report_resource based conflicts and hr violations in protected areas

Human Rights Network-Uganda

RESOURCE BASED CONFLICTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN UGANDA

A case Study of Selected Protected Areas

August 2010

With support from DIAKONIA-SWEDEN

Rapid Assessment Report


Rapid Assessment Report 78

Human Rights Network-UgandaPlot 94, Old Kiira Road, Ntinda(Near Ministers Village)P.O. BOX 21265 Kampala -UgandaTel:+ 256-414-286923, + 256-414-285362Fax:+ 256-414-286881E~ mail:[email protected]/[email protected]:www.hurinet.or.ug

With support from:


Rapid Assessment Report B



Lead ResearchersMagelah Peter GwayakaByaruhanga Andrew BahemukaEditorNdifuna Mohammed Associate EditorsTumwine PatrickDr. W. Mande




Rapid Assessment Reporti

A case Study of Selected Protected Areas

August 2010Rapid Assessment Report



Rapid Assessment Report ii

Acknowledgement

Undertaking this rapid assessment has not been an easy task; it has been a result of combined efforts and assistance from a number of individuals and institutions. The assessment team expresses its sincere gratitude to all for the support and encouragement.

Special thanks go to all the key informants and focus group discussants whose participation enabled the team to assess the different human rights and conflict issues to come up with this report. Your experience and expertise has made this assessment possible.

Sincere thanks go to the researchers Byaruhanga Andrew Bahemuka and Magelah Peter Gwayaka who traversed the country side to undertake field interviews and Farouk Sserunjjoji who drove the team. The assessment team acknowledges the positive advice and support from time to time during the course of the assessment exercise provided by Mr. Ndifuna Mohammed the CEO, HURINET-U as well as Mr. Patrick Tumwine the Advocacy Officer.

Special thanks go to Diakonia –Sweden that provided the financial support without which it would have been difficult to undertake this assessment. We treasure them a great deal and may the Almighty God add them more resources to support such initiatives in Uganda.


Rapid Assessment Report ii


Rapid Assessment Reportiii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement...................................................................................................... iiAcronyms.................................................................................................................... 1Executive summary...................................................................................................... 2General objective........................................................................................................ 3Specific objectives of the rapid assessment................................................................. 3Summary of key findings............................................................................................. 4Summary of key recommendations............................................................................. 4

CHAPTER 1............................................................................................................... 6Introduction................................................................................................................. 61.1 Background...................................................................................................... 61.2 Historical Perspective of Protected Areas in Uganda.................................... 61.3 Wildlife Resources: Status and Threats.......................................................... 71.4 Objectives of the Rapid Assessment............................................................... 81.5 Methodology.................................................................................................... 81.6 Study Area and Population.............................................................................. 91.7 Limitations of the study................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 2............................................................................................................... 12National and International Legal and Policy Frameworks Governing Conservation and Human Rights...................................................................................................... 122.1 International human rights instruments and environmental protection....... 122.2 National legal and policy framework for environmental protection and

human rights conservation............................................................................. 142.2.1 The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995........................................ 142.2.2 Other national laws dealing with natural resource protection...................... 16

CHAPTER 3............................................................................................................... 20

Resource Based Conflicts and Human Rights Violations in Protected areas............ 203.1 The nature of resource based conflicts and human rights violations in PAs. 203.2 Torture, Illegal detention and use of excessive force..................................... 203.3 Violation of the right to life............................................................................ 223.4 Destruction of property................................................................................... 223.5 Poachers, loggers, pastoralists and other encroachers................................... 233.6 Corruption and park encroachment.......................................................... 243.7 Mob justice............................................................................................. 25


Rapid Assessment Report iv

CHAPTER 4............................................................................................................... 27

Interventions to mitigate conflicts and human rights violations in protected areas 274.1 Collaborative Management of PAs by UWA................................................. 274.2 Revenue Sharing from Gate Collections........................................................ 294.3 Compensation for Destroyed Property and Life............................................ 304.4 Grievance Handling Mechanisms through Community PAs........................ 314.5 Resettlement of communities affected by expansion of PAs.......................... 324.5.1 The Basongora Pastoralists in QENP National Park..................................... 324.5.2 The Mountain Sabiny in MENP..................................................................... 374.6 Civil Society Interventions in Mitigating Resource Based Conflicts and

Human Rights Violations............................................................................... 404.7 Gaps in the Management of Resource Based Conflicts and Human Rights

Violations........................................................................................................ 415.0 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................... 42APPENDICES............................................................................................................. 44Appendix I;................................................................................................................. 44Appendix II;The History Basongora Pastoralists in QENP National Park................ 46Appendix III;Brief History of the Mountain Sabiny in MENP.................................. 50Appendix IV; Cabinet memo on the settlement of Basongora.................................. 52Appendix V; GTT report of 28th Sept. 2007............................................................. 56Appendix VI;GTT report of 15th Oct 2007............................................................... 67References.................................................................................................................... 76

List of Tables

Table 1; Sampled study areas by region......................................................... 9

Table 2; Summary of selected respondents.................................................... 9


Rapid Assessment Report iv


Rapid Assessment Report1

ACPHR; African Chatter on Peoples’ and Human RightsCBOs; Community Based OrganizationsCPI; Protected Area InstitutionCSO; Civil Society OrganizationDRC; Democratic Republic of CongoEIA; Environmental Impact AssessmentFGDs; Focus Group DiscussionGoU; Government of UgandaGR; Game ReserveGTT; Government Technical TeamHRBAP; Human Rights Based Approach to ProgrammingHURINET-U; Human Rights Network UgandaIMC; Inter-Ministerial CommitteeKWR; Kabwoya Wildlife ReserveLCs; Local CouncilsLGA; Local Government ActMDGs; Millennium Development GoalsMENP; Mount Elgon National ParkMFNP; Murchison Falls National Park NAADS; National Agriculture Advisory ServicesNEMA; National Environment Management Authority NFA; National Forest AuthorityNGOs; Non Governmental Organizations PA; Protected AreasQENP; Queen Elizabeth National Park RDC; Resident District CommissionerRS; Revenue SharingUWA; Uganda Wildlife AuthorityVAT; Value Added Tax

Acronyms



Executive Summary

PAs are a sanctuary of tranquillity and peace, yet they are also places where conflicts occur. In a world where bio-physical environment and socio-cultural systems are changing rapidly, conflicts involving PAs are inevitable.

Important to note is that conflicts may be constructive or destructive. Constructive conflicts can represent the productive interaction of competing interests and values, an-ever present function in a dynamic society. Conflicts that are well managed can be opportunities for problems to be identified and solved, and progress achieved. However, in recent times many natural resource based conflicts and human rights violations exemplify destructive conflict. These have been counterproductive and destructive; leading to detrimental results and hostile relationships as evidenced in many field missions1 carried out by HURINET-U in selected Protected Areas. Many of the conflicts have resulted into grave irreparable human rights violations and the potential for persistent human rights violations continue to exist in most PAs in Uganda.

Such violations involve the right to life, torture, health, adequate standard of living, property, women rights, education, child rights and denial of access to justice among others2. HURINET-U recognises that, whereas, PAs in Uganda have had the most volatile resource based human rights violations in the recent past, human rights violations are wide spread in other sectors that are involved in natural resource management such as the forestry and wetlands that this assessment did not intend to cover. Reports of recent forced evictions of communities from PAs are numerous including, the forceful evictions of the Basongora community from QENP in 2009, the forceful eviction of people from Mpokya Game Reserve in Kabarole in 1997 and the eviction of Batwa Community from Mgahinga Impenetrable Forest among others. The conflict in these areas has threatened the rights of both the community and the wildlife rangers equally with both groups suffering violations.

On the other hand encroachment of PAs by members of the community threatens an important right for a broader community i.e. the right to a clean and health environment. For this reason a balance between human rights protection and conservation is important in ensuring conservation for the future while promoting the rights of individuals in PAs today.

Since the last documentation of the human rights violations in some of the PAs by HURINET-U in 2009, a lot has since changed both in terms of the physical, social and political conditions. The natural calamities/landslides in Bududa on the slopes of Mt. Elgon killed many and displaced thousands of people. Whereas government reaction has been to resettle the affected communities of Mt. Elgon, some members of these communities still believe this is a “government ploy” to take away the land

1For example see HURINET-U (2009) “A Cry from the Ranges” Kampala Uganda. (A film documentary on human rights violations in Mt. Elgon National Park in 2009).

2HURINET-U (2009) “A cry from the ranges” ibid





they have been conflicting over. Sustained community awareness compaigns need to be designed to senstize the masses of the dangers of living in fragile environments to avoid such calamities in future.

Pronouncements by politicians and other leaders on the settlement and resettlement of members of the communities in PAs have also negatively contributed to the conflict in these areas. Other factors such as lack of human rights based approach and conflict mitigation as well as failure to provide alternative lifestyles greatly contributes to the conflicts.

HURINET-U undertook a rapid assessment to ascertain the extent of natural resource based conflicts and human rights violations and draw lessons from the different stakeholders on the best suited approaches to mitigate and resolve resource based conflicts and human rights violations.

HURINET-U plans to design both short-term and long-term interventions involving front-line communities and duty bearers based on the rapid assessment findings.

General objective

Specific objectives of the rapid assessment

The rapid assessment aimed at Scaling-Up CSO’s Interventions in Mitigating Natural Resource Based Conflicts and Human Rights Violations in PAs and drawing lessons from the different stakeholders on the best suited approaches to mitigating the conflicts and human rights violations.

This assessment set out to; i. Establish reliable data for CSO, government and other stakeholder’s short and long term

interventions in natural resource based conflicts and human rights violations in Ugandaii. Assess the nature and the level of human rights violations, highlighting the different

violations and potential for human rights violations in PAs in Uganda and designing early warning strategies in PAs in Uganda.

iii. Assess the impact of the different intervention strategies adopted by different stakeholders and thereby highlighting the best practices and recommending practical solutions to the problems faced in management of resource based conflicts and human rights violations in Uganda.

The rapid assessment survey expects to draw lessons from the findings of this survey to be able to involve stakeholders and duty bearers to ensure they are able to design rights based approaches to programming that will promote human rights and resolve the emerging conflicts in frontline communities living in and around PAs. This will not only help stakeholders to have a self assessment of their interventions, but also help them design lasting solutions to the existing conflicts and human rights violations.



Summary of key findings

In all areas visited, there exists ‘bad blood’ between frontline communities and the Wildlife rangers. Wildlife rangers lack basic policing and human rights skills, and this sometimes manifests itself in the use of excessive force and violation of human rights. The communities in response carry out revenge attacks following such violations further complicating the conservation efforts of PAs.

There is less value attached to PAs by frontline communities. Community perceptions are shaped by the effects of problem animals especially elephants and meagre share of the revenue from gate collections. Without tangible projects being implemented in the communities, people view PAs as ‘wastelands’ which should be settled in.

The ongoing oil exploration activities are reportedly contributing to the already fragile situation causing displacement of some problem animals like elephants that end up straying onto private land causing destruction. Since there are no compensation mechanisms, people whose property is destroyed by problem animals, they do not value PA’s.

Some communities have challenged their eviction in courts of law and courts have granted temporary injunctions (esp. in MENP) however delay in court process has contributed to violation of the injunction and subsequent confrontation between members of the communities and management of PAs.

Some best practices such as resource sharing user agreements for communities to access particular resources in the PA’s were found to be effective in cubing some of the conflicts. However these have not been adopted across the board and differ across PAs and communities.

In some areas there are efforts to control problem animals such as digging trenches, however these are temporary and need community maintenance. The trenches are not effective deny some communities access to resource in the park (for example pastoral communities may not welcome trenches since they may limit their cows from accessing pasture in the park).

Summary of key recommendations 1. Local Governments and CSOs should set up local and regional task forces that could

meet frequently to share information and sort out actual issues to avoid conflict and misunderstandings between duty bearers and claim holders living around Protected Areas. Such structures are not in place, even if some meetings have been held now and then between local stakeholders and Uganda Wildlife Authority and the oil companies operating in the Albertine rift.

2. Local governments in the Albertine Graben in collaboration with Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries need to register all the cattle keepers living within the Albertine Rift especially in the Kaiso-Tonya Wildlife Conservation Area since the inflow of cattle in this fragile environment already presents signs of overgrazing and a likelihood of conflicts over water sources and pasture. The government needs to design programmes that should aim at restricted movement of cattle as well as promote modern farming techniques where people are encouraged to focus on quality as opposed to quantity as is the case today.





3. UWA and the central government should emphasize resource sharing through user agreements for frontline communities to access some resources from PAs like water for animals, vegetables, firewood and medicinal plants. UWA need to come up with a uniform policy for all PAs to benefit all communities living around PAs uniformly.

4. UWA should expedite the revision of the Revenue Sharing Guidelines to ensure equity and accountability on the use of 20% revenue sharing. The guidelines should be revised to ensure more involvement of community members in deciding the projects to be implemented. Opposed to the current practice of disbursing funds through the local government structures well known for their bureaucratic tendencies and lengthy as well as corrupt tendering systems, a mechanism should be devised through a new policy to disburse the funds straight to the beneficiaries through the CPIs. We propose the revitalization of CPIs in all PAs that will act as an umbilical cord between UWA and the larger frontline communities in the execution of an oversight role and ownership of the community projects.

5. Parliament should review conservation related laws and policies to ensure that all sectors that are involved in natural resource management deliver as one. There is also need to revise the conservation related laws to ensure there is a clear compensation mechanism to victims who suffer as a result of problem animals whenever they stray in the communities leading to destruction of people’s lives and property.

