Linking Conservation To The Implementation Of Revenue Sharing Policy And Livelihood Improvement Of People Bordering Bwindi Impenetrable National Park

ABSTRACT

This study examined the implementation of Revenue Sharing policy at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park towards improvement of people’s livelihood and support for conservation. Bwindi is a world heritage site and a home of almost 50% of the World Mountain Gorillas. Distributive, procedural, recognitive and contextual dimensions of equitable benefit sharing were explored and analysed. Revenue Sharing policy implementation was regarded as the independent variable while community livelihood was the dependent variable. Conservation support was treated as outcome variable which formed the second level of analysis. The study used a mixed method approach where cross sectional and explanatory research designs were employed. The study was composed of Revenue Sharing beneficiaries and non beneficiaries both Batwa and non-Batwa, key informants and unauthorised resource users who were picked from the records of Local Council I and Uganda Wildlife Authority. Data was collected using documentary review, Households Surveys, Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews. Data was analysed using Linear and Multinomial Logistic Regression models. Polychoric Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied to generate indices for quantitative variables. The study analysed qualitative data using thematic analysis aided by NVivo 10. Quantitative analyses were run in STATA 11 computer package to generate P-values, coefficients and descriptive values of mean and standard deviation where applicable. Results show that Revenue Sharing policy is not equitably implemented and there is limited impact on ground in terms of livelihood improvement. There is however progress in terms of conservation support although unauthorised resource use continues to take place despite Revenue Sharing policy implementation. The study demonstrates that the practice of implementing Revenue Sharing projects is marred by distributive as well as procedural inefficiencies. The poor targeting of projects and lack of a monitoring system have been identified as major shortfalls. People living in the frontline villages within a distance of 1 km from the park boundary were poorer members compared to others in the community. The policy does not target them yet they bear most conservation costs. The study concludes that in order to gain conservation support and improve local community livelihoods, proper targeting and greater involvement of those who bear conservation costs is pertinent. The study recommends a Revenue Sharing Equitable Framework (RSEF) which entails community based monitoring. This is hoped to improve policy practice.