STATUS OF FORESTS AND FOREST GOVERNANCE IN ... - uws.or.ug

1

STATUS OF FORESTS AND FOREST GOVERNANCE IN UGANDA:

THE CASE OF BULIISA DISTRICT IN THE ALBERTINE RIFT REGION

Uganda Wildlife Society, ENR-CSO Network and Buliisa District Local

Government

DECEMBER 2013

2

STATUS OF FORESTS AND FOREST GOVERNANCE IN UGANDA:

THE CASE OF BULIISA DISTRICT IN THE ALBERTINE RIFT REGION

AUTHORS CONTRIBUTING

Priscilla Nyadoi, Laster Stoney Ogola, Moses Murungi, Balikenda Naphtali, Suzan Owino, Teddy

Namirimu, Joel Buyinza and Charles Walaga.

Editor

Professor Joseph Obua

Project partners

Buliisa District Local Government (BDLG); Ecosystems Alliance Uganda Country Program Partners-

NAPE and AFIEGO; Community Based Civil Society Organization Partners- Soft Power Education

(SPE), Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organization (BIRUDO), Buliisa Catholic Women

Association (BUCAWA), Kakindo Orphans Care (KOC) and Kalolo Fish Mongers and Fishermen

Association (KFMFA), Environment and Natural Resources Civil Society Network (ENR-CSOs) and;

Environmental Alert.

December 2013

3

Copyright © 2013 Uganda Wildlife Society and Buliisa District Local Government

Reproduction of this publication for educational or non-commercial purposes is authorized

without prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully

acknowledged. Publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited.

Citation: Priscilla Nyadoi, Moses Murungi, Balikenda Naphtali, Suzan Owino, Laster Stoney

Ogolla, Teddy Namirimu, Joel Buyinza and Charles Walaga, 2013. Status of Forests and Forest

Governance in Uganda: The Case of Buliisa District in the Albertine Rift Region.

Disclaimer

This research report has been prepared with financial assistance from IUCN NL, Wetlands International

and Both ENDS, partners in the Ecosystem Alliance and CARE International – Uganda. The views

expressed, the information and material presented and the geographical and geopolitical designations used

in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN NL, Wetlands

International or Both ENDS or CARE International- Uganda and or the institutions and organisations

providing these four organisations with funds.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER PAGE.................................................................................................................... 1

AUTHORS CONTRIBUTING ........................................................................................... 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... 4

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. 6

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ 7

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 8

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 9

History of Forest Governance in Uganda ............................................................................9

Status of forest and forest governance in Buliisa district ..................................................10

Issues that guided study .....................................................................................................11

MATERIALS AND METHODS ...................................................................................... 12

Study area...........................................................................................................................12

Demography and socio-economic profile of Buliisa district .............................................12

Sampling approach and data collection .............................................................................13

Data management and analysis ..........................................................................................13

RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 14

RESULTS -ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS DATA ............................... 14

Socio-economic characteristics of respondents .................................................................14

Values and resources that local communities derive from forests in Buliisa district ........16

Sufficiency of access of resources/values from Forests for Local communities in Buliisa

district Communities ..........................................................................................................17

Constraints to respondents’ values/access to forest resources ...........................................17

Local communities’ perspective of forest management in Buliisa district ........................18

Local communities’ perspective of interventions to improve forest management in Buliisa

district and, stakeholders to implement the suggested interventions .................................19

VALIDATION OF RESULTS ......................................................................................... 20

Validation of general findings from individual interviews ................................................20

Restrictions to local communities’ access/value of forest resources .................................20

Interventions to improve forest governance in Buliisa ......................................................21

5

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 24

Emerging issues on state and governance of forest resources in Buliisa district ...............24

Lack of awareness and non use of existing fora, guidelines and legal frameworks on

access, benefit from and participation in forest resource management .............................24

Influence of education on local community access, benefit from and participation in

management of forest resources in Buliisa ........................................................................24

Community access, benefit from and participation in management of forest resources in

Buliisa district based on the forest resource duty bearers’ perspectives ............................24

Community perceptions of state of forests and forest management in Buliisa district .....25

Synthesis-implications of findings on forests state and governance in Buliisa district .....26

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 27

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 27

Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 27

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 28

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix 1: Analyses, respondents’ socioeconomic characteristics and variables of forest

status and governance investigated ........................................................................................... 29

Appendix 1: Analyses, respondents and investigated variables on forest state and

governance in Buliisa district – Access to forest resources ................................................... 29

Appendix 1b: Analyses, respondents and investigated variables on forest state and

governance in Buliisa district-Sufficiency of resources respondents accessed from forest 41

Appendix 1c: Analyses, respondents and investigated variables on forest state and

governance- Respondents’ perception of forest management in Buliisa district ................ 53

Appendix 1d: Strategies participants agreed on for Achieving Forest Governance Agenda65

Appendix 2: Questionnaire -Investigating the state and, governance of forest resources in

Buliisa district, from local stakeholders- communities and institutions’ perspectives ...... 69

6

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Respondents Socio-economic characteristics ...................................................... 14

Table 4.2 Correlation analyses, summary of factors found to be important in different

aspects of state and governance of forest resources in Buliisa district. ............................... 16

Table 4.3: Community awareness of fora, guidelines, laws,policies on access, benefits,

and participation in decision making for forest resources use and management in Buliisa20

Table 4.4: The existing fora, guidelines, laws and policies for community access, benefits

and participation in forest resources use and management in Buliisa .................................. 21

Table 4:5 Interventions to improve forest resource access, benefits and community

participation ................................................................................................................................. 21

Table 4.6: Stakeholders to execute forest management interventions in Buliisa district .. 22

7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of Buliisa District Showing Selected Natural Resources and Sub Counties. ......... 12

8

SUMMARY

Several studies have highlighted weak enforcement of policies and laws, inadequate funding,

inequity in benefit sharing and exclusion of local community from participating in management

as causes of Uganda’s forest cover decline from over 20% early in the 19th

century to now only

17% of the country’s total land area. We report the findings of a case study carried out to help

define the status of forests and forest governance (aspects of community access, benefit from and

participation in the resource management) in Buliisa district from the forest sector stakeholders’

perspective. We used questionnaire-guided individual interviews, focus group discussions and

validation to obtain information from 373 individuals, 45 participants who were representatives

of local communities and policy makers, and 3 officials from National Forest Authority and

Forest Service Support Division. Data were managed and analyzed in SPSS, validated and

reported in this publication.

Results show that 55% of the 373 respondents involved in this study accessed and used forest

resources in Buliisa district. Education and land ownership influenced (P≤0.05) forest resource

access with, degree holders and postgraduates having more access than the none and semi

educated, and more landowners than the landless. About 39% of the respondents did not get

enough resources from the forests due to among others, restrictions by government and resource

decline. Many respondents did not know about the existing fora/avenues, processes/guidelines,

policies and legal frameworks they could use to access (76.7%, 88.9% and 82.2%), benefit from

(91.1%, 91.1% and 91.1%) and or participate in management (76.7%, 76.7% and 76.7%) of

forest resources in the district. Duty bearers on the other hand reported that government outreach

programmes to popularize and implement the existing provisions were curtailed by lack of

resources.

Government through responsible ministries, agencies and sector stakeholders should popularize

and implement the existing fora/avenues, processes, policies and legal framework provisioning

for peoples’ access to resources, benefit from and participation in forest management. This

intervention should be strategically carried out to ensure that the less and or un educated persons

effectively benefit.

9

INTRODUCTION

History of Forest Governance in Uganda

Forest governance is a technique by which officials and institutions acquire and exercise

authority in the management of forest resources. It entails application of government regulation

and law enforcement for sustainable management within the political, organizational and cultural

frameworks through which diverse interests in the resources are coordinated and controlled

(Bodegon et al., 2008; Weiland and Deduerwaerdere, 2010). In Uganda, the forest policy of the

1940’s devolved authority of managing local forest reserves from the protectorate to local

government and had provisions for private forest owners and local community to access forest

resources (Banana et al., 2004). In 1967, forest governance was centralized and subsequently

communities’ participation in decision making, monitoring, and enforcement (forest

management) was weakened and this led to deforestation and the forest resources decline. To

address the problem, in 1999 the forest governance was restructured, roles and responsibilities of

the different sector stakeholders streamlined, new policy (Forest Policy 2001), National Forest

Plan (2002) and the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003 developed (Banana et al.,

2004).

The National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003, mandates Forest Inspection Division (DIF) in

the Ministry of Water and Environment to supervise the activities of National Forestry Authority

(NFA) and District Forest Services (DFS). National Forest Authority is charged with regulation

and enforcement of rules in and protection of central forest reserves and provision of technical

training services to the sector’s stakeholders. The DFS offer advisory services to private and

customary forest owners. Working with both NFA and the DFS, local communities are involved

in forest patrols, resource use and management under arrangements such as collaborative forest

management (Banana et al., 2008). But in all the attempts towards good forest governance in

Uganda, just like in other developing countries within the region, the extent and level to which

communities and other stakeholders are engaged in forest governance as provided for in existing

policies and legal frameworks remain questionable even as governance issues are localized

(Buyinza et al., 2010 ).

10

The poor state of governance in Uganda’s forest sector is reflected in the prevailing low levels of

transparency, accountability, public participation in decision-making, enforcement of

policies/laws, funding, benefit sharing and exclusion of local community participation from the

management (in general poor governance) in the sector despite existing policy and legal

provisions that would result in good governance of Uganda’s Forests. Todate, only 17% of

Uganda’s total land area is covered by forests, down from over 24% (early in the 19th

Century).