6. Government, UWA, and CSOs should train Wildlife ranger, key local government staff, and all security agencies (duty bearers) as well as frontline communities (claim holders) on the rights based approach to programming to ensure there is respect of people’s rights in pursuit of conservation goals in Protected Area. Skills like alternative dispute resolution and mediation should also be incorporated in Wildlife ranger training curricula. Through her Community Conservation, UWA should carry out community dialogues on the values of PAs which is a big gap currently. The initiative, if well implemented is likely to enhance community conservation efforts, collaborative management as well as reduce on incidences of mob justice that appear to be the norm in most of the PAs whenever misunderstandings occur.

7. Government should expedite the resettlement process of the different communities like the Basongora, the Yatui-Ndorobo, Yatui-Kapsekek, and the Benet-Yatui in QENP and MENP respectively as any delay leads to further challenges as a result of population pressure. The land demarcation and distribution exercise in QENP was done hurriedly and so not completed. The Yatui-Ndorobo in Kapchorwa, Yatui-Kapsekek in Bukwo, as well as Benet-Yatui in Kween District still wait for permanent resettlement yet their numbers keep souring as young ones mature from childhood to adulthood each other passing day also adding on the number of those demanding for resettlement.

8. UWA, the Attorney General and the communities should work towards resolving the court cases through amicable means as the court process is likely not to officer a lasting solution. The party that loses may need to relay on the other for resettlement and environmental conservation of the PA’s and hence the need for an out of court settlement.



CHAPTER1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Historical Perspective of Protected Areas in Uganda

Uganda is a country of exceptional diversity, encompassing a zone of overlap between the savannahs of East African rain forests. Often referred to as the Pearl of Africa, Uganda is endowed with a vast array of landscapes of incredible aesthetic beauty and varied habitants that support a range of plant and animal species. The country ranks among the top ten countries in the world in terms of animal and plant diversity, and especially, diversity of mammalian species. Uganda has more than 11% of the world’s species of birds and half of the remaining mountain gorillas. There are thirty antelope, nineteen species of primates, and more than five thousand species of plants3 . Uganda’s Protected Areas that comprise approximately 8% of Uganda’s total land area4 are mainly in form of national parks, national forests and sensitive ecological places which are protected and managed by government. Protection of these areas dates back to the colonial times where some areas were gazetted as government reserves. During this period, the protection of species was based on evidence of declining populations, leading to, among other things, the gazetting of Wildlife Protected Areas. The first were Animal Sanctuaries and Controlled Hunting Areas, which were established to protect specific wildlife species, rather than the actual habitat those species needed for their continued existence. Later, when the effects of threats to wildlife habitats on the conservation of species became discernible, Game Reserves were established, followed by the gazettement of the country’s first National Park in 1952.

From that time, through the end of 1960s, a number of additional Wildlife Protected and Management Areas were gazetted to help conserve the country’s wildlife and forested areas, and to encourage the sustainable utilization of its natural resources. Presently, there are ten National Parks, ten Wildlife Reserves, six Wildlife Sanctuaries and thirteen Controlled Hunting Areas.

At the time of gazettement most of the areas were inhibited though some pockets of the population lived in these areas.5 The colonial government at the time did not evict the communities in those parks and some scholars have argued that the colonial governments ignored the communities leaving in protected areas since they were remote and lived in remote areas; this was later to turn into a challenge for conservation in future6.

3UGReport,20084Green, 1995, p.2, quoted in Halme and Infield, 2001, p.106; Barrow et al., 2001, p.59. For example the Basongora, Batwa, Mbuti, Benet, Karimojong lived in the different park areas by the time these areas were

gazzeted as national parks. See Simon Nampindo, Andrew Plumptre (2005) a socio-economic assessment of community livelihoods in areas adjacent

to corridors linking Queen Elizabeth National Park to other protected areas in western Uganda. Available at http://www.jgiuganda.org/pdf/Conserving_Corridors_Around_QENP.pdf accessed on Monday, November 22, 2010, also see Risby, L. 1999. Administrative History: An overview of the history of Queen Elizabeth National Park. Or Kamuhangire Ephraim (2007) Pastoralists’ plight goes beyond the Basongora. New vision newspaper Thursday, 14th June, 2007 available at http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/459/570585 accessed on Monday, November 22, 2010





Human Settlement at L.Katwe Queen Elizabeth National Park

The colonial legacy has created a protectionist perception in which resource users are problem makers. This perception guided the establishment of Protected Areas where resource uses were restricted. The mistakes made at the time of gazetting national parks and the failure to improve on protected area management policies are partly responsible for the present conflicts and human rights violations in the different Protected Areas in Uganda today. On another front, the subsequent governments did little to undo the wrongs done by the colonial government7. In some cases the policies adopted by the governments after independence compounded the problem and hence its persistency. Little was done by the subsequent governments to change the status quo nor were there attempts to resettle populations found in PAs. This has continued and today the populations have expanded hence bringing challenges to the management of PAs.

1.3 Wildlife Resources: Status and Threats

Uganda’s long history of civil strife in early 1970 and 1980s, led to many of the country’s Protected Areas becoming encroached upon, and their habitats altered and degraded. Wildlife populations severely reduced, many to virtual extinction. However, by the mid-1980’s, Government, in recognition of the seriousness of the problem, begun to actively promote the conservation of the country’s wildlife and the environment. This is reflected by the number of conservation and habitat restoration projects initiated during that period, and the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1993, and subsequent adoption of the National Environment Action Plan (NEAP) in 1994.

However, despite the national and global importance attached to the country’s wildlife resources, and the renewed Government efforts to improve their management, there remain a number of serious challenges. Social issues such as population pressure and poverty have led to land use conflicts, poaching, and encroachment into Protected Areas. These issues, along with lack of public awareness and inadequate financial support, constitute major threats to the long term conservation and sustainable management of the country’s biological resources.

7Simon Nampindo, Andrew Plumptre (2005) ibid; also Kamuhangire Ephraim (2007) ibid



It is worth noting that the levels of conflict and human rights violations in the different PAs differ from Protected Area to another and from one community to another. Also the nature of interventions by the government agencies and CSOs has differed across different PAs and communities. These interventions provide an important lesson for future intervention aimed at resolving the conflicts and human rights violations. It is against this background that HURINET-U commissioned this rapid assessment to bring to the fore the plight of communities living in PAs and to learn from the different interventions in the country.

This assessment report is a product of the data collected and analyzed from different respondents who included UWA officials, representatives of CSOs, Government Officials, and members from front line communities in five Protected Areas visited.

1.4 Objectives of the Rapid Assessment The assessment set out to achieve the following;i. To establish reliable data for CSO, government and other stakeholder’s short and long

term interventions in natural resource based conflicts and human rights violations in Uganda;

ii. To assess the nature and the level of human rights violations, highlighting the different violations and potential for human rights violations in Protected Areas in Uganda and designing early warning strategies in Protected Areas in Uganda;

iii. To assess the impact of the different intervention strategies adopted by different stakeholders and thereby highlighting the best practices and recommending practical solutions to the problems faced in management of resource based conflicts and human rights violations in Uganda.

However, the existing conflicts and the resultant human rights violations between those in charge of managing PAs and the surrounding communities are a threat to their existence. Over the years, conflicts in PAs have resulted into untold suffering and human rights violations by both duty bearers such as wildlife rangers, police, and UPDF and claim holders such as members of a community. Both have suffered untold human rights violations though the extent of the damage may differ.

1.5 Methodology Selection of the study area The study was conducted in five Protected Areas. A stratified random sampling was used to select the study area with the different regions taken as strata for selection. A simple random method was then used to select particular PAs where the study was to be conducted.





Table 1; Sampled study areas by region

Table 2: Summary of selected respondents

Region Protected Area District Northern MFNP Amuru, Nwoya, Nebbi, Masindi8.Western QENP Kasese, RubiriziEastern MENP Kapchorwa, Manafwa, Bududa,

Mbale, BukwoMid Western Kaiso-Tonya Community Wildlife

ReserveKabwoya Wildlife Reserve

Buliisa, Hoima, Kwen

Below are the areas visited;

The different PAs visited had unique issues of human rights and conservation and provide important lessons for promotion of human rights and protection of the environment.. the areas have had different interventions which provide important lessons for betterment of human rights promotion while conserving the environment.

The survey mainly based on qualitative methods of data collection with a few quantitative methods applied mainly for review of existing information.

1.6 Study Area and PopulationThe assessment was conducted in MENP, Kaiso-Tonya Community Conservation Area, Kabwoya Game Reserve, QENP and Murchison Falls National Park. The population was divided into two distinct categories in each Protected Area comprising of both duty bearers and claim holders. The survey employed unstructured interviews which were used on selected key informants mainly RDCs, Wildlife ranger, LCs, CSOs, Elders and opinion leaders. These were interviewed from their places of convenience within the communities or offices where they work. The selected respondents are summarized in the table below.

8For purposes of this research Masindi district was categorized under Northern Uganda

Category of respondents Expected No. of respondents

Actual number targeted

RDCs 5 3LC Vs 5 1UWA Staff 15 10LC I 20 16Uganda Police Force 20 18Members of CSOs 15 12District Staff 10 8Direct victims 45 51Community members 30 35Total 165 154



From table 1 above, it can be deduced that the study was carried over a cross section of respondents representing different duty bearers and stakeholders involved in human rights protection and nature conservation.

Focused Group Discussions (FGDs) were also held with members of the affected communities in all the Protected Areas visited. FDGs were structured based mainly on 3 categories of Men, Women and Youths. These were separated in order to ease discussions and to enable the gathering of different views. Clarification meetings and updates were held with local leaders especially Wildlife ranger on the ground, RDCs and LCs. The above methods were supplemented by observation and evidence searching carried out by the research team in cases of destruction and human rights abuses that could easily be identified and documented. The interviews were complemented by visits to scenes of crime.

An FGD at Ibuga Health Centre, Kasese District (21st July 2010) Photo: Faroukh

Quality control The assessment covered both factual and perceptional issues in relation with natural resource protection and promotion of human rights. Capturing factual and perceptional issues was important for the assessment mainly because perceptions shape the nature of conflicts and they are important in reducing or increasing conflicts in the community. For this, in order to ensure reliability and quality of data, collected data underwent several checks and verifications. Data from interviews was first verified through crosschecking with FGDs within the communities where the interviews were held. Key issues were also discussed with government officials (local and central government) and UWA staff in those areas. This ensured consistency and reliability of the data collected.

A validation meeting with selected stakeholders was carried out on the October 12, 2010 after a draft report was made. The validation exercise attracted key stakeholders involved in conservation and human rights protection in the areas visited (see appendix II for list of participants during the validation meeting). However it is important to note that despite our communication to the UWA for their input in validation of the report, no UWA representative was present to validate the draft report (see appendix 1 for correspondences with UWA). Two meetings were held with UWA official after the validation meeting before the final report was published.





1.7 Limitations of the studyInherently qualitative research techniques have some limitations in being able to test the depth of relationships between different variables in research or their interrelationship. It is therefore important to acknowledge some of the limitations that had a potential of affecting the survey results. These include;

There was a possibility of recall error since in some areas the survey was carried out more than a year after the conflicts/violation of human rights. The research team however avoided such errors by seeking evidence on violations and through review of other sources of data and review meetings conducted with local leaders after every field visit.

At the time of the survey in Mt. Elgon National Park, there was a confrontation between UWA rangers and members of the community which left one member of the community dead in Manafwa district, another woman in Bududa was injured and one game ranger injured. It is not clear whether such fresh confrontations influenced the answers respondents gave. This was avoided by expanding the scope of people being interviewed to include those in neighbouring districts which have had relative peace.

Related to the above, is the fact that the survey was carried out at the time of political campaigns in preparation for party primaries and national elections. This could have affected the responses from mainly local leaders and members of the community hoping for political posts in the forth-coming elections. This was avoided by double checking the answers given with other leaders and with existing legal and policy frameworks.



CHAPTER2

National and International Legal and Policy Frameworks Governing Conservation and Human Rights

2.0 Introduction

2.1 International human rights instruments and environmental protection

Uganda is a signatory to various human rights instruments like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights that oblige it to protect human rights and put in place measures to ensure those whose rights are abused are able to seek justice and redress. It is also important that whereas environmental protection was not seen as a human right by the time of ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, the right to a clean and healthy environment has progressively become an important right that goes to the core of human rights. It is thus, important to recognize that human rights and environmental protection are interdependent elements that go to the core of human rights protection. Environmental degradation has an adverse effect on the quality of life, the enjoyment of life, the guaranteed fundamental human rights and ultimately the achievement of sustainable development9. A review of the different national and international legal and policy frameworks reveal that human rights and environmental protection go hand in hand and Uganda is obliged to protect human rights as it conserves the environment.

As noted earlier the right to environment was not considered a major human right at the time of passing of the UDHR (1948). However, the UDHR has important provisions for human rights and environmental protection. Article 25(1) for example provides everyone with a right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. The UDHR also provides for the right to work, right to health as seen in articles 22 and 27.

The provisions in UDHR are repeated in the ESCR Convention10 to give them a force of law. Article 1 of ESCR provides that “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. All peoples may ... freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources....”

