This document discusses the management effectiveness of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (BINP) in Uganda. It provides background on BINP, including its establishment in 1991 and purpose of conserving high biodiversity value. Management effectiveness indicators show increasing tourist numbers but regulated activities, reduced illegal activities, and contained encroachment. However, challenges include incompatible land use, increasing human population pressure, potential mining, and weak integration of park and district plans. Strategies to address issues focus on effective revenue sharing, strengthening wildlife laws, alternative livelihoods, and community engagement.

1. BWINDI MANAGEMENT
EFFECTIVENESS
John Justice Tibesigwa
SWIC SS (BINP)
20/01/2015

2. Presentation outline
• Background about BINP
• Management effectiveness
• Management effectiveness indicators
• Challenges for conservation of BINP
• Strategies

3. Introduction/background
• BINP was gazetted in 1991 following various
protection statuses
• Size 321 sq km
• Purpose of gazettement: Conservation of
ecological resources of high BD value,
• Enlisted as a world Heritage site in 1994

4. Management effectiveness
• Degree to which the site/area is protecting its values
and achieving its purpose (goals and objectives)
• Tracking biological diversity in an area using species
census data provides one potential avenue for
measuring conservation success
• PA management effectiveness should aim at BD
conservation, hence should address two primary
outcome measures, namely: threat status and
ecological integrity.

5. Management effectiveness cont’dContext: where
are we (status
& threats)?
Planning: Where
do we want to be,
how will we get
there?
What do we
need
(Inputs)
How do we
go about it
(Process)?
Outputs
(Products
and
services)
Outcome/
Achievements?
Evaluation

6. Management purpose for BINP
“To conserve BINP for its exceptional
biodiversity, such as the critically endangered
Mountain Gorilla and other endemic species and
its fragile ecosystem, that is also an important
water catchment area among other ecosystem
services, for the benefit of the local, national and
the global community”

7. BINP Management effectiveness
indicators
 Tourists’ numbers rising
but regulated for activities:
• Gorilla tracking
• Birding
• Nature walks
• Butter fly viewing
 Reduced illegal activities
 Encroachment contained
 Invasive spp contained
 Infrastructural
developments well
planned and/or minised

8. • Research (ITFC and other independent
researchers)
• Monitoring key threats and activities affecting
BINP and using the data and results to develop
more appropriate interventions:
• Weather data
• Illegal activities
• Climate change

10. • Strategic relationship with
stakeholders/partners and
consideration of their level of
participation in the
management of the BINP:
11 Boundary management
agreements
9 Multiple Use agreements
1 Batwa Forest Experience
(BFE) MoU
Planning

11.  Revenue Sharing
 Information sharing
 Winning of awards eg: Certificate of
excellence by Trip Adviser 2014, 2013 and
2012
 HWC management:
• Live fencing, HUGO, buffer zone, Tea as a buffer
crop, 2 tripartite agreements, scare shooting

12. • Increasing WL population (of Mt Gorillas)
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
1997 2002 2006 2011
Gorilla population

13. Challenges
 Incompatible land use practices around
the park e.g. growing of palatable crops
along park boundary
 Increasing human population around the
Park
 Pressure for mining ( wolfram, gold, iron
ore)
 Weak integration between District
development plans and Park Management
Plan

14. Major management issues
Unclear boundary (Lack of demarcation in Mbwa
tract)
Gorilla ranging outside the park, a recipe for
disease transmission (Nkuringo, Buhoma.
Weak wildlife laws
Changing home range of the habituated Gorilla
groups inside the park

15. Major management issues
Inadequate monitoring of the impacts of tourism
on PA resources
Inadequate interventions to deal with PAM
Lack of technical staff at District, S/County and
lower local government levels to handle PAM
Revenue sharing not adequately benefiting
people affected by the PA

16. Major management issues
 Poor access roads (inaccessible roads)
 Over reliance on Gorilla tourism
 Uncontrolled developments around tourism sites. Nkwenda,
Ruhija, Rushaga
 Low visitation during the low tourism season
• Pressure for park resources (also pressure to habituate more
Gorillas for tourism)
• Mismanagement of the Gorilla levy and Revenue sharing
projects

17. Poaching
High stakeholder expectations
Increasing pressure to
habituate more Gorillas for
tourism
Mismanagement of the Gorilla
levy and Revenue sharing
projects

18. Possible strategies
• Effective implementation of the revenue sharing
programme to increase household incomes among the
PA adjacent community
• Amendment of the WL law to provide for deterrent
penalties/sentences
• Provision of alternative livelihoods
• Deliberate interventions geared towards improving the
livelihoods and services to park-edge community

19. Remedies cont’d
• Continued community sensitization and regular
stakeholder engagement
• Continue to work with stakeholders to improve
capacity of local people to tap into tourism
opportunities
• Strengthen and continue to build the capacity of
the intelligence unit of UWA