Even more worrying is that over 60% of this remaining forest lands are privately owned, 30%

are managed by the resource constrained district forest service and only 10% (506 central forest

reserves) are managed by NFA. Thus, the need to define and address governance issues in

Uganda’s forests sector is a matter of national concern. It is against this need that UWS

undertook a case study of the status and governance of forests in Buliisa district, so as to

elucidate strategies that would help to address forest governance problems in the district and also

provide lessons and useful guidelines for national applications.

Status of forest and forest governance in Buliisa district

Just like in many other districts of the Albertine Rift and elsewhere in Uganda, forests and other

wildlife resources in Buliisa district contribute significantly to local communities’ livelihoods,

economy and environment through their direct products and ecological services. Nevertheless,

forests and in general other wildlife resources in the district, just like in many other regions in

Uganda, are being destroyed due to weak governance highlighted above and related challenges

(WCS, 2007; NAPE, AFIEGO and UWS, 2012; Obua et al., 2010; Nyadoi et al., 2012). Most

of these past reports were based on inventories of broad issues on natural resources governance

and hence, forest sector specific governance issues relevant to Buliisa remained undefined

known and therefore no clear interventions to address them have been mapped.

In this case study, Uganda Wildlife Society determined from the local communities and

institutions’ perspective, the status of forests and forest governance in Buliisa district, so as to

elucidate strategies that would be necessary to address them. Questionnaire guided interviews

were with individuals and focus group discussion conducted to obtain information from the

district- forest sector stakeholders (local communities, institutions and duty bearers) on aspects

11

of forest governance (resource access, benefits and participation in management) and, perception

on the state of the forest resources in the district.

Information obtained from interviews and focus group discussions held with the forest sector

stakeholders were validated with key representatives of the local communities and institutions at

district and at national levels, officials from Ministry of Water and Environment–National Forest

Authority and Forest Service Support Division participated.

Issues that guided study

1. General characteristics of the stakeholders - socio-economics, age, sex, marital status,

family size, level of education, land ownership, location of land owned, size of land

owned, type of land tenure/ownership rights, constraints on landownership, what can be

done to address the land ownership constraints and who to intervene.

2. Forest values/resources if any respondents accessed and used.

3. Constraints if any, that respondents felt were hindering their access to forest resources,

interventions and who the respondent deemed were necessary to address the constraints.

4. Respondents’ perceptions of whether, they got enough resources they needed from forests

5. Respondents’ perceptions on whether the forests were being used and managed well and

if not why and the interventions that were needed to improve the management of the

forests.

12

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area

Curved out of Masindi in 2006, Buliisa district is located about 340 km from Kampala and lies

between 1º 23′ and 2º 21′ North and 31º 24′ and 33º 24′ East. It is boarded by Nebbi district in

the north, Masindi district in the east, Hoima district in the south and Lake Albert in the west

(Figure 1). The district covers 3,200 km2

and includes parts of Lake Albert, Budongo Forest

Reserve, Murchison Falls National Park and Bugungu Wildlife Reserve. Some of its highest

points reach 1,800 m above sea level.

Figure 1: Map of Buliisa District Showing Selected Natural Resources and Sub Counties.

Demography and socio-economic profile of Buliisa district

Buliisa is composed of seven sub counties (Biiso, Buliisa, Buliisa Town Council, Butiaba, Kigwera,

Kihungya and Ngwedo) all in one county (Figure 1). There are 110,000 people, and each household has

about seven persons (UBOS, 2002). About 90% of these rely on wood fuel as the main source of energy.

13

Natural resource dependent communities in the district include the fisher folk comprising 2,744

households in eight landing sites (Butiaba, Tungo Mbiri, Walukuuba, Bugoigo, Kabolwa, and Wansenko)

around Lake Albert. About 150 households are Pastoralists while 1500 are farmers engaged in crop

farming (UBOS, 2002; NAPE, UWS and AFIEGO, 2012). Land is communally owned and has been

zoned based on resource user groups. Lake Albert shores are a fishing zone, crops are grown near

Waisoke River, Kabolwa landing site and Walukuba that are adjacent to Bugungu Wildlife Reserve. Main

crops are cotton, bananas, cassava and maize (NAPE, UWS and AFIEGO, 2012).

Sampling approach and data collection

Buliisa district is divided into six sub counties of Biiso, Buliisa, Butiaba, Kigwera, Kihungya,

and Ngwedo with one town council; Buliisa Town Council. The survey was carried out in all

the 6 sub-counties and 1 town council, from which 50 households were randomly selected per

sub-county. Households to be interviewed were sampled at a regular interval of 1000 m apart.

Overall, a total of 375 households were randomly sampled from all the seven sub counties and

interviewed in Buliisa district.

Systematic random sampling was used to determine the households to be

interviewed. A random start point was chosen at distance away from the sub-county boundary

and thereafter at a regular interval of 1000 m, the household at that point or the nearest

household was interviewed. In total, 375 households were randomly sampled from all the seven

sub counties in the district and interviewed in Buliisa district.

Data management and analysis

Data collected from the 375 randomly selected respondents were entered in the SPSS programme

and statistical summaries generated on status of forests and forest governance in Buliisa district,

based on local communities’ perceptions. The results were validated by local community

representatives and key informants from the local forest institutions in the district in a one day

workshop and, at the national level with policy makers and practitioners at the Ministry of Water

and Environment, National Forestry Authority and Forest Service Support Division. The status

and governance of forests in Buliisa district are presented in this report.

14

RESULTS

RESULTS OBTAINED UPON ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS DATA

Socio-economic characteristics of respondents

A total of 373 respondents participated in the individual questionnaire guided interviews

conducted to elicit views of communities on the status of forests and forest governance in

Buliisa. Of these, 74.8% (279) were males and 25% (94) females and majority (79.1%) were

married (Table 4.1). The majority of the respondents were aged between 18 and 30 years

(36.2%) with very few above 70 years old (Table 4.1). Many of the respondents; had large

family size of more than 6 persons (54.4%), had primary level education (41.2%) while 12.6%

did not go to school at all (Table 4.1). Most of the respondents depend on natural resources and

agriculture for their livelihoods, with majority (46.2%) being crop farmers (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Respondents Socio-economic characteristics (N=373) Respondent socio-economic

variable in analysis

Respondent Particular Frequency Percentage

Sex Male 279 74.8

Female 94 25.2

Marital status Single 58 15.5

Married 295 79.1

Divorced 5 1.3

Widowed 11 2.9

Not responded to question 4 1.1

Age in years 18-30 135 36.2

31-40 94 25.2

41-50 67 18.0

51-60 44 11.8

61-70 20 5.4

>70 11 2.9


Family/Household size

(Number of persons in the

household)

<3 54 14.5

4-6 98 26.3

>6 203 54.4


Level of Education Not educated 47 12.6

Primary 154 41.3

Secondary 120 32.2

Tertiary 37 9.9

15

Degree 13 3.5

Postgraduate 2 0.5

Occupation Crop farmer 173 46.4

Fisher folk 73 19.6

Pastoralist 20 5.4

Wildlife resource dependent 1 0.3

Trader 35 9.4

Office employee 23 .2

Others (student,carpenter,Elder

unemployed, traditional

healer,cyclist, etc)

44 11.8


Period of stay (years) in area <5 27 7.2

5-10 33 8.8

11-15 27 7.2

16-20 47 12.6

>20 235 63


Origin before settling in area Within the same village 203 54.4

Within the same district 90 24.1

Elsewhere within Uganda 51 13.7

Outside Uganda 21 5.6

Not responded to the question 8 2.1

Land holding size in hectares <1 Hectare 62 16.6

1-3 Hectares 118 31.6

4-7 Hectares 54 14.5

>7 Hectares 44 11.8


Land tenure Freehold 46 12.3

Mailo land 2 0.5

Communal 92 24.7

Customary 159 42.6


Majority (63%) of the respondents had lived in their present location for over 20 years, and in

origin before, most of them (54.4%), migrated in from within the same village (Table 4.1) with

reason for migration being land for agriculture (22.3%), fishing (7.2%), inheritance and marriage

(9.9%), business (10.7%), 1.3% settled in Buliisa due to wars from, divorce and related problems

at origin, 3.2 % came in because the area was strategic(favorable environment) while 22.8% did

not state reasons for migration.

16

Majority of the respondents 72% owned the land where they are settled now, the most common

land tenure type was customary ownership held by 46.2% and the majority of the respondents

owned between 1 to 3 acres of land (Table 4.1).

Values and resources that local communities derive from forests in Buliisa district

Two hundred and five (55%) of the 373 respondents accessed and used resources from forest in

the district, 37.5% said they did not while 7.5% did not respond to the question on resource

access/value from forests. Overall, more of the educated people (secondary, degree holders and

postgraduates) accessed forest resources (62.5%, 62.2%, 84.6% and 100% respectively) than the

proportion among the less - non and primary level educated (46.8% and 46.8%), and, more of

those who owned land than those who did not own land (P≤=0.05, Table 4.2) with variability in

access with respondent’s other socioeconomic characteristics being as shown in Table in

Appendix 1a)

Table 4.2 Correlation analyses, summary of factors found to be important in different aspects of

state and governance of forest resources in Buliisa district. Item

No.