9 Oluwatoyin Adejonwo-osho (undated) the evolution of human rights approaches to environmental protection in Nigeria. Available at http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iucnael.org%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_docman%26task%3Ddoc_download%26gid%3D70%26lang%3Den&ei=bR-sTKDAO4yOjAfWw7zYBw&usg=AFQjCNF9ptIkNdKRqQW7czhLDc5qqo_LvQ. Accessed on Wednesday, October 06, 2010

10 Adopted by the General Assembly in 1966 and Uganda ratified the ESCR on 21st Jan 1987





Other important provisions on the ESCR include article 6 (right to work), article 7 (right to favourable conditions of work), article 12 (highest attainable standard of physical and mental health), article 13 (right to education) among other rights.The right to a clean and health environment which includes a duty by the State and the community to conserve and protect the environment is also realized and protected under Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: which provides that “All peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development”.

Also important is to recognize that there are important international declarations which affect the enjoyment of human rights and protection of the environment. These include;

1. Stockholm Declaration (1972)-Principle 1: provides that ‘Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations’

2. The Hague Declaration on the Environment(1989)-provides that States should work towards promotion of ‘the right to live in dignity in a viable global environment’

3. The Bizkaia Declaration (1999) (UNESCO)-provides that ‘everyone has the right, individually or in association with others, to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment’

4. The Vienna Declaration on Human Rights (1993)-provides that ‘the right to development should be fulfilled so as to meet equitably the developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations’

Generally the above international and regional human rights instruments point to the fact that environmental conservation and human rights protection is part and partial of development.

UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment has argued that ‘standard of living’ necessitates a healthy environment and therefore the right to a healthy environment is a part of international customary law. To this effect the State is under obligation to protect the human rights, to highest attainable standard of living and this includes putting in place measures to conserve the environment.

The government of Uganda has put in place various legal, policy and institutional guarantees that would ensure this right and other rights are protected. Among the measures is the gazzetment of sensitive areas as protected areas including forests, mountains, and wetlands among others. Protection of national parks is part of the government efforts to enforce and recognize this right.

The conservation of environment is not only for the benefit of frontline communities who may have direct benefit, however conservation of ecosystems benefits the region as a whole who derives befits ranging from safe water, balanced climate, to research and education from such places. From this it can therefore be said that encroachment on PAs has a direct impact on denying other persons from enjoying their rights. The challenge however is the denial of land for cultivation and access to PA resources may also lead to violation of right to livelihood for members of the community in the surrounding areas. For this reason there is a need to balance environmental conservation with promotion of human rights.



Similarly environmental protection should not be used to violate rights of communities living in those areas. This calls for development through programmes and projects that are responsive to human rights protection and environmental conservation. It is for this reason that States are increasingly applying the human rights based approach to programming as a guiding agenda for their development programmes.

2.2 National legal and policy framework for environmental protection and human rights conservation

2.2.1 The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995

The constitution of the republic of Uganda is the main law that provides for human rights and environmental protection. Chapter 4 of the constitution includes both civil, political rights as well as economic social rights. These rights are interdependent and interrelated. Article 20 of the constitution is to the effect that fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual are inherent and not granted by the State and that the rights and freedoms of the individual and groups enshrined in this constitution shall be respected, upheld and promoted by all organs and agencies of Government and by all persons.

By this article the State and all State organs as well as individuals in Uganda have a duty to respect and promote human rights. The Constitution also gives the State a responsibility to protect important natural resources, including land, water, minerals, wetlands, oil, fauna and flora on behalf of the people of Uganda.”11 This together with the environment objective, enjoin the State to ensure that the utilization of Uganda’s natural resources are managed in such a way as to meet the development and environmental needs of present and future generations of Ugandans.

The above provisions give the State and state agencies a duty to promote human rights while at the same time conserving the environment. Under article 237(2) of the Constitution, inter alia, vests national parks and game reserves in the people of Uganda and the State holds them in trust for the people of Uganda. It is on the basis of this article that the Uganda Wildlife Authority was created (under the UWA Act Cap 200) to protect, conserve and sustainably manage wildlife and Protected Areas of Uganda, in collaboration with the communities.

Article 39 of the Constitution provides for a right to a clean and healthy environment. This right has been interpreted to be a basic right for all Ugandans and a right on which the basics that support life can be enjoyed. It is through the enjoyment of this right that rights such as the right to health, right to life, education, and protection from cruel, torture and inhuman treatment can be enjoyed12. From the different court and academic analyses of this article, it is a duty of government as well as individuals to ensure there is a clean and healthy environment in order for others to be able to enjoy other rights.

11National objective and directive of State policy XIII12See Salvatore Abuki ibid, TEAN Vs NEMA and AG of Uganda





However in enforcement of the above articles and mandate, various human rights have been violated or are at stake of being violated, among them the right to own property, right to life, health living, fair hearing, freedom from torture among others.

For example, the assessment established reports of persons arrested and detained in Protected Areas for more than 48 hours in ungazetted detention centres which are in direct violation of article 23 of the Uganda Constitution. These are cases of suspects being beaten and excessive use of force which amounts to torture and this contradicts article 23 and 22. There were also unconfirmed reports of rape, forceful removal of clothes for suspected illegal entrants into the Protected Areas, forcing suspects to “play” with their genitals in the ground.5 All these incidents if true, could amount to torture.

Article 26 provides that every person has a right to own property either individually or in association with others and no person shall be compulsorily deprived of property or any interest in or right over property of any description except where the following conditions are satisfied—(a) the taking of possession or acquisition is necessary for public use or in the interest of

defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; and(b) the compulsory taking of possession or acquisition of property is made under a law which

makes provision for—(i) prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation, prior to the taking of possession or

acquisition of the property; and(ii) A right of access to a court of law by any person who has an interest or right over the

property.

13See “Cries from the Ranges” ibid14Though Mpokya GR was outside the study area, the assessment team encountered in as one of the worst evictions ever carried

out in Uganda of which the court has ruled in the favour of the evicted persons.

From the different Protected Areas visited, the assessment established that this is one of the major rights violated in PAs in Uganda. There are claims for compensation which have not been and this has been a basis of the conflict in MENP and QENP as well as Mpokya Game Reserve14. Proper compensation procedures were not taken into consideration, for example there was no compensation for those affected by the creation of PAs or their expansion. In many PAs, the aggrieved communities were left with no option other than to go to court to seek justice.

The right to culture as set out under article 37 is another right violated or at a risk of being violated in many Protected Areas. The High Court in Uganda ruled that by gazetting MENP, the right to culture of the indigenous Benet was violated through denying them access to their ancestral grounds such as traditional places of worship. The same can be said o the Batwa in Bwindi National Park, the Mbuti in Tooro-Semuliki Game Reserve, the Basongora in QENP, the Bamba and Bakonzo in Mt. Rwenzori National Park among other. The assessment team encountered reports of communities being denied access to important cultural sites. This can be illustrated by the fact that the headquarters of Obusinga bwa Rwenzururu (traditional kingdom of the Bakonzo and Bamba) are located in Mt.Rwenzori NP and there is restricted access to these grounds.On the other hand, the communities have violated the rights of others mainly to safe



environment, life, freedom from torture in revenge for the violations faced at the hands of wildlife rangers as seen in MENP where several rangers have lost their lives and others maimed.

2.2.2 Other national laws dealing with natural resource protection

a. The Wildlife Act Cap 200, This Act came into force on 1st August, 1996 and it aims at providing for sustainable management of wildlife and establishing a coordinating, monitoring and supervisory body for wildlife conservation in Uganda15. The purpose of the Act includes;(a) The conservation of wildlife throughout Uganda so that the abundance and diversity of

their species are maintained at optimum levels commensurate with other forms of land use, in order to support sustainable utilization of wildlife for the benefit of the people of Uganda;

(b) The sustainable management of wildlife conservation areas;(c) The conservation of selected examples of wildlife communities in Uganda;(d) The protection of rare, endangered and endemic species of wild plants and animals;(e) Ecologically acceptable control of problem animals;(f) The enhancement of economic and social benefits from wildlife management by establishing

wildlife use rights and the promoting of tourism;(g) The control of import, export and re-export of wildlife species and specimens;(h) The implementation of relevant international treaties, conventions, agreements or other

arrangement to which Uganda is a party; and(i) Public participation in wildlife management.

The Act establishes the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) as a body charged with management of national parks and overall implementation of the Act. UWA is charged with managing and protection of natural resources on behalf of the government of Uganda which holds the resources in trust for the people of Uganda.

15See Preamble/long title to the Act

The Act sets out procedures for declaration of wildlife conservation areas in Uganda and these include (S. 17); “The minister after consultation with the local government council in whose area a proposed wildlife conservation area falls and with the approval Parliament signified by its resolution, by statutory instrument can declare an area of land or water to be a wildlife conservation area”. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is expected to be carried out before such a declaration is done. Other procedures include compensation of persons who own property or may be affected by such a declaration in accordance with the constitution before the area is declared as conservation area. However as already noted earlier on, there are various conflicts and court cases challenging the declaration of some areas as PAs in Uganda either as having not followed the right procedure or due to lack of compensation of members of the affected community members.

The Act also provides for revenue sharing for the development and improvement of livelihoods of members of the community and also provides for offences and punishments for those who violate the Act or carry out illegal activities within the Protected Areas.





Generally from the human rights perspective, the Act lacks important provisions for compensation of members of the community who suffer loss mainly from problem animals and other factors that may result from neighbouring a conservation area.

b. The National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003)

c. The National Environment Act, Cap 153

2.3 Governance Policies on Service Delivery to Communities

a. The Decentralization Policy

This Act provides for the sustainable management of forestry resources, biodiversity conservation and community participation. The Act establishes a the National Forest Authority (NFA) which is charged with managing national forests and forest reserves which are PAs under the Act. The Act establishes a Tree Fund managed by the Minister, to implement tree planting programs in the country. Like the UWA Act, the NFA Act provides for gazetting of forest reserves, management of forests, offences and penalties for persons who violate the law relating to management of protected forests.

This Act provides for a general management of the environment in Uganda. It provides for sustainable management of the environment and establishes an Authority as a coordinating, monitoring and supervisory body for the purpose of environmental protection. The Act sets out the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) which is a body charged with overall matters of environmental management including EIA, licensing for some activities, regulating and inspection of activities that may have an effect on the environment. Generally, before a place is gazetted or degazetted as a natural forest or national park, an EIA supervised by NEMA has to be carried out to assess the impact of such activity on the environment and the community generally.

The Act gives NEMA the power make regulation for the management of sensitive ecosystems. However much of the regulations made have tended to focus on endangered ecosystems without necessarily looking at forests and national parks.

Much as the Act gives NEMA powers to oversee environmental protection, NEMA lacks the financial and personnel resources enough to regulate all issues environment in Uganda.

The survey found a great gap between law, law enforcement and human rights protection. Much as Uganda has the legal framework, much of the enforcement of the legal framework has left out key factors such as population increase, cultural believes and general lifestyles of the people hence resulting into conflicts between members of the community and those charged with enforcing the legal framework.

The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda provides for a decentralization system of governance in Uganda16. The Local Government Act17 provides for the enforcement of a decentralized system of government. The Decentralization Policy aims at improved service delivery through districts as local government and sub counties (lower local governments).

16Article 17617Cap 243



b. Service Delivery Level Actions

The LGA recognizes the complementary role played by NGOs in service provision as it enhances the capacity of LGs. It also encourages out-sourcing of the private sector to provide services on contract basis. The LGA also provides for appointment of one Councillor as Secretary for Environment and Production Affairs at all levels of Local Councils (from village to district level). These are charged with promoting issues of environmental conservation at each level. However a major challenge has been the lack of skills by counsellors to advocate for equitable environmental use and management.

“…. we used to complain to the district to put schools and hospitals in our area, but they would say it is a national park and they can’t do such. That we are illegally here that is why they left us out and yet at the time of gazetting this place our grand fathers were here and were never compensated…”

Member of the Benet in Kapsekek –Mt. Elgon National Park (9/July/2010)

Under the decentralized system of governance, the responsibility for provision of a number of services has been given to Local Governments (LGs) as specified in part 2 of the second schedule of the LGA. These include education, primary health care (with central government catering for referral hospitals and drug distribution to LGs), water, feeder roads, other duties include planning, surveying, land allocation (under the Land Act), development planning and community development. Basically, LGs has a duty to plan and improve the lives of people living in PAs though this is often not done. This is mainly due to the fact that LGs and Central Government have had negative attitude to these communities who are seen as rebellious and hence no plans are in place to develop these areas. Such isolation has increased the vulnerability of the communities living within and surrounding Protected Areas hence making them dependant on the Protected Area(s) for subsistence.

17Cap 243

According to the UWA Revenue Sharing Guidelines, 20% of the gate collections are channelled to frontline communities through the decentralized structures of governance surrounding the PAs. Under the decentralization policy, the resources are channelled through the local government structures to the communities. Decisions are made and implemented at district level including planning, tendering and monitoring of the implemented projects. Decentralization is also seen as a pathway for enhancing local democracy, promoting transparency, accountability, integrity and representation in the management of public affairs, this has not been the case when it comes to revenue sharing with frontline communities.

There is generally a failure by members of the frontline communities to link development plans to resources from PAs. This mainly comes from the lack of proper branding of the development projects got from PAs that has given local politicians a chance to claim ownership of the development projects at the expense of the PAs.





c. Culture and Social Mobilization for Service Delivery

Uganda’s National Development Plan (2010) as well as the Vision 2025 guide interventions that are aimed at achieving stable and harmonious co-existence within a socially, culturally and economically dynamic society. Key elements of this goal include recognition and enhancement of unity in diversity, national pride and dignity and respect for/and conservation of cultural heritage. All these elements are ingrained in the vision, mission and objectives of this Plan.

The National Culture Policy provides another important avenue in integrating culture and conservation by providing strategies to enhance the integration of culture into development. These strategies include; advocating for culture, ensuring capacity building, ensuring research and documentation, promoting collaboration with stakeholders and mobilizing resources for culture. These strategies are an integral part of the Social Development Sector Strategic Investment Plan (SDIP) whose mission is to create an enabling environment for social protection and social transformation of communities. The SDIP deals with matters related to inequality, exclusion, unemployment, inequity, adult illiteracy, vulnerability and non-realization of rights. It is curved out from the social sector, which encompasses services such as water and sanitation, health, housing, community empowerment and education.

In the Ugandan context, many of these services have attained independent sector status. However, a major gap was identified regarding the needs of persons disadvantaged by physical abilities, age, economic and social status as well as historical injustice. This gap constitutes the concept of social development concerns that have not been addressed by the creation and expansion of Protected Areas.

NGOs such as CARE International and The African PACT have been active in Murchison Falls National Park where they have been mobilizing communities to dig trenches as a control measure to elephants from straying into commmunity land. In collaboration with UWA, the two institutions have embarked on the process of digging trenches in Koc Goma sub-county as a stop measure to elephants that stray to peoples gardens.



CHAPTER3

Resource Based Conflicts and Human Rights Violations in Protected areas

3.1 The nature of resource based conflicts and human rights violations in PAs

3.2 Torture, Illegal detention and use of excessive force

While there were reports of resource based conflicts and human rights violations in all PAs visited, the survey established that MENP has the most complicated conflict and most bloody confrontation between wildlife rangers and the community members. The conflict in the area has resulted into deaths and grave human rights violations with wildlife rangers pitted against community members resulting into torture and deaths.

The survey established that the conflicts between members of the community and UWA normally begin with encroachment and attempts by wildlife rangers to apprehend those violating the law. Some members of the community and some wildlife rangers have been reported to use excessive force which results in grave human rights violations. The alleged violations range from arbitrary arrest and illegal detention, torture, miming and even death. Corruption, vermin and problem animals have also greatly contributed to the conflict.

In conserving the environment, UWA deploys rangers and in some cases UPDF to patrol the PAs to keep illegal encroachers and poachers out. The assessment found the infusion between UPDF and game rangers to be causing confusion as to who is responsible for the human rights violations. UWA officials on the other hand argued that UPDF officers attached to PAs were under the command of UWA. Despite this the assessment established that it is therefore difficult to apportion responsibility on who is responsible for the different rights violations that occur in the PAs.

The assessment team established that the rangers receive basic military training without the integration of human rights and conflict mitigation skills and this limits their ability to comprehend suspected encroachers.

In carrying out their duties, there have been reports of excessive use of force by Wildlife Rangers and this has resulted in grave human rights violations. In Mt. Elgon for example members of the community reported cases of torture and illegal detention in the park. There are also cases of detention reported in Mt. Elgon and Murchison Falls National Parks. Most of the detention is carried out by wildlife rangers who extort money from the suspects before being released.





“…. They found me in the park where I had gone to collect Malewa. We collect malewa on Fridays, which is the accepted day. I was arrested and detained for 3 days. They beat me up and I suffered grave injuries. I was finally released and went home after promising to pay Uganda Shillings 50,000”.

Testimony of a victim of torture in MENP

Cases of detention of cows found grazing inside the PAs were reported in QENP National Park and Kabwoya Wildlife Reserve with perhaps victim respondents highlighting the long detentions periods of their cows without feeding. UWA has established kraals inside the PAs where cows are confined for days and owners are required to pay between Uganda Shillings 10,000 and 50,000 per animal before they are released. It is not clear however, whether the money paid is part of the UWA revenue collection and whether it is a policy by the institution as differences were realized between PAs on the fees charged. UWA staff in QENP who preferred anonymity conceded the fact that the animals are detained and money is paid for every animal to be released. However he noted that this was made after agreeing with members of the community who preferred paying the fine as opposed to being taken to court.

Torture was found to be common especially when ever members of the community are arrested. For example in MENP the assessment team received various reports of torture including torture of Botona Bunotui who is alleged to have been tortured before being shot by a game ranger. A victim of torture testified how he had been detained, tired with ropes and beaten before he was released by park rangers. This he noted happened to any person who had been found in the park.

The assessment team established that it is true a committee set by UWA and members of the communities in QENP recommended the fine, however members of the community complained that the committee is no longer in place to manage and asses the amount to be paid. For this they blamed park rangers for charging excessive fines par animal.

Wildlife rangers cut by community members in Zesui, Mt.Elgon(2007)Photo:UWA



3.3 Violation of the right to lifeExcessive use of force resulting into miming and sometimes killing were some of the methods of torture reported during the assessment. Whereas UWA maintains that it is not their policy to use excessive force and that they have in the past punished individual culprits whenever they go overboard their mandate, reports of deaths resulting from shooting and confrontation between members of the community and game rangers were still high. The latest reports of shooting were in Mt. Elgon National Park in July 2010 when Botona Bunotui a community member was shot and killed by a wildlife ranger in Namunyu village, Sekululu Sub-county, Manafwa District. Similar incidences had earlier on been reported in Mt. Elgon in 2009 where up to 13 people were reported killed by suspected wildlife rangers under mysterious circumstances. HURINET-U attempts to establish the level at which investigations into the cases have reached indicated that the investigations by police are still ongoing to-date with no conclusion expected soon.

Some of the UWA officials interviewed during the assessment noted that many times poachers are armed and this prompts them to shot in self defence. This was confirmed by members of the community and by the D/RDC Kasese who noted that armed game rangers are a threat to conservation efforts and this is what sometimes prompts the use of excessive force.

On the other hand several wildlife rangers have been killed by members of the community either through mob justice or by poachers who spear, shot or cut them to death. HURINET-U was unable to establish the actual number of rangers killed in the conflict. However several cases of rangers being killed have been reported in the past for example in 2009 a range called Gaboyi was killed in Zesui in MENP. The assessment team established that there is no clear human rights training on use of force by the rangers and issues of arrest and detection. This often results into abuse of force as seen above.

3.4 Destruction of propertyDestruction of property was reported nearly in all PAs visited. The destruction of property normally results from an existing conflict between members of the community and wildlife rangers in their attempt to evict illegal settlers and sometimes due to the failure by the game rangers to protect communities against problem animals. In MENP the most common form of property destruction is caused by attempts to remove illegal settlers. Since 2005, when UWA embarked on the removal of illegal settlers in MENP, a lot of property has been destroyed. In 2008 for example various houses and crops belonging to members of the community believed to have illegally settled in the park were destroyed. In retaliation the community destroyed the eucalyptus trees planted as a buffer zone between the community land and the park land. Several acres of crops and trees were cut. In June 2010, following the killing of a community member in Sekululu sub-county, Manafwa district community members raided UWA ranger outpost at Namisindwa destroyed houses, trees and other properties at the camp as well as stole army gadgets and uniforms. In reaction to this event, the RDC Manafwa ordered for the clearance of maize gardens surrounding the camp as a security measure. He applied a “carrot and stick” methodology to calm the situation. While he ordered for the clearing of the maize gardens, in collaboration with HURINET-U, engaged the community members, the UPDF, police and UWA and agreed to allow the people harvest their maize. Unfortunately, before the negotiations delivered any result, about 20 acres of maize had been cut.





The RDC Manafwa, HURINET-U and UPDF assess the extent of the cleared maize garden (July 7, 2010) Photo:Peter

Children walk through a destroyed ranger post in Tsekululu, Manafwa District (July 7,2010) Photo:Peter

The acts of destruction and retaliation and the failure by government to have systematic removal and resettlement of the affected communities continues to fuel conflicts in MENP and other PAs.

In MFNP most of the destruction of animals and crops is due to problem animals that invade gardens and settlements of surrounding communities. For example in Ayago B village, Kal Parish, Nwoya district in July 2010, two members of the community were trampled upon by elephants at night while sleeping in their hut. One was killed instantly while another survived with serious wounds. Similarly in QENP there were reports of wild animals killing cows and other domestic animals. There are also reports of pastoralists in QENP poisoning wild animals especially lions in revenge for the lost property. This further fuels the conflict.

Remoteness of most PAs was reported as one of the impediments to quick reporting and quick interventions and many times information reaches the responsible persons when it is too late to mitigate the conflict or the human rights violations. For example, only a few of the deaths in MENP were reported in the Ugandan media while the conflict in QENP was aired weeks after the violations had taken place. By this time most of the evidence has been lost and irreparable damage already done.

3.5 Poachers, loggers, pastoralists and other encroachers Another dimension fuelling the conflict in all PAs in Uganda is the fact that there are increased number of illegal loggers, poachers, farmers and other encroachers onto Protected Areas. In QENP and MFNP, there were reports of increased number of poachers who at times are armed and attack rangers on patrol.

The assessment team established that the fact that some rangers are armed (some with guns, others have spears and arrows) has prompted rangers to use excessive force in an attempt to preampt poachers from attacking them. This partly explains the shooting and killing by game rangers. For example it is alleged that the incident in Sekululu in June 2010 where a member of the community was killed was prompted by an attack on the ranger who was cut. HURINET-U was however unable to talk to the said ranger.



Poaching indeed is a big problem especially in QENP and MFNP with some community members believing that it is part of culture to eat game meat as one of the respondents put;

The testimony above gives a dimension where after a person is killed in the park, more members of the community are put at risk by going to poach for meat to be eaten at the poacher’s funeral.

“…if a community member is killed in the park poaching, our culture is we will take the body home. However, the meat to comemorate his/her last funeral rite has to come from the park”

Respondent at Kabatooro Guest House (10/7/2010)

Poachers on their way to hunting wild game in Kibaale N. P in June 2007.

Photo: Peter,

Freshly cleared grounds in MENP by illegal encroachers. Photo:Peter June 2010

In MFNP and MENP there are many illegal loggers and cultivators who have cleared a great part of the forest. Evicting these loggers and encroachers often results in conflicts that lead to grave human rights violations. In MENP, evicting cultivators normally takes the form of cutting down their crops which is normally a spark for bigger confrontations and conflicts in the area. Therefore, it can be deduced that agricultural land and boundary disputes are important factors affecting the relationship between UWA and frontline communities as the demand for land is incompatible with the conservation of park values as required under the UWA Act.

Population pressure, lack of alternative livelihoods and the feeling of lack of ownership of PAs are also other factors that partly contribute to the encroachment and destruction in PAs and the subsequent confrontation between the communities and park authorities.

3.6 Corruption and park encroachment One of the major challenges and a source of confrontation in PAs is corruption. Many respondents found grazing, cultivating and cutting trees in the PAs claim to have paid wildlife rangers. Many members of the community were reportedly paying wildlife rangers illegally to access resources from the Protected Areas. However, before the crops are ready (for the case of MENP) some of the wildlife rangers get transferred and the new rangers come and clear the crops found in the park. This in many cases results into direct confrontations and human rights violations. It is said that one of the bloodiest incidences in Zesui in Mt. Elgon in which a ranger were killed and 2 other maimed by members of the community resulted from a corruption deal gone bad. This was widely reported in Mt. Elgon National Park where many members of the community confessed to “paying” rangers to cultivate.

Other issues of concern for human rights and conflict actors in protected areas





Similar cases of corruption were reported in QENP National Park where members of the community pay to graze in the national park or to access logs used to transport salt on Lake Katwe.

UWA officials in MENP, QENP and MFNP were non committal on corruption in the park. Whereas the officials in MENP accepted the existence of corrupt rangers. This they noted had been resolved and the rangers responsible were punished. In MFNP and QENP, UWA officials noted that they had never got such complaints though it is possible for them to exist.

Ambautch tree logs used to transport salt on L. Katwe. Photo: Faroukh. July 21,2010

Famer carrying maize in Mt. Elgon. This famer testified to have paid 5000/= per bag of maize to game rangers. Photo: Peter, June 2010

3.7 Mob justice Mob justice is common in areas with high levels of the conflict like MENP, though cases of mob justice are likely to occur in other places where wildlife rangers are in confrontation with members of the community. In Mt. Elgon for example in June 2010 community members cut and destroyed a ranger post in Sekululu sub-county following the death of one of the community members, one game ranger was also cut on the arm. Similar incidences were recorded in 2009 where two game rangers were killed and several others injured. Data on game rangers being attacked and injured by members of the community in other national parks was not readily available though the potential for such acts exists.

Community members in Tsekululu, MENP carrying stems of their destroyed maize

gardens in 2009 (Photo: Peter).

A wildlife ranger killed by a mob in Zesui, MENP in June 2009. Photo:UWA



Mob justice results from the lack of trust in the judicial system. The delays in the court system, lack of prompt arrest and lack of communication on actions taken by stakeholders has greatly influenced mob justice in PAs. For example in MENP members of the community have filed over 5 cases challenging UWA’s eviction since 2005, while those in QENP filed their case in 2008. To-date no judgment has been made. The failure to respect the court injunction by conflicting parties has partly contributed to the ongoing conflicts.

Similarly, members of the community complain of police protecting wildlife rangers suspected to have violated human rights. Whereas the police and UWA reported carrying out arrests and punishing some of the rangers and while some of the culprits are facing criminal charges in courts of law, the assessment established a communication gap between community members and the law enforcement agencies on actions and progress being made on the reported cases. This makes communities to believe nothing is being done and hence resort to mob justice to avenge the violations.

From the above it can be said that lack of trust and the intimidation from local leaders and security agencies are to blame for the increasing cases of mob justice.

“…. We cannot go to police, whenever a suspect is arrested and taken to police, the suspect comes back following us. When we complain to UWA they just transfer the suspects. The last time I went to court, we were arrested and detained. We cannot go back to those offices, it’s a waste of time …”

“…. The RDC and UWA bosses tell us that UWA is government and that courts and police are also part of government. They say we are wasting time and resources with the court case since it is also part of government. I think we have to fight and protect our land. Even if they kill us, we will fight on”.

A respondent in Manafwa while responding to why they don’t report to police

A respondent in Manafwa responding to why they don’t respect court injunctions





CHAPTER4

Interventions to mitigate conflicts and human rights violations in protected areas

4.1 Collaborative Management of PAs by UWAAlthough collaborative management is not mentioned specifically in the Uganda Wildlife Authority Act, it is broadly catered for under a number of sections, allowing the Executive Director to enter into collaborative arrangements with any person for “the management of a protected area or a portion of the protected area.”

Collaborative management is increasingly advocated for as a desirable approach to the management of PAs and/or buffer zones. The promotion of this collaborative management is based on both a pragmatic argument (that effective management of PAs requires cooperation between various stakeholders) and on an argument for the equitable treatment of stakeholders, particularly people dependent on the resources included in Protected Areas.18 There exists barriers to effective implementation of collaborative management in PAs in Uganda. Lack of mutual trust between UWA and the communities and the failure to have uniform approach to collaborative management are some of the barriers. For example whereas UWA has since 2008 been engaged in collaborative tree planting with members of the community in Bududa, Manafwa and Sironko districts, some members of the community were sceptical about the operation of this arrangement. In Sekululu sub-county, Manafwa district, it was a major concern during the dialogue to resolve the conflict in the area. In Bududa one respondent observed;

Fisher R.J. and Jackson W.J. (1998) Action Research for Collaborative Management of Protected Areas. Workshop on Collabora-tive Management of Protected Areas in the Asian Region Sauraha, Nepal 25-28 May 1998 Action research available at http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/action_research_for_cm.pdf accessed on 24 November 2010

“…. you say UWA can allow us to plant trees? That is a lie. They will do that and then change their mind like they have always done. Those are your own stories, we can’t believe it happening until when we see it ….”

“…. The RDC and UWA bosses tell us that UWA is government and that courts and police are also part of government. They say we are wasting time and resources with the court case since it is also part of government. I think we have to fight and protect our land. Even if they kill us, we will fight on”.

Respondent at Bulucheke camp, Bududa district; 8/7/2010

A respondent in Manafwa responding to why they don’t go respect court injunctions

Another respondent in Manafwa had this to say;



Mistrust of UWA by the communities could be as a result of information gap on how the scheme works. The Area Conservation Manager MENP observed that collaborative management is the way to go where people would be allowed to interplant crops with trees. People would be allowed to continue using the land until the trees have formed a canopy. After that, people would be engaged in the lucrative carbon trade. This is sometimes misunderstood by the communities.

The team also established that at present there are no settlement plans for those carrying out collaborative management. This presents a future challenge when the canopies have grown and communities have to leave. Such communities need to be oriented into utilizing the benefits of collaborative management to acquire land elsewhere and be able to move after the existing arrangement with the park.

In Kapchorwa, Bududa, Sironko and Manafwa districts there exists small scale collaborative arrangements for tree planting. In Bukwo district and Kapchorwa members of the community are allowed to graze within 500 metres into the park and to access water points. A similar arrangement was found in Bulaago sub-county, Sironko district where members of the community are allowed to harvest vegetables and collect firewood on selected days. This arrangement has been effective in bridging the gap between the community and park management. However the assessment team found that this is done locally and differs greatly across the other parks. In most cases no formal agreements are made nor are there any monitoring systems for this kind of arrangement. This has given way to the agreements being violated and increased mistrust between the community and park management.

In QENP however, park authorities have not ventured into collaborative arrangement with pastoralists as they have done with the women’s group involved in papyrus harvesting and selling at Kazinga Channel. The collaboration with women groups in Rubirizi district to harvest papyrus was found to be effective in controlling conflicts. Here community groups are formed to manage sustainable access and use of park products. This has tended to reduce conflicts in the area as well as create community ownership of park management policies and programmes.

During an FGD at Ibuga Health Unit, the assessment team established that the pastoralists are willing to enter into collaborative arrangements with park authorities for them to access some of the requisite resources like water for their animals and guided grazing during times of drought. The request raises the challenge of resettling pastoralists in areas with no basic social services which is likely to continue causing friction between park authorities and the pastoralists.

If the ultimate aim of collaborative management arrangements is to improve management efficiency and cost-effectiveness, to better address legitimate rights and claims to the area’s resources, and to enhance the community’s commitment to wildlife conservation, restricted access into the protected area following clear understanding between UWA and the frontline communities, is likely to make people feel part and partial of the conservation efforts of PAs.





4.2 Revenue Sharing from Gate CollectionsUWA is required by the Uganda Wildlife Act19 , to share 20% of the park entry fees collected from a protected area with the local government of the area surrounding the wildlife protected area from which fees are collected. The Wildlife Policy (1999) recognizes communities most affected by problem animals as the main beneficiaries of revenue accruing from problem animals with the overall aim being to ensure that local communities obtain benefits from the existence of these areas, improve their welfare, and ultimately strengthen partnerships between UWA, local communities and local governments, for sustainable management of resources in and around the Protected Area.

From the above goal, it can be discerned that revenue sharing is aimed at providing an enabling environment for establishing good relations between the PAs and their neighbouring local communities and demonstrating the economic value of PAs and conservation in general to local communities neighbouring PAs.

The Revenue Sharing Program20 is implemented in partnership with the respective local governments in which the PAs are found. Protected Area Institutions (CPIs) are the direct implementers of the projects at the community level and represent community interests in the RS program.

The assessment established mixed reactions on RS funds ranging from lack of awareness about the fund by the surrounding communities to complaints of marginalization based on ethnic inclinations. During the FDGs in Nyakatonzi and Ibuga, the Basongora communities complained of marginalization noting that most projects established using RS funds are located in the “mountains” implying areas occupied by the majority Bakonzo communities.

19UWA Act Cap 200 of 200020Representatives to Revenue Sharing Program are: District Local Governments, Sub-county Local Governments, Protected Area Managers, Community Protected Area Institutions, PA Adjacent Communities, Conservation Organizations/Development Partners, Community Based Organizations, Private Sector Organizations, UWA Headquarters, Ministry of Tourism and Industry, CARE, HURINET-U, WWF, Nature Uganda, Uganda Wildlife Society, Wildlife Clubs of Uganda, Local Government Finance Commission, and The World Conservation Union.

. They particularly identified the selection criteria that favour the majority. They complained of lack of representation in local structures where major decisions on RS funds are made.

In QENP the assessment established that the RS funds are not felt by the communities. The park is surrounded by 62 parishes making it hard to make substantive contributions to community projects. According to UWA staff talked to in QENP, RS funds are insufficient because, currently UWA internal revenue sources stand at only 75% leaving a deficit of 25% that has to be sourced from donors. On top of that UWA officials noted a challenge of being charged V.A.T (18%) which adds up to 38% when the 2% revenue sharing is added. It is not therefore possible for UWA to provide sufficient funds to the communities neighbouring PAs. In some of the PAs like MENP, tourism development is low making it hard to generate enough revenue enough to share with the communities adjacent to PAs. In Bulisa district, Ngwendo Primary School in Bulisa Sub-County was supported under the program but to-date, the school structure is incomplete due to insufficient funds.



While the UWA’s revenue sharing policy States 20% of the gate collections, community members do not appreciate. One of the senior UWA officials noted that the frontline communities do not value some other indirect benefits that accrue from the PAs. The respondent had this to say:

“in some of the PAs we are giving out to the communities more than 60% like through the Bwindi Trust. Community projects outside the park like accommodation facilities, medicines that are not monetized by communities which is an oversight on the part of communities”

Interview with UWA senior official, at UWA Headquarters –Kampala August 2010

The assessment established that most of the projects developed using the RS funds do not necessarily go to changing lifestyles of the affected communities which is a major challenge in park management. For example whereas majority of the pastoralists in QENP and Kaiso-Tonya Wildlife Conservation Area have a challenge of water and pasture which pushes them into the Protected Area, none of the RS funds was used to construct alternative water sources for these communities. Similarly the branding of the products got from RS funds is very remote to be associated with UWA. As a result the community members interviewed were not much aware of the benefits of RS funds. Therefore, there were remarkably few examples of enterprise development benefiting the poor (let alone achieving conservation objectives), those that exist need scaling up if they are to benefit the communities and turn them away from over exploiting park resources.

UWA recognizes some of these challenges and has started on the process of reviewing the RS strategy to bring it in tandem with the current community needs. However, it remains to be seen how this strategy will be redirected to focus on livelihood support (which would benefit households) as opposed to infrastructural projects (that have a community outlook) much desired by politicians. Majority of the people interviewed exhibited ignorance about the review exercise and yet the strategy is intended for them. There has been limited consultations on the RS strategy among those it is intended to benefit.

4.3 Compensation for Destroyed Property and Life Both international human rights law and the Uganda constitution provides for a right to own property and sets grounds for which property can be taken away in public interest. This is the basis for which policies and laws regarding compensation are made. The assessment established however that there are no laws and policies to deal with compensation for property and life lost to problem animals or even in the expansion of PAs.

There is a general feeling that State and other agencies have tended to give priority to protection of animals without considering the plight of communities who may be victims of problem animals. This is mainly because there are no compensation arrangements for communities who lose property and life from wildlife. The Member of Parliament for Busongora North noted;





“... I think we are giving more value to the animals and leaving our people out. For example my people never get compensation when they lose their animals and crops to wild animals. No one even comes to talk about it. But last time when some lions were poisoned, all the district leaders were summoned to Mweya look for a solution. Why can’t there be a similar meeting to find a solution to problem animals in my area?

“Human rights, human rights, but who talks about animal rights”

Contribution by Busongora North MP during a fact finding mission by Members of Parliament to MENP on 21st October 2010.

UWA Respondent, QENP; July 22, 2010

The above shows the general feeling of leaders to protected areas. The assessment established that while support to the affected individuals is provided depending on the management of a certain PAs, the UWA Act Cap 200 does not provide for compensation of communities affected by problem animals. On the other hand UWA officials interviewed during the assessment complained about human rights organizations focusing only on people’s rights without any focus on animal rights. As one commented:

HURINET-U recognises the need to balance conservation and human rights protection. There is need for all stakeholders to recognise that conservation cannot be achieved if it involves human rights violations and the reverse is true.

4.4 Grievance Handling Mechanisms through Community PAs During the rapid assessment it was realized that there is no uniform grievance handling mechanism set up by UWA. It is at the prerogative of the Chief Warden of a given protected area to determine how to handle a specific issue as it occurs. In QENP National Park for example, the management and the community members of Nyakatonzi Parish, set up the Community Protected Institution (CPI). Though it has since collapsed, the structure was set up to resolve emerging conflicts in a non violent manner. The CPI together with park authorities set a fine of UGX.30,000 per cow caught grazing in the park which was acceptable to both parties. The assessment team learnt that this arrangement operated for about six (6) months only and it was raised to UGX.100,000 without the mandate of the community members. With the collapse of the CPI, UWA has constructed kraals used as “prisons” for the captured cattle to be used as exhibits in court proceedings against those caught grazing inside the park illegally. Community members complained of their animals being starved for days in those kraals without water nothing to eat as the owners struggle to look for money to rescue their animals.

While UWA charges people who enter the park to graze illegally, the community members note that UWA does not compensate them when problem animals stray out of the park and destroy both life and property. Wildlife rangers however attributed animal-human conflict to cultivating and settling in areas initially not cultivated. A case in point was given to be Rwehingo that was initially a hunting area but due to population pressure in Kasese, people have since moved in large numbers causing a confrontation between them and the wildlife especially lions and elephants.



The assessment established that the concept of CPI was abused. It brought a lot of political resentment.

On the other hand there is little interaction between Wildlife rangers and members of the communities surrounding PAs. Whereas UWA has a whole unit in charge of community conservation, its role is more of public relations than grievance handling. Members of the community interviewed did not know who and where to complain to when there is a problem. Those who thought they could complain at park headquarters noted that action is rarely taken. One respondent noted;

Generally, there is need to create avenues that will increase the interaction between members of the community and park management and build trust between the different agencies so as to promote understanding and quick conflict resolution at the local level.

“…we were accused of extorting money from communities. Even some of our staff for example Onzima was transferred because of that”

“… if you complain, those people will never come. They only come when their animals are in problem. If you report a trapped animal or a stray animal may be they will come, but if you report a ranger who has beaten people or is extorting money, no one cares, no one will come”.

UWA respondent, QENP; July 22, 2010.

Community member during the FGD at Ibuga, Kasese; (July 21, 2010).

4.5 Resettlement of communities affected by expansion of PAs.

4.5.1 The Basongora Pastoralists in QENP National Park

Generally, resettlement of communities affected by activities in the PAs can be seen as a lasting solution to the conflicts between park management and the communities. The assessment looked at resettlement of communities i.e. the Basongora in QENP indigeneous the Ndorobo-Kapsekek, Ndorobo-Yatui and Benet-Yatui in Mt. Elgon. The settlement exercise of these communities had challenges and if not addressed the conflict between the communities and park management will not be solved.

The conflict between Basongora and Bakonzo in QENP dates back to colonial times. The conflict has had different dimensions and keeps resurfacing with grave human rights violations. The conflict has its roots in the tribal relationship between Basongora and Bakonzo under Tooro Kingdom and the subsequent colonial policies (For a detailed discussion of the conflict see Appendix 3). Little has been done to resolve the conflict. In 2006 a group of Basongora was evicted from DRC. These came to reclaim land they considered their ancestral land which forms part of QENP. In the process of reclaiming the land conflicts ensured between park management, Basongora and Bakonzo. This prompted government to resettle the Basongora in former government land.





In order to resolve the conflict, government decided to resettle the Basongora in former Prison, UPDF and Mubuku irrigation scheme. In August 2006, after a series of consultative meetings, the President appointed an Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC)21 to oversee the resettlement of Basongora bearing in mind the historical factors and recommend to Cabinet solutions to their resettlement. In turn the IMC appointed a Government Technical Team (GTT)22 to oversee the implementation of the Cabinet recommendations on relocation of the Basongora pastoralists from QENP (See appendix 5).

After several consultations in Kasese and Kabarole districts, the Committee came up with recommendations upon which Cabinet made the following decisions with regard to resettling the Basongora out of the park on August 29, 2007.a. That the Basongora community consisting of about 8,000 people with about 50,000 head

of cattle occupying part of QENP be resettled out of the park on land totalling 15,800 acres within Ibuga Prison Farm (1,400) and Refugee Settlement scheme (3,5000), Hima Army Production Unit (3,500), Mubuku Prison Farm (5,300), Karusandara (1,100), Muhokya (1,000) be set free and allocated to the Basongora community to own and use communally as a community trust.

b. The Basongora ancestral lands of Bukangara and Rwehingo totalling to about 25,000 acres be freed and shared between the cultivators and pastoralists on a 1:3 ratio as earlier agreed on in 1994. Cultivators were to get 8,000 acres while Pastoralists 17,000 acres.

c. Government was to institute mechanism for compensation of any title holders of the lands in question.

21IMC Composition: Minister of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (Chairman and Secretariat), Minister of Local Government, Minister of Internal Affairs, Minister of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, Inspector General of Police, Commissioner General of Prisons, Director General Internal Security Organization. Co-opted Members: Minister of Tourism, Trade and Industry; Minister of Water and Environment; and Minister of Disaster Preparedness and Refugees.

22Composition: Office of the Prime Minister; Ministry of Agriculture Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Chair); Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development; Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry; President’s Office; Uganda Police; Uganda Prisons; Uganda Wildlife Authority and Kasese District Local Government (Secretary).

23See, Report of the Government Technical Team on the Resettlement of Basongora from Queen Elizabeth National Park of October 15, 2007

Cabinet in minute number 387 (CT2007)23 directed the Government Technical Team to allocate 15,800 acres ceded from Ibuga Prison Farm (1,400 acres), Ibuga Refugee Settlement (3,500 acres), Hima Army Production Unit(3,500 acres), Mubuku Prison Farm (5,300 acres), Karusandara (1,100 acres), and Muhokya Sub-county (1,000 acres).

A number of pastoralists and cultivators were settled by the GTT however there are no records as to how many families received land. This is mainly because some of the land settled in by cultivators was left intact while the land not occupied was given to Basongora elders who were to convince their peers to move to the land. This creates a loophole in establishing and assessing the beneficiaries and the extent of their beneficiary. Indeed GTT report of 28th Sept. 2007 and 15th October 2007 indicate that the Basongora elders did not provide the list of the households to be settled (see appendix 6 and 7 for the GTT reports).

The assessment established various issues which were not considered and undermine the resettlement exercise and provide a potential for continued conflicts. These range from lack of ownership of the resettlement process to lack of trust, accusations of corruption among others.



A respondent while commenting about the exercise said

Members of the assessment team established that the lack of involvement of the different communities were responsible for the mismanagement of the process. This has created increased mistrust between the affected communities are remains a potential for continued conflicts. For example the GTT team observed that the Basongora leaders were unwilling to move, the leaders also failed to submit a bank account on which the money for resettlement was to be banked. Following this refusal the GTT and local leaders threatened to arrest Basongora leaders who were opposed to the resettlement.

One of the Basongora leaders involved in the exercise noted that majority of the Basongora never trusted the GTT this was worsened by the fact that those who moved found the land already occupied by cultivators. This prompted the leaders to refuse the resettlement until the issue is resolved, however before it was resolved, GTT threatened to arrest those opposed to the resettlement 24. The Basongora saw this as a ploy to destabilise them.

The assessment team found the fact of mistrust between GTT and local leaders on one hand and Basongora leaders to be ripe. For example an elder who equated the acts of GTT to those of past governments noted;

Another respondent who showed the mistrust that exists between the GTT and the Basongora noted;

“…no Musongora representative was involved in the mapping and allocation of the land”.

For us the Basongora we do not have rights. The Government connived with the colonialists to kill our cattle and remove us from Busongora when they were creating the park. Today I hear the government wants us to move to Ibuga and those other places, and that if we do not move they arrest us. It is the same thing, they [government] keep changing their minds.

After all we have seen, it is difficult for us to trust government. You can imagine, we went to Zaire (DRC) thinking things will be ok. No one cared. They chased us from there; we came back only to find ourselves confronting park officials on one side, cultivators on another side. Then GTT comes and recommends that we leave the park, go and settle in the middle of cultivators. Can that be fair? Can we be able to leave with cultivators, a group we have been in conflict with since the times of our great grandfathers? That is why many of us thought it is just a ploy to eliminate us.

Respondent at Ibuga Health Unit; July 21, 2010.

Elder in QENP (21st July 2010)

Respondent in QENP (21st July 2010)

24See the GTT report of 15wOct. 2007 page 7 and 9 (appendix 6).

A member of the GTT who preferred anonymity noted that the GTT had to work quickly to find lasting solutions to a conflict which had already claimed lives and lots of property had been lost. This gave the GTT less time to consult and to sensitize all the people on the resettlement exercise.





Another challenge was is the fact that other members of the community who were not necessarily part of the resettlement scheme benefited from this exercise. For example, the GTT stayed the resettlement of Basongora at Rwehingo when it was discovered that over 95% of the land was heavily planted with the cotton crop. At Ibuga Prison only 85% of the land was available for resettlement with the UPDF taking 670 ha. that was to resettle the pastoralist to be used as a buffer zone. Other areas that could not be immediately settled include Bukangara (90%), Kabukero area on Mubuku land also could not be occupied because the prison management requested permission to retain the two eucalyptus plantations for firewood and the Kabukero hill for extraction of building materials25 .

The above testimony echoes the level of discontent among the Basongora community members and the potential for renewed conflict between the pastoralists and cultivators in the area. Virtually, all the sites where Government had earmarked land to settle the Basongora were found by the GTT to be occupied by cultivators. The areas meant to resettle the Basongora but now with crop cultivators include Ibuga Prison Farm, Ibuga Refugees Settlement Scheme, Army Production Farm (with a permanent settlement at Bigando), Mubuku Prison Farm, Kanamba Parish in Karusandara Sub-County, Rwehingo land and Bukangara (heavily cultivated with cotton fields)26 .

Generally, the GTT found itself caught between evicting cultivators to resettle pastoralists or keeping cultivators on government land and ignoring the pastoralists. As the D/RDC Kasese put it.

The resettlement of the Basongora communities is the fact that the mapping and allocation mixed pastoralists (mainly Basongora) mixed with cultivators (mainly Bakonzo). Today there are conflicts of animals straying to gardens and destroying crops. The main cause of this is the fact that Basongora still practice “pastoralism” with a strong attachment to numbers as opposed to quality.

The assessment discovered that as a result of the above actions, many Basongora pastoralists did not get the said land and these believe what was meant for them was given to those that were not intended for the scheme.

“The land you are talking about that was given to Basongora, was allocated to other people and institutions. We were shocked to learn that some many cultivators received pieces of land despite the fact that many Basongora never got anything. I think it is a ploy to eliminate us Basongora, after all none of us was involved in the allocation of the land”.

Testimony of a local leader for Basongora community at Ibuga Health Unit; July 21, 2010.

25See the GTT Report on Resettlement of Basongora, October 2007.26GTT Report, September 2007

“Settling the Basongora became a major problem which could have resulted in renewed conflicts. ... You cannot evict Ugandans to resettle Ugandans. The best GTT could do is leave those already settled on land and settle the pastoralists only in the land that was not occupied”

Mr. Wilson Isingoma, Deputy RDC, Kasese District; July 22,2010.



Water for animals remains a major challenge for the Basongora pastoralists. In most cases have to move to Kibaale NP through QENP (for those settled at Ibuga) to water their animals. It is this movement to the PA that has renewed the conflicts between them and park authorities. Another challenge with water sources is the fact that during the movement of the animals many of them pass through gardens since no proper passage corridors for animals were created during the mapping and allocation of the land27. This was reported as the major cause of the current skirmishes between the cultivators and the pastoralists. Indeed the GTT report of 15th Oct. 2007 recommends that land be fenced to resolve the conflict between cultivators and pastoralists. However no resources were availed for the fencing and this propels the current conflicts.

The assessment team observed the failure by both central and local governments to provide reliable social services like health facilities, schools, safe water in areas where the pastoral communities were resettled. At Ibuga there is only one bore hole shared between people and animals; one health unit that is understaffed and with virtually no drugs. People move to far off places like Hima or Kilembe Hospital to access health services. The primary school built for the refugees who initially occupied the place has been abandoned by pupils for fear of reprisal attacks from either community28.

27It is important to note that during the mapping of the land, a corridor for the animals was created to enable them move from one place to another, however this corridor did not cater for a mixture of pastoralists and cultivators who live as neighbours.28Basongora Appeal Report, 2008

To-date, the resettlement exercise is incomplete, marred by court cases an indication that the conflict is far from over. The court case before the High Court in Fort-Portal is about the land at Rweihingo that as earlier mentioned was found to be heavily cultivated with cotton crop. The outcome of the case will definitely create contradictions and further complications in resolving the conflict. The case that has been ongoing since 2008 means the pastoralists keep lingering with their cattle forcing them to encroach on park land.

The assessment further established that no land titles were given to the communities that were settled. Given the historical back and forth evictions of the Basongora at different times in the past, many of those interviewed expressed fear of eviction as their security of tenure is not guaranteed under the current State hence the resettlement is seen as temporary in nature. This has been made worse by the lack of proper demarcations for the pieces of land in question for example in Ibuga Prison Farm, there exists a contention between prison authorities and the communities to the extent that the prison authorities have removed all the pastoralist communities from the land given to them on the basis that the land for pastoralists is yet to be demarcated.

The challenge of unclear statistics on who was eligible for resettlement was reported as another challenge that marred the resettlement exercise and not catered for by the government right from the onset of the exercise. In determining the rightful pastoralists to be resettled, the GTT seem to have catered for only those that crossed back to Uganda from Congo in March 2006 leaving out those who were internally displaced. GTT estimates that 635 people with 8,153 head of cattle crossed the border from Congo an issue disputed by many respondents during the assessment noting that there are over 8,000 Basongora displaced all around the country with 50,000 head of cattle that need to be resettled.





The IMC recognized the need to initiate a special programme to modernize agriculture among the Basongora. The task which was given to Ministry of Agriculture to come up with the programme seem not yet to have taken off. Basongora cherish large numbers rather than quality of cows. Their life style has to change by focusing on quality and few numbers of cows if they are to live in harmony in places where they have been resettled. The resettlement exercise need to have taken a wholistic approach that combines resettlement and modernisation of agriculture and the lifestyle of the pastoralists that was not considered during the resettlement exercise.

The assessment team observed there is mistrust by the community members whether the land that the IMC recommended to be given to them is what they actually got. Though they acknowledge that surveying was done using GPS provided by UWA, they say that the Committee failed to mark the parcelled land and hand it over to the community members.

Generally, the resettlement exercise of pastoralists in QENP National Park has greatly been mismanaged calling on different stakeholders entrusted to handle the resettlement exercise to re-evaluate their actions and implement the cabinet decisions to their logical conclusions if further conflicts and human rights violations are to be mitigated.

4.5.2 The Mountain Sabiny in MENPThe Mountain Sabiny form the Yatui-Ndorobo, the Benet-Ndorobo and Kapsekek-Ndorobo. They have lived in the high mountain forest and moorland before MENP was gazetted as a Central Forest Reserve and National Park in 1938 and 1993 respectively29 leaving the Benet, Yatui and Kapsekek Ndorobo within the forest reserve. The boundaries were demarcated in 1964 and 1968 respectively. Their main economic activities at the time included livestock grazing, hunting wild animals, collecting forest fruits, honey and making handcrafts from bamboo in exchange for food supplies from lower land Sabiny. Their main economic activities have not changed much to-date. For a brief history of the Yatui-Ndorobo conflict see appendix 4.

Because of the above lifestyle which solely depends on land for cultivation and grazing and because of the increase in population over the years the Ndorobo and Benet communities have encroached on park land. There are also groups of Ndorobo and Benet who lived in what is today MENP by the time it was gazetted. These have continued to expand their activities into the protected area.

