The chimpanzee conservation corridor pilot PES scheme in Uganda


Published on

The presentation of Paul Hatanga, Project Manager with the Chimpanzee Sanctuary and Wildlife Conservation Trust (Chimpanzee Trust), to the IIED-hosted Innovations for equity in smallholder PES: bridging research and practice conference.

The presentation, made within the first session on strategies to promote the inclusion of smallholders and communities in PES schemes, focused on a pilot project that pays farmers to conserve and restore forests.

More information on Hatanga's work:

The conference took place at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh on 21 March.

Further details of the conference and IIED's work with PES are available via, and can be found via the Shaping Sustainable Markets website:

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • kakkkkkakaka
  • The chimpanzee conservation corridor pilot PES scheme in Uganda

    1. 1. Innovations for equity in smallholder PES: bridging research and practice Botanical Gardens, Edinburgh conference 21st March 2014 Paul Hatanga M, Project Manager Chimpanzee Sanctuary & Wildlife Conservation Trust (Chimpanzee Trust ) Email:
    2. 2. Project context Background Problem Opportunities Project Design PES Scheme design & implementation Strategies for inclusion of small holders Lessons learned Personal reflections Conclusion
    3. 3. Chimpanzees require suitable forest habitats to survive. The Albertine rift forest system in Uganda is important for chimpanzee corridors Uganda has about 5000 wild chimpanzees . 10% are found outside protected forests in western Uganda (Uganda Chimpanzee Population Census, 2002) Uganda’s deforestation rate is currently 92,000ha (approx. 2.6%). It is more than twice(5.1%) outside protected areas. Without innovative conservation approaches, it is estimated that there will be no more forest ecosystems left in the next 15 years. PES offers a great opportunity to address the problem but there is limited evidence of its effectiveness Map
    4. 4. Chimpanzee Trust Uganda Mission-To promote chimpanzee conservation & environmental management for sustainable development Programs Ngamba Island Chimpanzee Sanctuary Conservation of Wild chimpanzees and their habitats Environmental education and partnerships PES Scheme context in Chimpanzee Trust Uganda Achieve sustainable management of chimpanzee habitats outside protected areas in AR
    5. 5. PES Scheme Evaluation Forest & Forest Owner
    6. 6. Divide target recipients into two groups before the intervention Target population 140 Villages Random assignment Treatment-70 villages Control-70 villages Don’t give PES Give Program
    7. 7. Average household size: 7 93% of household heads are male Half of household heads completed primary school Average per capita weekly income: 4 USD Forest land sizes Median forest size 0.80 ha Average forest size 1.54 ha 75% of participants had less than average land size Land ownership Only 2.8% of the forest owners have registered land titles 52% own 1 piece of land 36% own 2 pieces of land Land disputes: 32% of PFOs had a dispute on their land Usually relating to land boundaries
    8. 8. Lessons from drawn from else where-IIED i.e. Costa Rica, Bolsa Floresta scheme, ECOTRUST etc Round table discussions by partners Forest interventions and measurements Package for payments Scheme and research design National level consultation workshop Legal advice from NEMA & Chimpanzee Trust Lawyer Buyer side-Hydro power company, oil company, water company Pre- design consultations with target beneficiaries and potential buyers of ES.
    9. 9. Community consultation Voluntary application by participants Verification of participants Forest assessment baselineContract negotiation and signing Sign up payment Monitoring- Community based Annual payment
    10. 10. Incentive cash payment Approx. $35/ha/year Sensitize, create awareness, train Monitor and advise PFOs Seedlings for reforestation/enric hment planting Forest management based on agreed interventions e.g., Regulated harvesting Enrichment planting Re-forestation No opening new land for agriculture
    11. 11. Consultation meeting Subcounty level Village level-involving village leaders Private forest owner level consultation meeting Application and contract process Ensured consent at household level Verified land-ownership with local leaders to minimize land related conflicts Assessed presence and status of applying forest Community monitoring Identified from community Interviewed jointly with local leaders Trained in project and its structures Accessible payment modality. Minimize bank charges and walking distances PFO identity card Copies of all documentation The frequently asked questions With monitors and local leaders
    12. 12. 18% 82% Proportion of applicants (413) signing contracts Not signed Signed contracts
    13. 13. 42% 51% 7% Compliance Monitoring -Year 1 Complied Partly Complied Didn’t comply 54%38% 8% Compliance Performance-Year 2 Complied Partly Complied Didn’t Comply
    14. 14. Compliance performance; Improved trust and confidence in project Community monitoring and extension support High motivation to get withheld payment amount (25%) Non compliance; Low survival of planted seedlings in year 1 Family and community land use management disagreements with contracted PFOs. Most non complying PFOs have small forest area & would rather convert to agriculture (In Year 1, median was 1.2ha & In year 2, median was 0.9ha)
    15. 15. Dealing with unclear land tenure required more time in assessment and verification Protracted family negotiations to obtain consent Seasonal priorities vary and delay engagement Short term benefits versus long-term benefits Problem animals Pressures for hire-purchase agreements
    16. 16. Land Ownership: In areas where land documentation is not in place, land-based conflicts may affect level of participation. Working with local leaders to verify landownership increased confidence Community Monitoring: Working with community based monitors improves trust and provides effective feedback to participants Conservation Cost: The project interventions have cost to participants and non participants. Not integrated in calculation Partnerships: Identification of proper capacity needs for scheme implementers e.g. Post Bank executing payments, NEMA/CSWCT Design of Randomized Experiments: Randomized controlled experiments require very close collaboration between implementers and evaluators to minimize contamination and ensure consensus e.g. mode of payment was feared to affect the study Leveraging funding: Collaboration with IIED and impact evaluation specialists helped leverage funding for the research projects Private Sector Investment: Private sector would like to commit funding but is carefully waiting for evidence CSO, Gov’t, Donor & Research Partnership: Promotes win-win collaboration
    17. 17. Participation across gender. Who drives the agenda? Culture and tradition. What is the place of communally accepted cultural and traditional norms? How do we consciously influence them What stake do the non-forest owners have? How do we spread benefits beyond direct beneficiaries Timing of negotiations. Who sets the time “enough” & what are the pertinent issues across the board Documentation of social impacts. What system is in place to have these documented.? How about social learning. What system is in place to cultivate social learning amongst the peers The buyers, the sellers, the proponents….where do they meet to share concerns. Government commitment & enabling policy. Is it there? Is it enabling, facilitating or just directional without ability to proactively influence. PES schemes in areas with poor land tenure/documentation systems have potential of enhancing management rights
    18. 18. Finalize analysis of research findings Presentation of project results in national and international fora Generating policy documents/briefs Publication of research findings Lobbying government commitment for PES policy and allocation of funding Marketing the PES scheme based on evidence generated Scaling up
    19. 19. Small holder farmers have potential to respond with consistent engagement within acceptable communal norms Government-Civil society partnership Research and implementation projects are rigorous We are looking forward to analysis and publication of results on PES effectiveness in mid 2014. Short narration