Forest status and

management Issue

queried

Respondents’ socio economic variable relationship with forests resource

status and management- pair wise comparison, P-values P<0.05

significance level

Educati

on level

Age Marital

status

Famil

y size

Land

ownership

Land

size

Land

tenure

Occupat

ion

1 Respondents

values/access of

resources from forests

0.006 0.798 0.998 0.936 0.049 0.281 0.141 0.067

2 Respondents’ reporting

constraints to resource

access/value from forests

0.004 0.407 0.491 0.402 0.00 0.181 0.160 0.042

3 Respondent reporting

insufficiency of

resources from forests

0.006 0.730 0.931 0.63 0.365 0.513 0.035 0.016

The resources that respondents obtained from the forests included building materials including

timber and poles (mentioned by 23.3% of the respondents), building materials and fuel wood

(11.2%), fuel wood (5.4%), building materials, fuel wood and medicine (4%), building materials,

rainfall and fuel wood (2.9%), building materials and herbal medicine (1.9%),building materials

and fuel wood (1.6%), some 1.3% of the respondents declined to answer question on the type of

resources they accessed from the forest, some 0.8% obtained fuel wood, another 0.8% obtained

17

building materials, fuel wood and herbal medicine, some 0.3% obtained herbal medicine and

others (0.5%) obtained other resources from the forest.

Sufficiency of access of resources/values from Forests for Local communities in Buliisa

district Communities

About 23% of the respondents reported that the resources they got from the forests were

sufficient to meet their needs, 38.6% said the resources were insufficient while 38.1% declined

to state whether the resources were sufficient for their needs or not. Again, fewer of the persons

with higher education level reported not accessing sufficient resources from the forest (0.5- 5.6%

for postgraduates to tertiary level graduates) compared to 4-13.7% for non-educated to primary

level educated respondents (P≤0.006, Table 4.2). Similarly, very few people with Mailo land

tenure (0.0%) reported not accessing sufficient resources from the forest compared to

respondents with land tenure types (P≤0.035 Table 4.2) with insufficiency reporting under the

other tenure types being 15.3% for Customary, Freehold (7.5%), Communal (10.5%) while in

occupation, more people among the crop farmers (16.9%) reported insufficiency of resources

compared to respondents in other groups (0.0% - 6.4%), (P≤ 0.016, Table 4. 2 above). The

variations in sufficiency of resources accessed with the respondents’ socioeconomic variables

were as shown in Table in Appendix 1b).

Constraints to respondents’ values/access to forest resources

Some 159 (42.6%) of the respondents said they did not have any constraints in access/value from

the forest resources, 90 (24.1%) reported they faced constraints in access while 33.2% of the 373

respondents did not answer the question on constraints to access/value from the forest resources.

The factors that respondents mentioned to have constrained their access to forest resources

included restrictions (mentioned by 19.8% of the 373 individuals interviewed), decline in forest

resources (8.6%), location of forest far (3.5%), restriction and forest decline (1.1%) while many

(67%) did not respond to the question on constraints that they faced in accessing resources from

the forest. Also, the respondent’s constraint to forest resource access were influenced by their

level of education, land ownership and occupation (P=0.04, 0.00 and 0.042 respectively, (Table

4.2 above).

18

Respondents’ suggested interventions and stakeholders to implement the interventions

necessary to remove constraints to access/value of resources from forests in Buliisa district

To remove the constraints that hinder access to forest resources the respondents suggested that

restrictions should be removed so that they access the resources from the forests (18.8%), some

67% declined to respond to the question on interventions to remove constraint to access of

resources from the forest, 3% suggested that alternative source need to be provided , 5.4%

suggested Afforestation be carried out to enhance resource availability for access, 4% suggested

legislation be enacted to allow access to resources from the forest , 0.3% suggested allowed

access and Afforestation be effected and another 0.3% suggested legislation for access and

alternative sources of forests resources be developed.

Majority (65.7%) of the respondents did not suggest the stakeholders they deem should

implement the interventions they identified to remove constraints to forest resources access,

6.4% suggested nongovernmental organizations and government, 3.2% suggested local

communities and local government, 2.9% suggested local government, 1.9% (local communities)

and 1.6% (nongovernmental organizations).

Local communities’ perspective of forest management in Buliisa district

Out of the 373 respondents interviewed, 41.3% stated that forest resources in Buliisa were well

managed, 32.4% said the resources were not well managed and 36.3% did not give their opinion

on state of forest management in the district. The respondents (28.4%) mentioned illegal

activities (such as tree cutting, encroachment and charcoal burning), absence of benefits to local

communities (5.6%) and species extinction (0.3%) as the reasons for poor forest management in

Buliisa while some 65.7% did not give response on reasons why they perceive forests in the

district are not being well managed. The respondents’ socioeconomic variable and perception on

forest management in Buliisa district is given in Table in Appendix 1c.

19

Local communities’ perspective of interventions to improve forest management in Buliisa

district and, stakeholders to implement the suggested interventions

The respondents’ suggested interventions to improve forest management in Buliisa district and

these included legislation to curb corruption and illegal activities (mentioned by 23.3% of the

respondents), 64.3% did not give response on perceived interventions to improve forest

management, 5.4% suggested sensitization, 4.8% suggested support to benefit programmes,

1.6% suggested legislation and sensitization while 0.5% mentioned legislation and benefit

programmes.

The specific stakeholders the local communities suggest to implement the interventions

identified to improve forest management in Buliisa district include government (mentioned by

24.4% of the respondents), government and nongovernmental organizations (5.4%), local

government (3.2%), government and local communities (2.7%), nongovernmental organizations

(1.1%), government, nongovernmental organizations and local communities (0.8%) while, some

62.5% declined to suggest any stakeholders to implement interventions to improve forest

management in Buliisa district.

20

VALIDATION OF RESULTS

Validation of general findings from individual interviews

Participants at district level, including representative of local communities and institutions

qualified the survey findings on resource access/value from the forests, the resource sufficiency,

constraints to access and interventions to improve the forest resource sustainability and

governance in Buliisa district. The following issues emerged from the group discussions:

Restrictions to local communities’ access/value of forest resources

Majority of the participants were not aware of any fora, guidelines, laws and or policies to enable

them access forest resources (76.7%), benefits from the forest resources (91.1%) and or

participate in decision making and planning for forest resources use and management in Buliisa

district (76.7%, Table 4.3). The existing fora and institutional frameworks for forests resource

access and benefit from and participation in management by local communities mentioned by

those who were aware of them included environmental committees at the district (Table 4.4).

Table 4.3: Community awareness of fora, guidelines, laws and policies on access, benefits, and

participation in decision making/planning for forest resources use and management in Buliisa

Avenues/fora/arrangem

ent,Processes/procedure

s/guidelines, Laws and

Policies by government

Respondents awareness of access and benefit from forest

resources and participation in decision making and planning for

forest resources use and management in Buliisa district

Access

(Response %)

Benefits

(Response %)

Participation

(response %)

Average

(%)

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Avenues/

fora/arrangement

13.3 76.7 8.9 91.1 13.3 76.7 11.8 88.2

Processes/procedures/gui

delines

11.1 88.9 8.9 91.1 13.3 76.7 11.1 88.9

Laws and Policies 17.8 82.2 8.9 91.1 13.3 76.7 13.3 86.7

Average (%) 14.1 82.6 8.9 91.1 13.3 76.7 12.1 87.9

21

Table 4.4: The existing fora, guidelines, laws and policies for community access, benefits and

participation in forest resources use and management in Buliisa Existing Avenues/ fora/arrangement for communities’ access,

benefit from and participation in forest resources management and

governance in Buliisa District

Percentage of Participants who are

aware of the avenues/for

a/arrangement

Environment committees at Local Councils II and III 11.8

District Natural Resources Forum 8.9

Collaborative Resource Management Groups (UWA) 6.7

Buliisa District NGO-Forum 6.7

Do not know 88.2

Existing Processes/procedures/guidelines

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) 11.1

NEMA guidelines 6.7

Informal guidelines by NFA for regulated access to firewood 11.1

User- rights programme (UWA) 2.2

Do not know 88.9

Laws and Policies

Community Conservation Policy 6.7

National Wetland policy 11.8

National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 8.9

The Forest Policy 8.9

Do not know 86.7

Interventions to improve forest governance in Buliisa

Participants’ suggested interventions to improve forest governance and these included

community access, benefits from and participation in the resource management (Table 4.5) and

the stakeholders to effect the interventions are given in Table 4.6.

Table 4: 5 Interventions to improve forest resource access, benefits and community participation

Strategies to improve community access,

benefit from and participation in decision

making and planning for forest resources

use and management in Buliisa district

Ranking of responses based on group perception of the

suggested strategies (0-12), 1 is the highest rank, 0 means it

was not mentioned by the group

Group1 Group2 Group3 Rank average Overall Rank

Community sensitization on the available

government fora, guidelines, laws and policies

that enable local communities to access,

benefits and participate in forest resource use

and management.

4 1 1 2.0 1

Facilitate a review of the existing bye-laws,

ordinances, guidelines, laws and policies on

forest governance to suit the existing situation

5 8 9 7.3 7

Facilitate formation of CFM groups around

Budongo Central Forest Reserve and empower

them to negotiate better CFM agreements with

NFA

7 7 3 5.7 5

Revive the environment committees at Local

Councils II, III and V, the District Natural

Resource forum and an inter-district natural

resource forum.

2 3 4 3.0 2

22

Carryout a comprehensive participatory forest

resource-user needs assessment involving both

forest resource users and managers.

0 2 2 5.3 3

Facilitate the district ENR-CSOs and CBOs to

participate in forest governance debates at sub

national and national levels

8 0 6 8.7 8

Simplify existing guidelines, laws and policies

by translating them into local languages

0 4 10 8.7 8

Increase awareness on the values of forests

and strengthen environmental clubs (such as

Wildlife Clubs) in institutions such as schools,

religious and political institutions.

6 5 5 5.3 3

Facilitate creation of incentives (rewards) for

protection of forest resources to motivate

communities to protect trees on their farms

0 6 0 9.3 11

Facilitate forest adjacent communities to

access and benefit from forest resources, and

create platforms for participation in forest

resource use and management

1 9 7 5.7 5

Tree planting activities in local forest reserves

and establishment of community forests in

Kilama-Bukilwa and Got Apol.

3 0 0 9.0 10

Advocate for increased transparency in forest

resource access and benefits licensing process.

9 0 8 9.7 12

Table 4.6: Stakeholders to execute interventions in forest management in Buliisa district Interventions suggested for improving forest governance and

conservation in Buliisa district

Key Stakeholder

Community sensitization on the available government fora, guidelines, laws

and policies that enable local communities to access, benefit and participate

in forest resource use and management.

National Forest Authority

(Budongo), NGOs, Buliisa DFO,

and CDO

Facilitate a review of the existing bye-laws, ordinances, guidelines, laws and

policies on forest governance to suit the existing situation

NGOs, District Environment

Officer, District Council, Parliament

Facilitate formation of CFM groups around Budongo Central Forest Reserve

and empower them to negotiate better CFM agreements with NFA

NFA and NGOs

Revive environment committees at Local Councils II, III and V, the District

Natural Resource forum and an inter-district natural resource forum.

District Council, Parliament, NGOs

Carryout a comprehensive participatory forest resource-user needs

assessment involving both forest resource users and managers.

NFA, DFO, DEO and NGOs

Facilitate the district ENR-CSOs and CBOs to participate in forest

governance debates at sub national and national levels

District NGO-Forum, CBOs and

CSOs

Translate in local languages, the existing guidelines, laws and policies on

access, use and participation in forest management

NGOs and Local government

Increase awareness of values of forests and strengthen environmental clubs

(eg Wildlife Clubs) in schools, religious and political institutions.

NGOs, DFO, Political parties,

Parliament

Facilitate creation of incentives (rewards) for protection of forest resources

to motivate communities to protect trees on their farms

NFA, Parliament and NGOs

Create fora for and, facilitate forest adjacent communities to access, benefit

from and participate in forest resource use and management

NFA and NGOs

Tree planting activities in local forest reserves and establishment of

community forests in Kilama-Bukilwa and Got Apol.

NFA, DFO, CSOs

Advocate for increased transparency in the forest resource access and

benefits licensing process.

NGOs

23

Overall, the participants came up with agenda on forests resources conservation and governance

that they need to be addressed from the district to the national levels and the strategies they felt

would be applicable for the purpose and these were as shown in Table in Appendix 1 d.

Validation of the results obtained from individual interviews and focus group discussion with

relevant stakeholders at the district level, with the national level stakeholders (policy makers and

practitioners) in the Ministry of Water and Environment (Forest Sector Support Division and

National Forestry Authority) revealed the following;

Policy makers and practitioners at the MWE acknowledged and were aware that

communities were largely not aware of the guidelines, policy and legal frameworks and

of the fora/avenues through which they could access and benefit from forest resources.

Community sensitization programmes had not been implemented due to budgetary

constraints.

The guidelines, policy and legal frameworks had not been translated in local languages

and programmes disseminated through radios and television and newspapers, remote

communities did not have access to these media.

Outside natural forests resources, community tree planting implementation had been

constrained by inadequate seedlings raised to meet the demand from the local

communities. Financial constraints hindered production of tree seedlings to supply to the

communities.

The Ministry of Water and Environment planed to promote tree planting as one of its

flagship programmes for 2013/2014 financial year (plant a tree for every public occasion

and or celebration).

Re-invigorating public interest in conservation through functionalizing fora/avenues for

information sharing and debates on conservation issues in the country. This was to be

followed by the Ministry of Water and Environment in the financial year 2013/2014.

24

DISCUSSION

Emerging issues on state and governance of forest resources in Buliisa district

Lack of awareness and non use of existing fora, guidelines and legal frameworks on access,

benefit from and participation in forest resource management

Like most studies undertaken before (Banana et al., 2004; 2008; Obua et al., 2010; Weiland and

Dedeurwaerdere, 2010), our results from Buliisa clearly show that poor forest governance still

exists and includes lack of community participation in forest management, constrained access to

resources and benefits forests in the district. However, unlike most reports that seem to suggest

exclusion of local community participation in forest resource management and access to

resources and benefits due to strict policies and legal frameworks (Banana et al., 2008; Buyinza

et al.,2010), our findings clearly revealed that in Buliisa district local communities lack

awareness of existing avenues/fora, processes/procedures/guidelines and policy and legal frame

that would increase their access to and use of forest resources.

Influence of education on local community access, benefit from and participation in

management of forest resources in Buliisa

In addition to lack of awareness of policy and legal frameworks discussed above, our results

show that people who are not educated and or who have low levels of education benefited less

from forest resources than the educated people – those with degree and postgraduate level

education. Although the latter constitute only a small proportion of the population in Buliisa

district, our findings suggest that education enabled them to access, read and use the existing

guidelines, policies and legal provisions to achieve their interests from the forest resources in the

district. For the non-educated the provisions need to be packaged and information disseminated

using a strategy that can allow for their understanding of the provisions.

Community access, benefit from and participation in management of forest resources in

Buliisa district based on the forest resource duty bearers’ perspectives

Duty bearers at the district and national levels acknowledged that communities have largely not

used the guidelines/procedures, policies and legal provisions available to facilitate their access,

benefit from and participation in forest resource management. They attributed this to lack of

25

awareness about the provisions. They noted that government outreach programmes that were

intended to enable communities know and use the policy and legal frameworks to realize their

entitlements and interests from forest resources were not implemented due to financial

constraints. Thus, although the provisions exist and the government has put in place structures

for their implementation, the structures remain redundant as the communities do not know about

them and hence do not seek for their services.

Even though lack of knowledge on existing procedures, guidelines and legal framework were the

major limitations, our study found that considerable proportion of the local communities

nevertheless accessed and used resources from forests in the district although to a lesser extent.

The constraints they identified to have caused these were government restrictions, resource

decline and location of the forest resources. But as we have identified, perceived restrictions are

really not the issue, rather the limited knowledge they have on procedures, guidelines, policy and

legal provisions they need to use for the purpose was the problem.

Community perceptions of state of the forests and forest management in Buliisa district

The other issues communities identified and used to justify their perception that forests in the

district are poorly managed were corruption and illegal activities. Illegal activities like charcoal

burning and timber harvesting were mentioned by the communities and deemed to be causing

deforestation and species extinction in the forests. One way of addressing this problem in

Buliisa district could be by enhancing community participation in forest resource use and

management. However, strategies for entrenching this is often localized and situation specific

(Buyinza et al., 2010).

In Buliisa district, our findings reveal that there is a need to educate the local communities about

the existing avenues/fora, processes/procedure, policy and legal frameworks to achieve their

entitlements and meet their demand for forest resources. This will enable them acquire sufficient

knowledge and be empowered to pursue their interests, including participation in forest resource

use and management and thereby improving forest resource governance and conservation.

26

Cross synthesis-implications of findings on forests state and governance in Buliisa district

Considered all together, our findings on state of forest and forest governance and from the

discussion above there are implications that stakeholders need to note. Forest resources are

poorly managed and these manifest in the form of inequitable benefit and access to forest

resource access and lack of community participation in the resource management. However, the

government has put place fora, guidelines and, policy and legal provisions, including structures

to ensure local communities’ access to resources, benefits from and participation in forest

resource use and management (governance). In spite of this, majority of the communities have

not used these provisions to fulfill their interests in forest resources in the district because they

are not aware of their existence.

We also established that duty bearers at the district and national levels know that communities

have not been meaningfully engaged in forest resource use and management (governance) in the

district. They know that the majority of the local communities do not know about the fora,

guidelines and, policy and legal frameworks available to fulfill their interests in the forest

resources. Moreover, our findings reveal that this problem is more pronounced among the non

educated members of the communities. The duty bearers lacked resources to implement

government outreach programmes.

27

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

1. Majority of the local communities in Buliisa district access and use resources from the

forests. However, the resource access is influenced by level of education, with more of

the educated people accessing resources than those who are not or are semi educated.

2. Access to forest resources is constrained by government restrictions, resource decline and

location of the forests. However, it is not restriction per-se but local communities’ lack of

awareness and hence non use of existing fora, guidelines, policy and legal frameworks to

increase their access to, benefit from and participation in forest resource management that

is limiting community realization of their interests in the resources.

3. Local communities in Buliisa district perceive forests in the district as being poorly

managed, benefits to them are limited, illegal activities and corruption remain prevalent

and species extinction is taking place in the forests.

Recommendations

To address forest governance problems in Buliisa district, meaningful local community

participation in the resource management and use, an outreach programme aimed at educating

the people about existing fora, guidelines and, policy and legal framework/provisions for

resource access, benefit from and participation in forest management need to be implemented.

The outreach programme should be well designed strategy to include capacity building of both

the educated and none educated members of the communities.

Empowered with the relevant knowledge about their rights and entitlements and aware of the

existing fora, guidelines, policy and legal frameworks to realize their interests, the local

communities will with less facilitation easily and meaningfully get engaged in forest resource

governance. This will bring about more transparency, equity and accountability in the forest

sector and result in sustainable use and management of forests in Buliisa district.

28

REFERENCES

Banana, A.Y., Vogt, N.D., Gombya-Ssembajjwe, W. and Bahati, J. (2004). Local Governance

and Forest conditions: The case of Forests in Mpigi district of Uganda.

Banana, A., Ongugo, P., Bahati, J., Mwangi, E. and Krister, A. (2008). Resource, Recourse and

Decisions: Incentive structures in forest decentralization and governance in East Africa.

Buyinza, M., Lugo, E and Ongugo, P. 2010. Emmerging Local Economic and Social Dynamics

Shapping East African Forest Landscapes. In. Forests and Society – Responding to

Global Drivers of Change (Eds. Gerardo, Mery., Pia, Katila., Glenn Galloway., Rene I.

Alfaro., Markku Kanninen., Max Lobovikov and Jari, Varjo). IUFRO World Series Vol.

25, 315-334.

Jagger, P. (2008). Forest incomes after Uganda’s forest sector reform: are the rural poor gaining?

CAPRI working paper no. 92. IFPRI. Washington D.C USA.

Jan Van Bodegon, A., Klaver, D., Van Schoebroeck, F. and Van der Valke, O. (2008). Exploring

the meaning of governance concept for the FLEGT concept. Wegninggen University and

research centre, Netherlands.

Meinzen-Dick, R. and Knox, A. (1999). Collective action, property rights and devolution of

natural resource management: conceptual framework. In R. Meinzen-Dick, A, Knox, &

M. Di Gregorio (Eds.), Collective action, property rights and devolution of natural

resource management (pp. 40-72). Washington, DC: Collective Action and Property

Rights (CAPRi) program of the consultative group on International Agricultural Research

(CGIAR). URL: http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/meinzen_knox.pdf.

Obua, J., Agea,G,J and Ogwal, J,J. 2010. Status of forests in Uganda. African Journal of

Ecology, 48 (4) 853-859.

The Republic of Uganda 1997. Local government Act 1997. Ministry of local government.

Entebbe. Government printer.

Uganda Forest Department. (1951). A history of the Uganda forest department, 1898 – 1929.

Weiland, S. and Deduerwaerdere,T. (2010). Change in forest governance in developing

countries. In search of sustainable governance. International journal of commons vol. 4,

no 2 August 2010 pp.683-686. Igitur, Utrscht publishing & Archiving services for IASC.

ISSN: 1875-0281

http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/meinzen_knox.pdf

29

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Analyses, respondents’ socioeconomic characteristics and variables of forest

status and governance investigated

Appendix 1a Table: Analyses, respondents and investigated variables on forest state and

governance in Buliisa district – Access to forest resources (N=373)

Analyzed variable on

forest state and

governance in Buliisa

district based on

information obtained

from respondents

Respondent Particular Frequency out

of 373

Percentage

among groups (

out of 373 )

Percentage

within Groups

Access to

resources/values from

forests and

respondent’s sex

Males who accessed 157 42.1% 56.3%

Males who did not access 100 26.8% 35.8%

Males who did not

respond to the question

on resource access

22

5.9% 7.9%

Total 279 74.8% 100%

Females who accessed 48 12.9% 51.1%

Females who did not

access

40 10.7% 42.6%

Females who did not

respond to question

6 1.6% 6.4%

Total 94 25.2% 100%

Access to


forests and

respondent’s level of

education

Not educated who

accessed the resources

22 5.9% 46.8%

Not Educated who did

not access the resources

22 5.9% 46.8%

Not educated who did not


on access

3 0.8% 6.4%

Total 47 12.6% 100%

Primary level educated

respondents who


72 19.3% 46.8%


respondents who did not

access the resources

69 18.5% 44.8%




on resources access

13 3.5% 8.4%

30

Total 154 41.3% 100%

Secondary level educated

respondents who


75 20.1% 62.5%




38 10.2% 31.7%



respond to question on

access of resources

7 1.9% 5.8%

Total 120 32.2% 100%

Tertiary level educated

respondents who


23 6.2% 62.2%




10 2.7% 27.0%




access to resources

4 1.1% 10.8%

Total 37 9.9% 100%

Degree level educated

respondents who


11 2.9% 84.6%




1 0.3% 7.7%




on access to the resources

1 0.3% 7.7%

Total 13 3.5% 100%

Postgraduate level

educated respondents

who accessed the

resources

2 0.5% 100%

Postgraduate level


who did not access the

resources

0 0.0% 0.0%

Postgraduate level


who did not respond to

the question on access to

resources

0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 2 0.5% 100%

Access to


Single marital status

respondents who

36 9.7% 62.1%

31

forests and

respondent’s Marital

status





19 5.1% 32.8%




on access to resources

3 0.8% 5.2%

Total 58 15.5 100%

Married marital status

respondents who


157 42.1%

53.2%



access resources

114 30.6% 38.6%





24 6.4% 8.1%

Total 295 79.0% 100%

Divorced marital status

respondents who


3 0.8% 60%



access resources

1 0.3% 20%




access to resources

1 0.3% 20%

Total 5 1.3% 100%

Widowed marital status

respondents who


5 1.3% 45.5%



access resources

6 1.6% 54.5%




access to resources

0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 11 2.9% 100%

Access to


forests and

respondent’s Age in

years

18-30 year olds

respondents who


80 21.4% 59.3%

18-30 year olds 45 12.1% 33.3%

32


access resources

18-30 year olds



access to resources

10 2.7% 7.40%

Total 135 36.2 100%

31-40 year olds

respondents who


45 12.1% 47.9%

31-40 year olds



41 11.0% 43.6%

31-40 year olds


answer question on

access to resources

8 0.8% 8.5%

Total 94 25.2% 100%

41-50 year olds

respondents who


33 8.8% 49.3%

41-50 year olds



31 8.3% 46.3%

41-50 year olds



access to resources

3 0.8% 4.5%

Total 67 17.9% 100%

51-60 year olds

respondents who


28 7.5% 63.6%

51-60 year olds


access resources

10 2.7% 22.7%

51-60 year olds



access to resources

6 1.6% 13.6%

Total 44 11.8% 100%

61-70 year olds

respondents who


11 2.6% 55%

61-70 year olds


access resources

8 2.1% 40%

61-70 year olds



access to the resources

1 0.3% 5%

33

Total 20 5.0% 100%

>70 year olds

respondents who


6 1.6% 54.5%

>70 year olds



5 1.3% 45.5%

>70 year olds




0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 11 2.9% 100%

Access to


forests and

respondent’s


(Number of persons in

the household)

<3 persons in a family

respondents who


28 7.5% 51.9%




21 5.6% 38.9%





5 1.3% 9.3%

Total 54 14.4% 100%

4-6 persons in a family

respondents who


56 15.0% 57.1%



access resources

36 9.7% 36.7%





6 1.6% 6.1%

Total 98 26.3% 100%

>6 persons in a family

respondents who


112 30.0% 55.2%




77 20.6% 37.9%





14 3.8% 7.0%

Total 203 54.4% 100%

34

Access to forests


forests and

respondent’s Occupation

Crop farmer -

respondents who


85 22.8% 49.1%

Crop farmer -



82 22.0% 47.4%

Crop farmer -




6 1.6% 3.7%

Total 173 46.4% 100%

Fisher folk -respondents

who accessed the

resources

40 10.7% 54.8%


who did not access

resources

23 6.2% 31.5%



question on access to

resources

10 2.7% 13.7%

Total 73 19.6% 100%

Pastoralist-respondents

who accessed the

resources

9 2.4% 45%


who did not access the

resources

10 2.7% 50%




resources

1 0.3% 5%

Total 20 5.4% 100%

Wildlife resource

dependent households-

respondents who


1 0.3% 100%

Wildlife resource



access resources

0 0.0% 0%

Wildlife resource





0 0.0% 0%

35

Total 1 0.3% 100%

Traders- respondents

who accessed the

resources

17 4.6% 48.8%


who did not access

resources

12 3.2% 34.3%




resources

6 1.6% 17.1%

Total 35 9.4% 100%

Office employee-

respondents who


18 4.8% 78.3%

Office employee-



3 0.8% 13.0%

Office employee-



access to resources

2 0.5% 8.7%

Total 23 7.2% 100%

Others

(student,carpenter,Elder


healer,cyclist, etc)-

respondents who


33 8.8% 75.0%

Others





access resources

9 2.4% 20.5%

Others






access to resources

2 0.5% 4.5%

Total 44 11.7% 100%

Access to forests


forests and

respondent’s period of

stay (years) in area

<5 years of stay in

present area-

respondents who


12 3.2% 44.4%

<5 years of stay in

present area-

10 2.7% 37.0%

36



<5 years of stay in

present area-



access to resources

5 1.3% 18.5%

Total 27 7.2% 100%

5-10 years of stay in

present area-

respondents who


19 5.1% 57.6%


present area-


access resources

13 3.5% 39.4%


present area-



access to resources

1 0.3% 3.0%

Total 33 8.9% 100%


present area-

respondents who


13 3.5% 48.1%


present area-


access resources

12 3.2% 44.4%


present area-



access to resources

2 0.5% 7.4%

Total 27 7.2% 100%


present area-

respondents who


28 7.5% 59.6%


present area-


access resources

15 4.0% 31.9%


present area-



access to resources

4 1.1% 8.5%

Total 47 12.6% 100%

37

>20 years of stay in

present area-

respondents who


129 34.6% 55.0%


present area-


access resources

90 24.1% 38.3%


present area-




16 4.3% 6.8%

Total 235 63.0% 100%

Access to forests


forests and

respondent’s origin

before settling in area

Within the same village

Origin - respondents

who accessed the

resources

113 30.3% 55.7%



who did not access

resources

75 20.1% 36.9%





resources

15 4.0% 7.4%

Total 203 54.4% 100%

Within the same district

Origin- - respondents

who accessed the

resources

27 7.2% 52.9%



who did not access

resources

17 4.6% 33.3%





resources

7 1.9% 13.7%

Total 51 13.7% 100%

Elsewhere within Uganda

Origin - respondents who


54 14.5% 60%



did not access resources

31 8.3% 34.4%



5 1.3% 5.6%

38

did not respond to


resources

Total 90 24.1% 100%

Outside Uganda Origin-

respondents who


8 2.1% 38.1%



access resources

13 3.5% 61.9%




access to resources

0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 21 5.6% 100%

Access to forests


forests and

respondent’s land

holding size in hectares

<1 Hectare size of land

held- respondents who


35 9.4% 56.5%




24 6.4% 38.7%



did not respond to


resources

3 0.8% 4.8%

Total 62 16.6% 100%

1-3 Hectares size of land


accessed resources from

the forests

62 16.6% 52.5%




from the forests

50 13.4% 42.4%



did not respond to


resources from the

forests

6 1.6% 5.1%

Total 118 31.6% 100%




the forests

34 9.1% 63.0%



16 4.3% 29.6%

39


from the forests



did not respond to


resources from the

forests

4 1.1% 7.4%

Total 54 14.5% 100%

>7 Hectares size of land



the forests

25 6.7% 56.8%




from the forests

15 4.0% 34.1%



did not respond to


resources from the

forests

4 1.1% 9.1%

Total 44 11.8% 100%

Access to forests


forests and

respondent’s land

tenure

Freehold type of land

ownership - respondents

who accessed resources

from the forests

24 6.4% 52.2%



who did not access

resources from the

forests

20 5.4% 43.5%





resources from the

forests

2 0.5% 4.3%

Total 46 12.3% 100%

Mailo land type of land



from the forests

1 0.3% 50.0%



who did not access

resources from the

forests

0 0.0% 0.0%



1 0.3% 50.0%

40



resources from the

forests

Total 2 0.6% 100%

Communal type of land



from the forests

58 15.5% 63.0%



who did not access

resources from the

forests

29 7.8% 31.5%





resources from the

forests

5 1.3% 5.4%

Total 92 24.6% 100%

Customary type of land



from the forests

84 22.5% 52.8%



who did not access

resources from the

forests

67 18.0% 42.1%





resources from the

forests

8 2.1% 5.0%

Total 159 42.6% 100%

41

Appendix 1b. Table 4.4: Analyses, respondents and investigated variables on forest state and

governance in Buliisa district-Sufficiency of resources respondents accessed from forest (N=373)

Analyzed variable on forest

state and governance in

Buliisa district based on

information obtained from

respondents


among groups

(out of 373)

Percentage

within

groups

Sufficiency of

resources/values obtained

from forests respondent and

respondent’s sex

Males who reported sufficiency

of resources obtained from

Forests

66 17.7% 23.7%

Males who reported not

obtaining sufficient resources

from Forests

106 28.4% 38.0%

Males who did not respond to

the question on sufficiency of

resources obtained from forests

107 28.7% 38.4%

Total 279 74.8% 100%

Female who reported

sufficiency of resources

obtained from Forests

21 5.6% 22.3%

Females who reported not


from Forests

38 10.2% 40.4%

Females who did not respond to

the question on sufficiency of

resources obtained from forests

35 9.4% 37.2%

Total 94 25.2% 100%

Sufficiency of forest


from the forests to the

respondent and


education

Not educated respondents - who

reported sufficiency of

resources obtained from Forests

11 2.9% 23.4%


did reported not obtaining

sufficient resources from

Forests

15 4.0% 31.9%


did not respond to the question

on sufficiency of resources


21 5.6% 44.7%

Total 47 12.5% 100%


respondents - who reported



31 8.3% 20.1%


respondents - who reported not


from Forests

51 13.7% 33.1%

42


respondents - who did not

respond to the question on



72 19.3% 46.8%

Total 154 41.3% 100%





33 8.8% 27.5%





47 12.6% 39.2%






40 10.7% 33.3%

Total 120 32.1% 100%





8 2.1% 21.6%





21 5.6% 56.8%






8 2.1% 21.6%

Total 37 9.8% 100%





4 1.1% 30.8%




from Forests

8 2.1% 61.5%






1 0.3% 7.7%

Total 13 3.5% 100%

Postgraduate level educated


0 0.0% 0.0%

43







2 0.5% 100%






0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 2 0.5% 100%




respondent and

respondent’s Marital status

Marital status single -

respondents who reported



17 4.6% 29.3%


respondents who reported not


from Forests

23 6.2% 39.7%






18 4.8% 31.0%

Total 58 16.6% 100%

Marital status Married-




65 17.4% 22.0%





113 30.3% 38.3%






117 31.4% 39.7%

Total 295 79.1% 100%

Marital status divorced -




0 0.0% 0.0%





3 0.8% 60.0%




2 0.5% 40.0%

44



Total 5 1.3% 100%

Marital status widowed -




2 0.5% 18.2%




from Forests

4 1.1% 36.4%






5 1.3% 45.5%

Total 11 2.9% 100%




respondent and

respondent’s Age in years

18-30 year olds- respondents

who reported sufficiency of


35 9.4% 25.9%


who reported not obtaining


Forests

51 13.7% 37.8%


who did not respond to the

question on sufficiency of


49 13.1% 36.3%

Total 135 36.2% 100%

31-40 year olds year olds-




23 6.2% 34.3%




from Forests

29 7.8% 43.3%






15 4.0% 22.4%

Total 67 18.0% 100%

41-50 year olds - respondents



15 4.0% 22.4%



25 6.7% 37.3%

45


Forests


who did not respond to question



27 7.2% 40.3%

Total 67 17.9% 100%




9 2.4% 20.5%




Forests

22 5.9% 50.0%





13 3.5% 29.5%

Total 44 11.8% 100%




3 0.8% 15.0%




Forests

11 2.9% 55.0%





6 1.6% 30.0%

Total 20 5.3% 100%

>70 year olds - respondents who



2 0.5% 18.2%


reported not obtaining sufficient

resources from Forests

4 1.1% 36.4%





5 1.3% 45.5%

Total 11 2.9% 100%




respondent and

respondent’s


(Number of persons in the

household)