In 2008 following the death of a Belgian tourist30 in MENP, the Yatui-Ndorobo people inclusive of Yatui Primary School and Body of Christ Church were forcefully evicted from the park and resettled in Kisito near the 1983 line while the Kapsekek-Ndorobo were taken to Bukwo district near the 1938 forest line. The eviction was as a result of massive encroachment on the park which not only affected that ecological functioning of the ecosystem but also as a result of the growing insecurity that resulted into the death of the Belgian tourist31 . Hundreds of houses were demolished and farms destroyed32 .

29Report on temporary resettlement of the Yatui-Ndorobo at Kisito-Kwosir in Kapchorwa, 200830Annick Van De Venster. Died on February 5, 200831See UWA Report on temporary resettlement of the Yatui-Ndorobo at Kisito-Kwosir in Kapchorwa (November 2008)32Jaramogi 2008.



The assessment established that now the bigger population comprising of the Benet-Ndorobo and the general population now occupy land between 6000 ha and the 1983 line commonly referred to as red line. The Yatui-Ndorobo are now temporarily settled in Kisito on an approximately 230 ha inside the National Park while the Kapsekek-Ndorobo are also temporarily settled near Amanang in Bukwo district also inside the National Park.

Temporary settlement camp for Kapsekek-Ndorobo in Bukwo District. Photo by Peter (June 2010)

The assessment established a number of challenges with the resettlement process:

First, the delay in effecting the agreed upon resolutions and finding alternative land to the people has posed new challenges in the area. For example, after the resettlement exercise in August 2008, the Land Allocation Committee (LAC) realized that even after exhausting the vetted lists generated earlier on, there remains some people not resettled. These are people who had got land during the previous resettlement effort in 1983 sold it and went back into the Park; those who were very young in 1983 and therefore could not be allocated land independently but were assumed to settle with their parents; and widows whose husbands died and left them either still occupying Park land or land acquired earlier on had been shared by the sons and therefore left them landless.

In 1983 there were 15 households to be settled, however by 2008 they had increased to 45 with over 500 people. It is over a year since 2008 when the Minister of Tourism, Trade and Industry passed a directive to the Committee to work out a permanent settlement for the Yatui-Ndorobo people at Kisito and up to now nothing has been done. History is bound to repeat itself on any delay to resettle the people as those below 18 years in 2008, will be adults by the time Government finds alternative land for permanent settlement of the Yatui Ndorobo as well as the Yatui-Kapsekek and Benet Ndorobo.





Considering the fact that there are some individuals who got land illegally during the 1983 land allocation exercise, the Land Allocation Committee identified 233 hectares as recoverable land that government could offer to Yatui Benet to permanently settle down. Although this land still falls within the park boundary and therefore, Government land, the Committee recommended that compensation be made to those who have been using it for almost 26 years. The Committee further recommended that those who voluntarily surrender some land to the Government should retain a maximum of 10 acres. While this sounds good, the assessment established that there is no clarity on the ground among the different groups and local leaders on the next course of action as far as permanent settlement is concerned. The Kapsekek-Ndorobo think the land they got is for permanent settlement. The assessment established an information gap on the ownership aspects of the land and there exists no clear government plan that is known to government officials and the affected communities on the next steps to have the people permanently resettled.

Parliament need to pronounce itself on the displaced persons especially the Yatui-Ndorobo who were given 2 acres on land. Need to advocate for its intervention into the conflict and find a lasting solution.

Another challenge hindering the resettlement exercise and causing bad relations between the affected communities and government are the reported human rights violations like rape, killings, and name calling like “Diaspora Ndorobo”. During the FGD meeting with the Kapsekek-Ndorobo, the leaders complained of burnt houses and loss of property during the eviction exercise from the forest. There were reports of the Land Allocation Committee members allocating themselves land at the detriment of the landless Kapsekek-Ndorobo. Respondents singled out the RDC Bukwo who is reported to have got 18 acres; the NAADS Coordinator-Bukwo (24 acres of land); and the District Environment Officer (24 acres of land). The RDC whom the assessment team talked to however denied the allegations.

Internal discrimination within the resettlement process was also identified as another challenge that has affected the resettlement process. There were reports of internal discrimination where genuine members of the community were left out including the youth33, women especially those in polygamous marriages and widows whose husbands died and left them either still occupying Park land or land acquired earlier on had been shared by the sons upon the death of their father. First consideration was given to men and those above 18 years leaving out the marginalized groups.

Politicization of the process is yet another challenge immediate as follows;the assessment established. Politics, corruption and lack of representation were highlighted as one of the impediments that has greatly affected the implementation of resettlement programmes in MENP. Cases of corruption have also been cited in the resettlement exercise. For example following a by directive the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry to have the Benet resettled the District Officials and Uganda Wildlife Authority however, sought to charge the people for the ½ an acre of land given to each family for temporary resettlement34 . All the resettlement schemes reviewed and the people interviewed indicated cases of poor management, corruption and lack of representation of the intended beneficiaries on decision making bodies.

33Taken as someone who is unmarried even though is well above 18 years of age.34See, Complaint Letter by Dr. Flavio Luiz Schhieck Valente, Secretary General FIAN International to Hon.Janat Mukwaya dated

March 13, 2009.



There exists a sense of powerlessness among the affected communities and most of the approaches adopted have taken the form of a top-down approach with a high possibility to fail. The challenges existing prior to the resettlement are still ripe in the area and if not quickly fixed are likely to explode into bigger problems. The land bonanza by those entrusted to resettle the landless people need to be addressed and if proven true, those found guilty should be punished.

The assessment also aimed at establishing the role of CSOs in mitigating and resolving natural resource based conflicts and human rights violations. The results from the field were mixed as regards what role CSOs could play. While stakeholders recognized the role played by conservation NGOs, their impact was rated minimal by various stakeholders talked to.

There are remarkable interventions by CARE International and The African PACT in Nwoya district where they have worked closely with UWA to dig trenches as a control measure to human-elephant conflicts. However, the intervention is still in its infancy stage and that the park covers a big area that the initiative is yet to cover.

The assessment team identified the human rights based approach to programming as the missing link in guiding both the duty bearers and claim holders in Protected Areas. Focusing on the rights of claim holders without an emphasis of their obligations to conserve the environment has been the norm of most conservation NGOs.

Since resource based conflicts and human rights violations conflict to unfold in many Protected Areas, stakeholders interviewed noted the need for CSOs to arbitrate between UWA and the communities in many of the conflict hotspots.

The situation is a bit deceptive. The matter has got foundations which are very deep. People use transitions in political leadership to encroach on the Park.

Chairman LC V-Kapchorwa District (July 8, 2010)

The Chairman LC.V Kapchorwa showing the assessment team the contested areas in MENP, Photo: Andrew (July 8,2010)

4.6 Civil Society Interventions in Mitigating Resource Based Conflicts and Human Rights Violations





Given the fact, most communities see PAs as “waste lands” preferring to poach, graze and cultivate on prohibited areas, NGOs could work to instil the spirit of conservation coupled with collaborative management among community members as one of the sustainable means to meet the conservation objectives. Provision of social services especially education to transform the communities and sensitization of communities about conservation laws and rights need to be taken up by CSOs. This will enhance conservation efforts and reduce on the existing conflicts and human rights violations currently experienced in many of the Protected Areas. If Wildlife ranger are seen as duty bearers, and community members as claim holders, there is need to enhance their understanding of the rights and obligations they both have on each other. Training in HRBAP would suffice in this area.

HURINET-U staff, RDC-Manafwa, UPDF and Police representatives during a community dialogue in Mt. Elgon ( July 7,2010), Photo: Farouk ( July 7,2010)

No measures have been taken to promote sustainable conservation for the communities to be able to live in a protected area without harming it. With population increase and the desire for more land the communities start encroaching on the protected area and hence the need to evict them.

The conflict in MENP has had different dimensions and different interventions, some members of the community have taken the GoU to court over compensation while others decided to continue encroaching on park land including opening up new areas for cultivation or gazing. The government interventions in the area have also differed greatly, whereas some members of the community in Kapchorwa were compensated through getting alternative land and settling the matter out of court, the same was never done in Sironko, Bududa, Mbale and Manafwa where the conflict has persisted. The approaches have impacted on the nature of the conflict and human rights violations and these provide a good case study for interventions and finding solutions to the conflicts in Protected Areas.

Lack of respect for the rule of law by UWA as well as by the community members.

4.7 Gaps in the Management of Resource Based Conflicts and Human Rights Violations.



RECOMMENDATIONS 5

1. Local governments and CSOs should step up local (regional) task force(s) that could meet frequently to share information and sort out issues to avoid conflict and misunderstandings between duty bearers and claim holders living around Protected Areas. Such groups are not in place, even if some meetings have been held now and then between local stakeholders, UWA and the oil companies.

2. The government (local and central) should increased allocation of financial resources and capacity building in problem animal control for UWA staff, local government officials and members of the community.

3. Government (local and central) should register all the cattle keepers living within PAs especially in the Kaiso-Tonya Wildlife Conservation Area since new people keep bringing in new stock. The government needs to design a new programme that should aim to confine all the cows in ranches and promote modern farming to change the farming lifestyles. The same approach could be applied in all PAs with pastoralists.

4. UWA and other government agencies should put emphasis on resource sharing through user agreements for frontline communities to access some resources from PAs like water for animals, vegetables, firewood and medicinal plants. UWA need to come up with a uniform policy for all PAs to benefit all communities living around PAs uniformly.

5. UWA should sensitize the communities on the benefits of user agreements. This should

include preparing members on the community (especially those planting trees) to withdraw their activities in the park before the end of agreed period.

6. UWA should expedite the process of revising the Revenue Sharing Guidelines to ensure equity and accountability on the use of 20% revenue sharing. The guidelines should be revised to ensure more involvement of community members in deciding the projects to be implemented as opposed to passing the funds through local governments. A strategy of direct funding of community projects should be explored to minimize the bureaucracy and misuse of funds currently experienced with RS funds. Communities should be brought on board in generating the projects to be implemented to avoid poor performance. The assessment further recommends a shift from infrastructure development to livelihoods improvement interventions (higher potential for direct economic benefits) as well as community-wildlife conflict management (problem animal control).





7. Parliament should review conservation related laws to ensure there is a clear compensation mechanism to victims who suffer as a result of problem animals whenever they stray in the communities leading to destruction of people’s lives and property.

8. The government and CSOs should train all UWA staff (in Protected Areas), key local government staff, and all security agencies as well as frontline communities (claim holders) on the concept of human rights based approach to programming. Skills like Alternative Dispute Resolution and mediation should also be incorporated in UWA staff training. Sensitization of communities on conservation laws should go hand in hand with the trainings to enable them understand the laws in place as a mitigating measure to mob justice.

9. UWA should put in place complaint handling mechanisms for members of the community to register complaints against wildlife rangers. Such mechanisms should include mechanisms to punish rangers who violate rights and communication/accountability of such mechanisms to the affected communities. This should be done hand in hand with deliberate efforts for confidence building and increased interactions between UWA and the community to enable reduction of conflicts.

10. Government should expedite the resettlement process of the different communities like the Basongora in QENP National Park, the Yatui-Ndorobo, Yatui-Kapsekek and Benet-Ndorobo as any further delay leads to further encroachment and unnecessary demands for resettlement by those who graduate to adulthood.

11. UWA, the AG and community members should work towards resolving the court cases through amicable means as the court process is likely not to offer a lasting solution. The party that loses may need to relay on the other for resettlement and environmental conservation and hence the need for an out of court settlement.



APPENDICES

Appendix I: List of Participants



QENP National Park that derives its name from Queen Elizabeth II of England, was first established in 1952 and it occupies an estimated 1,978 square kilometres (764 sq miles), of which, about 17% lies in Kasese District, 50% in the former Bushenyi District (now Rubirizi district), and an estimated 33% lies in Rukungiri District. The area of the park extends from Lake George in the northeast to Lake Edward in the southwest, and includes the Kazinga Channel that connects the two lakes. The park is a home to 95 species of mammal and over 500 species of birds making it a prime target for poaching which has caused conflicts between UWA and the surrounding communities. Recently, the park was gazetted as a Man and Biosphere Reserve.

The conflict has majorly been pronounced in Kasese district with a population of 523,033 people.35 With three main ethnic groups: the Bakonzo, the Basongora and the Banyabindi, the Bakonzo are mainly cultivators living mostly on the slopes of the Ruwenzori Mountains, while the Basongora are cattle keepers. The Banyabindi whose life style revolved around pottery, were assimilated among the dominant Bakonzo community. The whole population is sandwiched in a narrow strip of land measuring 1,647sq km between the Ruwenzori Mountains National Park, QENP National Park and lakes George and Edward, giving a population density of 250 people per sq km 36.

Much as all communities around QENP have been involved in resource based conflicts and human rights violations, the major confrontation has been between the Basongora and UWA and Basongora (pastoralists)-Bakonzo (cultivators) due to their (Basongora) historical touch with the park –a place they call their home.

Appendix II: The History Basongora Pastoralists in QENP National Park

35Housing and Population Census,200236The New Vision,200737The New Vision,2007

Historically, QENP is located in the former Busongora which was part of the greater Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom until Bunyoro’s Prince Kaboyo declared Tooro his kingdom around 1830. By the 19th century, the Basongora were organized into three hereditary chiefdoms. The largest was Kisaka-Makara, around the present-day QENP National Park. The other two chiefdoms were Bugaya and Kiyanja, under the Babito and Bamaoli clans, all in the present day DR Congo.37 The Basongora occupied the plains from River Rwimi through the present Kasese town, QENP National Park, across the Semuliki River into the present DRC up to Mulamba hills.

