve people at all
(Yes
No)
(d)
Others specify
72
11.
What benefit does this PA provide to the local people?
(a)
Revenue sharing
(Yes
No)
(b)
Environmental benefits
(Yes
No)
(c)
Access to natural resources such as forest products, firewood, grazing, water etc.
Yes
No
(d)
Employment benefits
Yes
No
(e)
Support infrastructure
Yes
No
Others specify.
12.
How do you rate the interaction between the Reserve and the district administration?
(a) Very good
(b) Good
(d) Bad
(e) Very bad
(c) Neither good nor bad
What would be your recommendation to improve the interaction between the Reserve and this
district administrator?
73