<3 persons in the family-




13 3.5% 24.1%

46




from Forests

16 4.3% 29.6%






25 6.7% 46.3%

Total 54 14.5% 100%

4-6 persons in the family-




31 8.3% 31.6%




from Forests

31 8.3%% 31.6%






36 9.7% 36.7%

Total 98 26.3% 100%

>6 persons in the family-




41 11.0% 20.2%





90 24.1% 44.3%






72 19.3% 35.5%

Total 203 54.4% 100%




respondent and

respondent’s Occupation

Crop farmer- respondents who



41 11.0% 23.7%




63 16.9% 36.4%





69 18.5% 39.9%

Total 173 46.4% 100%

47

Fisher folk- respondents who



16 4.3% 21.9%




23 6.2% 31.5%





34 9.1% 46.6%

Total 73 19.6% 100%

Pastoralist- respondents who



1 0.3% 5.0%




9 2.4% 45.0%

Pastoralist- respondents who did

not respond to the question on



10 2.7% 50.0%

Total 20 5.4% 100%

Wildlife resource dependent

households-respondents who



0 0.0% 0.0%





0 0.0% 0.0%



did not respond to questions on



1 0.3% 100.0%

Total 1 0.3% 100%

Traders-respondents who



6 1.6% 17.1%




13 3.5% 37.1%

Traders-respondents who did




16 4.3% 45.7%

Total 35 9.4% 100%

Office employee- respondents


9 2.4% 39.1%

48





Forests

11 2.9% 47.8%





3 0.8% 13.0%

Total 23 6.1% 100%



healer,cyclist, etc)- respondents



12 3.2% 27.3%






Forests

24 6.4% 54.5%







8 2.1% 18.2%

Total 44 11.7% 100%




respondent and

respondent’s period of stay

(years) in area

<5 years in area - respondents



4 1.1% 14.8%




Forests

10 2.7% 37.0%





13 3.5% 48.1%

Total 27 7.3% 100%

5-10 years in area - respondents



8 2.1% 24.2%




Forests

14 3.8% 42.4%



11 2.9% 33.3%

49



Total 33 8.8% 100%

11-15 years in area- respondents



5 1.3% 18.5%



sufficient resources obtained

from Forests

10 2.7% 37.0%





12 3.2% 44.4%

Total 27 7.2% 100%




14 3.8% 29.8%




Forests

17 4.6% 36.2%





16 4.3% 34.0%

Total 47 12.7% 100%

>20 years in area - respondents



54 14.5% 23.0%




Forests

91 24.4% 38.7%


who did not respondent to the



90 24.1% 38.3%

Total 235 63.0% 100%




respondent and

respondent’s origin before

settling in area

Within the same village origin -




50 13.4% 24.6%




from Forests

77 20.6% 37.9%

Within the same village origin - 76 20.4% 37.4%

50





Total 203 54.4% 100%

Elsewhere within Uganda origin

- respondents who reported



14 3.8% 27.5%


- respondents who reported not


from Forests

15 4.0% 29.4%


- respondents who did not




22 5.9% 43.1%

Total 51 13.7% 100%

Within the same district origin -




20 5.4% 22.2%




from Forests

40 10.7% 44.4%






30 8.7% 33.3%

Total 90 24.8% 100%

Outside Uganda origin -




3 0.8% 14.3%




from Forests

8 2.1% 38.1%






10 2.7% 47.6%

Total 21 5.6% 100%




<1 Hectare size of land held -



13 3.5% 21.0%

51

respondent and

respondent’s land holding

size in hectares





from Forests

27 7.2% 43.5%






22 5.9% 35.5%

Total 62 16.6% 100%

1-3 Hectares size of land held -




29 7.8% 24.6%





44 11.8% 37.3%






45 12.1% 38.1%

Total 118 31.7% 100%





12 3.2% 22.2%





28 7.5% 51.9%






14 3.8% 25.9%

Total 54 14.5% 100%

>7 Hectares size of land held -




8 2.1% 18.2%




from Forests

19 5.1% 43.2%




17 4.6% 38.6%

52



Total 44 11.8% 100%




respondent and

respondent’s land tenure

Freehold tenure of land -




9 2.4% 19.6%




from Forests

28 7.5% 60.9%






9 2.4% 19.6%

Total 46 12.3% 100%

Mailo tenure of land -




1 0.3% 50.0%





0 0.0% 0.0%






1 0.3% 50.0%

Total 2 0.6% 100%

Communal tenure of land -




25 6.7% 27.2%





39 10.5% 42.4%






28 7.5% 30.4%

Total 92 24.7% 100%

Customary tenure of land -




34 9.1% 21.4%

53





57 15.3% 35.8%






68 18.2% 42.8%

Total 159 42.6% 100%

Appendix 1c. Table: Analyses, respondents and investigated variables on forest state and

governance- Respondents’ perception of forest management in Buliisa district (N=373) Analyzed variable on

forest state and

governance in Buliisa

district based on

information obtained

from respondents


among

groups (out

of 373)

Percentage within

group

Perception of forest

management in Buliisa

district and

respondent’s sex

Males who perceive that forests

in Buliisa district are being well

managed

113 30.3% 40.5%

Males who perceive that forests

in Buliisa district are being

poorly managed

97 26.0% 34.8%

Males who did not respond to

the question on status of forest

management in Buliisa district

69 18.5% 24.7%

Total 279 74.8% 100%

Females who perceive that

forests in Buliisa district are

being well managed

41 11.0% 43.6%

Females who perceive that


being managed poorly

24 6.4% 25.5%

Females who did not respond to

the question on status of forests


29 7.8% 30.9%

Total 94 25.2% 100%



district and


education


perceive that forests in Buliisa

district are being well managed

22 5.9% 46.8%



district are being managed

poorly

11 2.9% 23.4%



on status of forest management

14 3.8% 29.8%

54

in Buliisa district

Total 47 12.6% 100%


respondents - who perceive that


being well managed

72 19.3% 46.8%





42 11.3% 27.3 %


respondents – who did not

respond to the question on status

of forest management in Buliisa

district

40 10.7% 26.0%

Total 154 41.3% 100%




being well managed

49 13.1% 40.8%





38 10.2% 31.7%



respond to the question on the

status of forest management in

Buliisa district

33 8.8% 27.5%

Total 120 32.1% 100%




being well managed

7 1.9% 18.9%





21 5.6% 56.8%





district

9 2.4% 24.3%

Total 37 9.9% 100%




being well managed

3 0.3% 23.1%



8 2.1% 61.5%

55







district

2 0.5% 15.4%

Total 13 2.9% 100%




being well managed

1 0.3% 50.0%





1 0.3% 50.0%





district

0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 2 0.6% 100%



district and

respondent’s Marital

status


respondents who perceive that


being well managed

22 5.9% 37.9%





20 5.4% 34.5%


respondents who did not respond

to the question on status of

forest management in Buliisa

district

16 4.3% 27.6%

Total 58 15.6% 100%




being well managed

123 33.0% 41.7%





95 25.5% 32.2%





district

77 20.6% 26.1%

Total 295 79.1% 100%

56




being well managed

1 0.3% 20.0%





3 0.8% 60.0%





district

1 0.3 20.0%

Total 5 1.4% 100%




being well managed

5 1.3% 45.5%





3 0.8% 27.3%





district

3 0.8% 27.3%

Total 11 2.9% 100%



district and

respondent’s Age in

years


who perceive that forests in

Buliisa district are being well

managed

56 15.0% 41.5%



Buliisa district are being

managed poorly

46 12.3% 34.1%



question on status of forest


33 8.8% 24.4%

Total 135 36.1% 100%




being well managed

40 10.7% 42.6%





31 8.3% 33.0%

57



to question on status of forest


23 6.2% 24.5%

Total 94 25.2% 100%




managed

32 8.6% 47.8%




managed poorly

19 5.1% 28.4%




in Buliisa district

16 4.3% 23.9%

Total 67 18.0% 100%




managed

14 3.8% 31.8%




managed poorly

12 3.2% 27.3%





18 4.8% 40.9%

Total 44 11.8% 100%




managed

8 2.1% 40.0%




managed poorly

8 2.1% 40.0%





4 1.1% 20.0%

Total 20 5.3% 100%




4 1.1% 36.4%



district are being poorly

3 0.8% 27.3%

58

managed




in Buliisa district

4 1.1% 36.4%

Total 11 3.0% 100%



district and

respondent’s


(Number of persons in

the household)




being well managed

22 5.9% 40.7%





23 6.2% 42.6%





9 2.4% 16.7%

Total 54 14.5% 100%




being well managed

47 12.6% 48.0%





31 8.3% 31.6%





20 5.4% 20.4%

Total 98 26.3% 100%




being well managed

82 22.0% 40.4%





64 17.2% 31.5%





57 15.3% 28.1%

203 54.5% 100%





77 20.6% 44.5%

59

district and

respondent’s

Occupation





poorly

51 13.7% 29.5%




in Buliisa district

45 12.1% 26.0%

Total 173 46.4% 100%




31 8.3% 42.5%




poorly

25 6.7% 34.2%

Fisher folk- respondents who did



Buliisa district

17 4.6% 23.3%

Total 73 19.6% 100%




poorly

11 2.9% 55.0%




5 1.3% 25.0%

Pastoralist- respondents who did



Buliisa district

4 1.1% 20.0%

Total 20 5.3% 100%





0 0.0% 0.0%





poorly

0 0.0% 0.0%


households-respondents who did

not respond to questions on


Buliisa district

1 0.3% 100%

Total 1 0.3% 100%

60




12 3.2% 34.3%




poorly

11 2.9% 31.4%

Traders-respondents who did not



district

12 3.2% 34.3%

Total 35 9.3% 100%




managed

10 2.7% 43.5%




managed poorly

8 2.1% 34.8%





5 1.3% 21.7%

Total 23 6.1% 100%






managed

11 2.9% 25.0%






managed poorly

21 5.6% 47.7%







12 3.2% 27.3%

Total 44 11.7% 100%



district and

respondent’s period of

stay (years) in area




managed

14 3.8% 51.9%



8 2.1%% 29.6%

61


managed poorly




in Buliisa district

5 1.3%% 18.5%

Total 27 7.2% 100%




managed

14 3.8% 42.4%




managed poorly

9 2.4% 27.3%





10 2.7% 30.3%

Total 33 8.9% 100%




managed

12 3.2% 44.4%




managed poorly

8 2.1% 29.6%




in Buliisa district

7 1.9% 25.9%

Total 27 7.2% 100%




managed

13 3.5% 27.6%




managed poorly

17 4.6% 36.2%




in Buliisa district

17 4.6% 36.2%

Total 47 12.7% 100%




managed

100 26.8% 42.6%

62




managed poorly

77 20.6% 32.8%


who did not respondent to the



58 15.5% 24.7%

Total 235 62.9% 100%



district and

respondent’s origin

before settling in area




being well managed

86 23.1% 42.4%





65 17.4% 32.0%





district

52 13.9% 25.6%

Total 203 54.4% 100%




being well managed

30 8.0% 58.8%





9 2.4% 17.6%





12 3.2% 23.5%

Total 51 13.6% 100%


- respondents who perceive that


being well managed

26 7.0% 28.9%


- respondents who perceive that



39 10.5% 43.3%


- respondents who did not



district

25 6.7% 27.8%

Total 90 24.2% 100%

63




being well managed

7 1.9% 33.3%





6 1.6% 28.6%





district

8 2.1% 38.1%

Total 21 5.6% 100%



district and

respondent’s land

holding size in hectares




being well managed

24 6.4% 38.7%





22 5.9% 35.5%





district

16 4.3% 25.8%

Total 62 16.6% 100%




being well managed

53 14.2% 44.9%





31 8.3% 26.3%





34 9.1% 28.8%

Total 118 31.6% 100%




being well managed

26 7.0% 48.1%





18 4.8% 33.3%

64





district

10 2.7% 18.5%

Total 54 14.5% 100%




being well managed

16 4.3% 36.4%





18 4.8% 40.9%





district

10 2.7% 22.7%

Total 44 11.8% 100%



district and

respondent’s land

tenure




being well managed

18 4.8% 39.1%





17 4.6% 37.0%





district

11 2.9% 23.9%

Total 46 12.0% 100%




being well managed

1 0.3% 50.0%





0 0.0% 0.0%




forests in Buliisa district

1 0.3% 50.0%

Total 2 0.6% 100%



33 8.8% 35.9%

65


being well managed




being well managed poorly

35 9.4% 38.0%





district

24 6.4% 26.1%

Total 92 24.6% 100%




being well managed

76 20.4% 47.8%





47 12.6% 29.6%





district

36 9.7% 22.6%

Total 159 35.7% 100%

Appendix 1 d. Table: Strategies participants agreed on for Achieving Forest Governance Agenda Priority

order

(generated

from

Ranking by

workshop

participants)

of agenda

Buliisa Forest

Governance and

Sustainability

Agenda

Strategy proposed to achieve

Buliisa Forest Governance

and Sustainability Agenda

Time frame

to achieve

Buliisa

Forest

Governance

and

Sustainability

Agenda

Institution/Authority

to spearhead

implementation of

proposed strategies

to Achieve Buliisa

Forest Governance

and Sustainability

Agenda

1 Community

sensitization on the

available government

fora, guidelines, laws

and policies that

enable local

communities to

access, benefit and

participate in forest

resource use and

management.

Organize workshops and local

radio programmes to sensitize

communities on the available

government fora, guidelines,

laws and policies that enable

local communities to access,

benefit and participate in forest

resource use and management

January to

April 2014

National Forest

Authority (Budongo),

NGOs, Buliisa DFO,

and CDO

2 Revive the

environment

committees at Local

Councils II, III and V,

the District Natural

Resource Forum and

-Workshops on the roles and

structure of the environment

committee

-Facilitate formation of the

environment committees

June to

August 2014

District Council,

Parliament and NGOs

66

an inter-district

Natural Resource

Forum.

-Policy dialogues to influence

policy guidelines and

recommendations for effective

functioning of the environment

committees

3 Carry out a

comprehensive

participatory forest

resource-user needs

assessment involving

both forest resource

users and managers.

-Carry out a needs assessment

among forest resource

dependent and adjacent

communities

-Organize Focus Group

Discussions involving both

forest resource users and

managers

January to

April 2014

NFA, DFO, DEO and

NGOs

4 Increase awareness of

the values of forests

and strengthen

environmental clubs

(such as Wildlife

Clubs) in institutions

such as schools,

religious and political

institutions.

-Conduct an inventory to assess

the economic value of forest

products and services

-Awareness through peaceful

public demonstrations and

rallies, workshops and radio

programmes

-Organize school debates

related to sustainable use and

management of forest resources

August to

December

2014

NGOs, DFO, Political

parties, Parliament

5 Facilitate formation of

CFM groups along

Budongo Central

Forest Reserve and

empower them to

negotiate better CFM

agreements with NFA

-Form at least 3 CFM groups in

Buliisa district

-Facilitate CFM groups to


agreement e.g communities

should benefit from carbon

trade (PES and REDD) and

forest revenues.

Attach a legal officer to each of

the formed CFM groups

-Create a central office in

Buliisa district to coordinate the

activities of the CFM groups

January to

August 2015

NFA and NGOs,

Parliament

6 Facilitate forest

adjacent communities

to access and benefit

from forest resources,

and create plat forms

for participation in

forest resource use

and management

-Form at least 3 CFM groups in

Buliisa

-Facilitate CFM groups to


agreements- e.g Have a legal

officer attached to each CFM

-Create a central office in

Buliisa to coordinate the

activities of the CFM groups

-Organize public policy

June to

August 2015

NFA and NGOs

67

dialogues at district, inter-

district (Hoima, Masindi and

Buliisa) and national levels

7 Facilitate review of

the existing bye-laws,

ordinances,

guidelines, laws and

policies on forest

governance to suit the

existing situation

-Hire a legal expert to review

the existing forest resource use

and management bye-laws,

ordinances, guidelines, laws

and policies

-Organize workshops to

deliberate on the review

outcomes, identify the

loopholes and give appropriate

recommendations.

-Petition the District Council

and Parliament to integrate the

recommendations in the

existing bye-laws, ordinances,

guidelines, laws and policies

August to

December

2015

NGOs, District

Environment Officer

(DEO), District

Council and

Parliament

8 Facilitate the district

ENR-CSOs and CBOs

to participate in forest

governance debates at

sub national and

national levels

-Provide a well equipped office

for coordinating the Buliisa

ENR-CSOs’ forest governance

activities.

-Facilitate Buliisa participants

to attend sub national and

national debates and meetings

on forest governance

January 2014

to December

2017

District NGO-Forum,

CBOs and CSOs

9 Simplify the existing

guidelines, laws and

policies

-Create popular versions of the

existing guidelines, laws and

policies on forest use and

management

- Translate some of the

important sections of the

documents into the local

languages

January to

August 2016

NGOs and Local

government

10 Tree planting

activities in local

forest reserves and

establishment of

community forests in

Kilama-Bukilwa and

Got Apol.

-Develop management plans for

all Local Forest reserves and

community forests

-Identify appropriate tree

species for planting and raising

the seedlings

-Tree planting in the identified

areas and local forest reserves

June to

December

2016

NFA, DFO, CSOs

11 Facilitate creation of

incentives (rewards)

for protection of forest

resources to motivate

communities to

protect trees on their

farms

-Link private tree growers to

carbon markets such as REDD+

and PES

-Identify locally-based,

acceptable and appropriate

incentives to private tree

August 2016

to June 2017

NFA, Parliament and

NGOs

68

growers

12 Advocate for

increased transparence

in the forest resource

access and benefits

licensing process.

-Sensitize communities on the

procedure and guidelines for

accessing, benefiting and

participating in forest resources

use and management

-Facilitate formulation of

popular versions of the

guidelines, laws and policies

used in the licensing process.

-Advocate for creation of forest

resource use and access

licensing offices in Buliisa

district.

June to

December

2017

NGOs, Parliament

69

Appendix 2: Questionnaire used in the study -Investigating the state and, governance of

forest resources in Buliisa district, from local stakeholders- communities and institutions’

perspectives

1. Introduction and confidentiality

The range of queries included in this questionnaire tool is intended to identify from target

stakeholders’ perspective, the state of forest and forest governance in Buliisa District. The

overall goal for the questions included were to collect sufficient information on aspects of forest

governance (access to resources, benefit from and participation in management of the forest

resources by local communities), their perception on state of forest and forest management and,

their agenda and strategies for achieving the agenda they want addressed with regard to forest

status and governance in the district and at national level in Uganda. Participation in the

interviews herein, is of free will and confidentiality is assured to all respondents.

2. Data collector’s details

Name of interviewer: ............................................... Contacts:.........................................

Date:........................

3. Socio-economic characteristics of respondent

a) Name:........................................................................Contacts:..............................................

District:....................Sub county

:.................................Parish:........................Village:............

b) Sex: Male Female

c) Marital status: single married divorced widowed

d) Age: 18 -30 31 -40 41-50 51- 60 61-70 >70

e) Household/family size: <3 4- 6 >6

f) Level of education: None Primary Secondary Tertiary Degree

Postgraduate

g) Employment status/occupation: Crop farmer Fisher folk Pastoralist wildlife

resources Oil activities Trader Office employee Others

(specify).......................................................................

h) For how long have you stayed in this area? < 5 yrs 5-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs

>20 yrs

70

i) Where did you come from? Within the same village from elsewhere within Uganda

Within the same district from outside Uganda Others

(specify)................................................................................

j) Why did you choose to settle here?

..

k) Land ownership: Yes No

l) Land location: Near a swamp Near a water body adjacent to a protected area Others

(specify) .........................................................

m) If yes, size of land owned: < ha 1-3 ha 4-7ha >7ha

n) Land tenure status: freehold Mailo land Communal customary Lease hold

4. Are you happy with the way you own your land? Yes No (if no, go to 7)

5. If yes, what makes you happy with the way you own your land

..

6. What do you think can be done to make your land ownership even better for you?

..

7. You are not happy with the way you own your land, why?

..

8. What do you think can be done to solve your land ownership problems you have talked about?

..

9. Whom do you think can provide the solutions you have suggested?

71

10. Is there anything more you would like to tell us about land in your

area?...................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................

11. You have Bugungu wildlife reserve, MFNP, Budongo central forest reserve, R. Nile; do you

value the forests resources that are here in your area? Yes No ( if no go question 17)

12. If yes, what values/ resources do you get from the forests?

..

13. Do you get enough of the forest resources that you use from the forest? Yes No

14. If no, why are you not able to get enough of the resources you want from Budongo forest?

..

15. What do you think can be done to enable you get enough of the resources you want from

Budongo forest?

..

16. Who do you think can help provide those things that you say need to be done to enable you get

enough of the resources you want from Budongo forest?

..

17. You don’t get any resources from the forests /Budongo forest in your district, but is this forest

important to you in any way as a person who comes from this area? Yes No

72

18. If yes, how is this forest important to you?

..

19. As Budongo and other forests in the district are important to you even though you don’t get any

resources from them yourself, do you think forests in the district are being used and managed

well? Yes No

20. You say the forests are not being used and managed well, why do you say so?

..

21. What do you think can be done to ensure the forests are used and managed well?

……………..

22. Whom do you think can do those things you have said need to be done to ensure Budongo forest

is used and managed well?

..

THANK YOU

Documents

STATUS OF FORESTS AND FOREST GOVERNANCE IN ... - uws.or.ug