The Basongora found themselves between a rock and a hard place when in the 1880s, an Arab African slave hunter, Kilongalonga, also invaded Busongora. Later in the same decade, King Kabalega occupied Busongora when he drove out Kasagama of Tooro and reclaimed the original kingdom boundaries, thus effectively controlling the salt, ivory and slave trade. Capt. Fredrick Lugard later dislodged Kabalega from the area in the 1890s and reinstalled Kasagama.





By the beginning of the 20th century, the plundering raids had exhausted the Basongora, but the straw that broke the camel’s back was an outbreak of sleeping sickness in the mid 1890s. As a result, the colonial government evacuated all the people from the area around the shores of lakes George and Edward and along Kazinga Channel, to the foothills of the Ruwenzori Mountains. This is alleged to have been a punishment to Basongora whose chiefs paid allegiance to King Kabalega of Bunyoro.

In 1906, the area where the Basongora had lived was declared a game reserve and later gazetted as a national park in 1952. Some Basongora migrated to other parts of Uganda such as Ankole, Bunyoro and Buganda. Others migrated to DR Congo while some remained on the periphery of the park around Nyakatonzi and Bukangara.

In the 1930s, there was an outbreak of rinderpest and tsetse fly that decimated the cattle population of the Basongora, again forcing them to disperse to other areas of Uganda and the eastern DRC.

It was while they were away in the 1940s that the colonial government introduced cotton growing in the areas of Nyakatonzi and other plains of the current Busongora County in Kasese district. However, in 1964, the Mulele rebellion in DRC drove back the Basongora back to their original areas only to find that the Tooro (kingdom) Development Company (TDC) that wound up in 1970s had leased some of their land that includes present day Mubuku and Ibuga prison farms covering 14,165 and 4,027 acres respectively, the 6,597 acre controversial Hiima Army Production Farm, Ibuga Refugee Settlement Scheme (2190.4 acres) and Mubuku Irrigation Scheme, measuring over 2,100 hectares. When the cotton industry plummeted in the 1970s, the Bakonzo lost interest in cotton, thus giving the Basongora pastoralists a chance to graze their cattle on the same vast plains. But the freedom was short-lived. Cotton production resumed between 1987 and 1989.

The armed conflicts in the region have added more misery to the plight of Basongora herdsmen. First was the 1962 Rwenzururu Freedom Movement that displaced a lot of Bakonzo from the mountains, forcing them to settle in parts initially occupied by the Basongora pastoralists. When the Rwenzururu surrendered in 1982, it was followed by NALU (National Army for the Liberation of Uganda), a rebellion against the Government in the Ruwenzori region, that broke out from 1989 to 1993. The Basongora again found themselves on the losing side.

To prevent the youth, most of whom were idle, from being recruited in the NALU rebel ranks, the Kasese leadership decided to engage them in productive work. The youths were allocated about 750 acres for cotton production, including big chunks of the previously Basongora-owned Rwehingo. The Basongora believe this was done to displace them as one commented:



“…they gave the youth land in Bukangara, Rwehingo and Bwanika, where we grazed our cattle. They were using tractors. They had armed Local Administration Police personnel guarding them”38

Elder at Ibuga Health Unit; 21/7/2010

38The New Vision, 30 June, 200739Uganda Wildlife Authority40Basongora Appeal Report, October 200841Ministerial Statement on Resettlement of Basongora out of Queen Elizabeth National Park, September 19, 2007

Since crops and animals do not mix, in 1999, a group of Basongora herdsmen went to the DRC and settled in Virunga National Park once part, of their ancestral ranges39. However, in March 2006, they were evicted by the DRC authorities. Some returnees settled with their herds in QENP National Park where UWA gave them temporary grazing land on the western side of River Nyamugasani as they awaited relocation to Ibuga refugee resettlement scheme. But some resisted attempts to confine them to the allocated area and a bloody conflict between the cattle keepers and the cultivators in Kayanja II and Bigando villages, Kitswamba sub-counties, left about 20 head of cattle dead and many injured. On October 8, 2008 further clashes that pitted the cultivators and pastoralists affected over 230 people. Among items destroyed include 211 cows, 52 spraying pumps, 6 bicycles, 120 sauce pans, 83 mattresses, 160 mosquito nets, 80 bed sheets, 30 phones, 50 beds, 100 jerry cans, 280 plates, 30 radios, 300 clothing40 .

However, owing to the number of cattle and the historical factors that led to the general displacement of the Basongora community from their ancestral grazing lands in Busongora county (formerly part of Tooro Kingdom), due to establishment of Government Farms and the QENP as well as conversion of the Rwehingo and Bukangara areas into cultivation land for cotton production, some of the Basongora invaded the QENP41. It is this fresh encroachment of 2006 that led to the conflict that was a subject of this survey.

In August 2006, after a series of consultative meetings, H.E the President appointed an Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC)42 to oversee the resettlement of Basongora bearing in mind the historical factors and recommend to Cabinet solutions to their resettlement. In turn the IMC appointed a Government Technical Team (GTT)43 to oversee the implementation of the Cabinet recommendations on relocation of the Basongora pastoralists from QENP National Park. After several visits and consultations in Kasese and Kabarole districts, the Committee came up with recommendations upon which Cabinet made the following decisions with regard to resettling the Basongora out of the park on August 29, 2007.That the Basongora community consisting of about 8,000 people with about 50,000 head of cattle occupying part of QENP be resettled out of the park on land totalling 15,800 acres within Ibuga Prison Farm (1,400) and Refugee Settlement scheme (3,5000), Hima Army Production Unit (3,500), Mubuku Prison Farm (5,300), Karusandara (1,100), Muhokya (1,000) be set free and allocated to the Basongora community to own and use communally as a community trust.





The Basongora ancestral lands of Bukangara and Rwehingo totalling to about 25,000 acres be freed and shared between the cultivators and pastoralists on a 1:3 ratio as earlier agreed on in 1994. Meaning cultivators were to get 8,000 acres while pastoralists 17,000 acres. Government was to institute mechanism for compensation of any title holders. In the same period (2006/2007), UWA put landmarks to demarcate park land and this automatically displaced the Basongora from the park and were brought into contact with cultivators. This worsened the problem of cows eating people’s food crops which resulted into ethnic conflicts.

Following the renewed conflict in QENP and the expulsion of Basongora communities from DRC, the government of Uganda under a presidential directive and later cabinet granted new lands to the Basongora. Cabinet in minute number 387 (CT2007)42 directed the Government Technical Team to allocate 15,800 acres ceded from Ibuga Prison Farm (1,400 acres), Ibuga Refugee Settlement (3,500 acres), Hima Army Production Unit(3,500 acres), Mubuku Prison Farm (5,300 acres), Karusandara (1,100 acres), and Muhokya Sub-county (1,000 acres). As already seen the conflict has resulted in various confrontations and the failure to resolve it remains a challenge to UWA, GoU, Local Governments and other stakeholders.




The Mountain Sabiny form the Yatui-Ndorobo, the Benet-Ndorobo and Kapsekek-Ndorobo. They have lived in the high mountain forest and moorland before MENP was gazetted as a Central Forest Reserve and National Park in 1938 and 1993 respectively43 leaving the Benet, Yatui and Kapsekek Ndorobo within the forest reserve. The boundaries were demarcated in 1964 and 1968 respectively. Their main economic activities at the time included livestock grazing, hunting wild animals, collecting forest fruits, honey and making handcrafts from bamboo in exchange for food supplies from lower land Sabiny.

Due to cattle rustling and its related plunder by the Karimojong warriors in 1980s, lowland Sabiny especially from Ngenge joined the Benet in Mt. Elgon Forest. This coupled with the growing population rapidly changed the lifestyle of the indigenous Benet from hunting and gathering to cultivation and commercial resource collection.

A decision was consequently made by Government in 1983 to acquire 6000 ha of forest land to settle the affected Benet, “the needy” and the displaced Sabiny but the implementation was unfortunately characterized by weaknesses such as lack of proper planning, inadequate consultation with stakeholders, non-adherence to guidelines that were set by the District Land Allocation Committee, lack of assessment and survey of the demarcated area, lack of dissemination of information on land allocation coupled with inadequate sensitization of beneficiaries, and the assessment was done in an incredible hurry under the pretext that land distributors wanted to avoid opportunists.

Appendix III: Brief History of the Mountain Sabiny in MENP

As a result of the above omission, the intended beneficiaries (Yatui-Ndorobo) who arrived late to the resettlement area from upper Chesower were left out. They ended up settling inside the forest above the resettlement zone at Yatui Parish in Kapchorwa and Kapsekek in Bukwo. As of February 2008, 3055 hectares of the National Park in Kapchorwa had been encroached44. Of those settled on the 6000 ha land beside the Benet Ndorobo include the general population of Sabiny (including the displaced and the needy).

43Report on temporary resettlement of the Yatui-Ndorobo at Kisito-Kwosir in Kapchorwa, 200844Temporary resettlement of Yatui-Ndorobo Report, 2008

While the Benet-Ndorobo were now resettled, the Yatui-Ndorobo and Kapsekek-Ndorobo were left inside the forest. However, in 1990 the Yatui Ndorobo were evicted from the current Bukwo district and settled on a narrow strip above the Benet-Ndorobo resettlement area. Meanwhile, the Kapsekek-Ndorobo still remained untouched inside the forest.

In 1992/93 government surveyed the park boundaries and realized that many people had settled beyond the 1983 boundary. An estimated 2500 had been encroached upon beyond the 6000 ha that had been allocated for resettlement. This prompted parliament in 2003 under statutory instrument 42, to degazzett 6000 ha as public land and the rest of settled area remained a national park till today45. It further recommended that that the boundary be maintained as it was in 193846 . As a result of the above pronouncements, a court battle ensued in an effort to regain their land.





Late 2005, the High Court ruled that the Benet people are the historical and indigenous inhabitants of a part of the Mount Elgon National Park; that this area should be degazetted; and that the Benet are “entitled to stay in the said areas and carry out agricultural activities including developing the same undisturbed” (cited in Lang and Byakola 2006). The farmers reoccupied their lands in the Park, cleared the replanted forest and cultivated crops (the trees had been planted as a carbon offset to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions). In February 2008, following the death of a European tourist in Mt. Elgon National Park, the government again evicted the Benet from the PA.


43Report on temporary resettlement of the Yatui-Ndorobo at Kisito-Kwosir in Kapchorwa, 200844Temporary resettlement of Yatui-Ndorobo Report, 200845Interview with Dr.Yekko, Member of Parliament Kween County, Kapchorwa District46See UWA presentation on the State of resource based conflicts and human rights violations in Mt. Elgon National Park to

Members of Parliament representing Committees on Tourism, Trade and Industry and Natural Resource on a fact finding mission to Mt. Elgon National Park (October 2010).

47Annick Van De Venster. Died on February 5, 200848See UWA Report on temporary resettlement of the Yatui-Ndorobo at Kisito-Kwosir in Kapchorwa (November 2008)49Jaramogi 2008.

However, in 2008 following the death of a Belgian tourist47 in MENP, the Yatui-Ndorobo people inclusive of Yatui Primary School and Body of Christ Church were forcefully evicted from the park and resettled in Kisito near the 1983 line while the Kapsekek-Ndorobo were taken to Bukwo district near the 1938 forest line. The eviction was as a result of massive encroachment on the park which not only affected that ecological functioning of the ecosystem but also as a result of the growing insecurity that resulted into the death of the Belgian tourist48 . Hundreds of houses were demolished and farms destroyed49 .

In 1983 there were 15 households to be settled, however by 2008 they had increased to 45 with over 500 people. It is over a year since 2008 when the Minister of Tourism, Trade and Industry passed a directive to the Committee to work out a permanent settlement for the Yatui-Ndorobo people at Kisito and up to now nothing has been done. History is bound to repeat itself on any delay to resettle the people as those below 18 years in 2008, will be adults by the time Government finds alternative land for permanent settlement of the Yatui Ndorobo as well as the Yatui-Kapsekek and Benet Ndorobo.



Appendix IV; Cabinet memo on the settlement of Basongora



Appendix V; GTT report of 28th Sept. 2007





Appendix VI; GTT report of 15th Oct 2007



References

Alcorn, J.B. and A.G. Royo. 2007. Conservation´s engagement with human rights: Traction, slippage, or avoidance. Policy Matters 15: (in press). http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/Publications.htm accessed on November 20, 2010.

Fumihiko SAITO(2007): Local Council Commons Management in Uganda: A theoretical Re-assessment; April 2007 available at http://www.indiana.edu/~iascp/bali/papers/Saito_%20Fumihiko%20_Uganda_s.pdf

GTT(2007)Report on resettlement of Basongora from QENP National Park, October 2007

GTT(2007) Ministerial Statement on Resettlement of Basongora out of QENP National Park, September 2007

HURINET-U (2010)Dialogue Meeting Report between Uganda Wildlife Authority and Mt. Elgon Community Members; July 2010

HURINET-U (2009) “A Cry from the Ranges” Kampala Uganda.

HURINET-U (2009) “A cry from the ranges”

Progress Report on Resettlement of Basongora from QENP National Park, September, 2007

Situation Analysis Report in Ibuga Camp by Ibuga Thuyimukye FURA-CARE REPA VASLA Groups

report_resource based conflicts and hr violations in protected areas

Documents

recommending

mubuku prison

human rights

mubuku irrigation

resource based

human rights

rapid assessment

promote human