This document discusses land use policies in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in Uganda. It notes that both "land sparing" through agricultural intensification and "land sharing" through community participation are needed in multifunctional landscapes. The history of the park involved a colonial top-down approach that polarized communities and led to unsustainable management. Later approaches to sharing, like beekeeping and revenue sharing, were not fully satisfactory. Both incentives for intensification and genuine rights-based approaches at local scales are argued to be important for balancing food and conservation objectives in these types of areas.

1. Sustainable development in
Agriculture and Africa requires both sparing
and sharing in
Rural Development
multifunctional landscapes
Day:
June 2012 A case of Bwindi Impenetrable National
Park Uganda
Sara Namirembe 1190 m to 2607 m asl
160-323 persons/km2
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE

2. Bwindi Impenetrable National Park Uganda
Land sparing
Increased biodiversity conservation
• recovery or avoided clearance of forest
• abandonment of marginal land
Increased
farm
productivity
Sparing hypothesis
Investment in agricultural
intensification - higher
inputs of fertilizers,
pesticides and irrigation
infrastructure
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE

3. Unfair beginnings
Driver: Colonial government top-down directive 1932 - Fines and fences
Consequences:
1. Polarisation • Land withdrawn from a few
• Livelihood activities banned
• No agricultural intensification programs
• No compensation for spillage of wildlife
damages
• Heavy fines for accessing park for livelihood
actions
2. Unsustainable • Low budget allocation
management • Institutional duplicity: UWA and NFA
• Sectoral disconnect between agriculture and
conservation programs
Agrippinah Namara 2006. From Paternalism to Real Partnership with Local Communities? Experiences from Bwindi Impenetrable
National Park (Uganda) Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 2, pp. 39–68.
Geo Z. Dutki 2003. Mgahinga and Bwindi Impenetrable Forest Conservation Trust Fund (MBIFCT), Uganda. Vth World Parks
Congress. September 2003. Durban, South Africa
Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2003. Housing and population census. Ministry of Finance,R L D A G R O F O R E SDevelopment. R E
W O Planning and Economic T R Y C E N T
The Republic of Uganda.

4. Approaches towards sharing – not satisfactory
• 1991 Pilot access bee keeping only
• 1993 Expanded access - NTFP
• Devolution: Semi-formal participatory management
agreements
• Revenue sharing – 20% gate pass
• Trust for ICDP
• Purchase of community land raided by wildlife
Agrippinah Namara 2006. From Paternalism to Real Partnership with Local Communities?L ExperiencesFfrom E S T R Y C E N T R E
W O R D A G R O O R Bwindi Impenetrable
National Park (Uganda) Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 2, pp. 39–68.

5. Key messages: Both land sparing and sharing needed
in multifunctional landscapes
1. Agricultural intensification is necessary though not sufficient
achieve land sparing
– Land value is greater than just food
2. Sharing approaches need to be better understood
Conservation in small-scale
agricultural landscapes:
- Ecological intensification
Agriculture and livelihoods in
protected areas
- Estimates of sustainable off-take
per capita
Van Noordwijk M, Tata H L, Xu J, Dewi S and Minang P, 2012. Segregate or integrate for multifunctionality and sustained change
through landscape agroforestry involving rubber in Indonesia and China. In: Agroforestry: The Future of Global Land Use. Nair PKR
and Garrity DP (eds.), Springer, The Netherlands (in press) WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE

6. A1. Land use policies, spatial development planning
A2. LU rights (e.g. community forest mngmnt)
Livelihoods, provisioning &
profitability
Land Conse- Response/
Actors/
Drivers use/cover quences & feedback
agents
changes functions options
Biodiversity, Watershed
functions, GHG emissions,
Landscape beauty
B2. PES and conditional ES incentives
B1. Incentive structure through policy change (tax, subsidy etc)
A1 + B1: Instruments for “Sparing” strategies / big-picture
A2 + B2: Instruments for “Sharing” strategiesG / O F O R E S T R Y C E N T R E
WORLD A R
fine-tuning
Van Noordwijk, M., B. Lusiana, G. Villamor, H. Purnomo, and S. Dewi. 2011. Feedback loops added to four conceptual models linking land change with drivin
forces and actors. Ecology and Society 16(1): r1. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/resp1/

7. Key messages
3. Drivers of landuse change occur at different scales:
– proximal small-scale agriculture
– large-scale agriculture
– international labour migrations, markets
4. Rules continue to play a major role in ensuring food and
conservation objectives
– At the global level, a framework policy is needed
• REDD+ expanded to ensure multifunctional, high carbon landscapes
– At local level, opportunity costs must be minimised:
• Genuine rights-based approaches and incentives
Meine van Noordwijk 2011. Reflections on current evidence on the “sharing” hypothesis, global (e.g. wildlife farming) and meso
level evidence from multifunctional land use research in ICRAF / RUPES / PRESA landscapes. Sparing vs. Sharing: Addressing
drivers of deforestation and forest degradation 8 June 2011, Bonn
Minang, P.A.; Bernard, F.; van Noordwijk, M.; Kahurani, E. 2011. Agroforestry in REDD+: Opportunities and Challenges. ASB Policy
Brief No. 26, ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, Nairobi, Kenya
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
Maria C. J. Cruz Management options for biodiversity protection and population. The World Bank

8. Thank You
Sara Namirembe
(s.namirembe@cgiar.org)
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE