The conservation strategy of Lake Mburo National Park

Conservation strategies local community in Lake Mburo National Park Elly (2000) pointed out that conservation of LMNP gives rise to national benefits. The park currently receives no central funding from UWA or from other private or public sector agencies but has tried to use the little funds reserved to promote environmental conservation in Lake Mburo National Park. According to (Emerson 1998) the budgetary support from central government, there are a number of private sector arrangements which can generate finance for the conservation of LMNP.

Opportunities for private sector financing of wildlife conservation encompass both direct income- -based enterprises such as cropping, hunting or tourism, which can additionally be run in partnership with park-adjacent sures which attract financial flows in the form of investment and charitable contributions. A range of incentives can be provided to encourage the private sector to invest, directly or indirectly, in LMNP. Eric (2000) points controlled hunting Area production chemical spraying and mechanical clearance of wide strips of bush was undertaken in the 1950s. Much of this reclaimed land was earmarked for livestock production under large-scale ranches. In agreement with the Ankole Royal Establishment an area around Lake Mburo was designated a Controlled Hunting Area in the 1930s, and underwent legal gazettment in 1958. Moralis S. (2007) by advocating for and participating in the MLP process, the National Park Service can help ensure that both park resources and tourism economies of local communities are protected.

At the same time, the BLM can fulfill its mandate to manage for multiple uses, 6 providing oil and gas leases where appropriate and providing protection for landscapes, recreation and other uses where drilling is inappropriate. MLPs provide an opportunity to plan for balance, making sure controversial leasing decisions are “smart from the start.” Potterton and Rubagyema (1998) made recommendations by the Lake Mburo taskforce, 60% of the Park‟s area was excised and allocated to human settlement for former land owners and occupants and, inevitably, a number of new comers. This approach aimed to improve the level to which surrounding communities participated in, and benefited from, the conservation of LMNP wildlife resources. Emerson (1997) pointed out that balancing the community opportunity costs of conservation requires a rethinking of the nature of park benefits.

Development projects have clearly been an effective way of bettering park-people relations and improving community conservation awareness. Illegal park resource utilization however shows less signs of having decreased as a result of community development activities. Uganda Tourism Expo Magazine January 15th 2013 In addition to providing support to the development of opportunities for wildlife enterprise, such inducements as sponsorship and advertising deals, the provision of tax relief on contributions and the establishment of endowments, foundations and trusts channel funding would undoubtedly make LMNP a more attractive investment option the private sector. Nsharede (2001) stated that the establishment of a Game Reserve In 1964 the establishment of a Game Reserve around Lake Mburo area provided for the continued settlement, on existing farms, of 120 cultivating families on the northern side of the reserve. No pastoralists were permitted permanent residence within the Game Reserve but were allowed inside the reserve for transit purposes and to water their livestock during dry seasons. By the 1970s much of the tsetse in the area had been eradicated, 647 km of the Game Reserve had been excised and established as the Ankole Ranching Scheme, and the government Nshaara dairy ranch was created from Reserve land which has helped to revive the former glory of Lake Mburo National Park.

The Lake Mburo Community Conservation Project (LMCCP) of 2001, now the Community Conservation for Uganda Wildlife Authority Project (CCUWA), funded initially by SIDA and then by USAID, and implemented by the African Wildlife Foundation and Uganda. National Parks (now Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)), commenced in 1991. LMNP became the first protected area in Uganda to employ staff specifically designated as community conservation officers and a range of activities were carried out to improve local awareness of conservation issues, increase local participation in sustainable income-generating activities and initiate and support community-initiated development projects. Parish Resource Management Committees (PRMCs) (1994) were set in place in parishes bordering the park and a Park Management Advisory Committee (PMAC) comprising PRMC chairmen was established to facilitate dialogue and develop joint activities between part authorities and adjacent communities. CCUWA today operates in LMNP under the provisions of new national legislation on.

Potterton and Rubagyema 1998) Wildlife conservation and benefit-sharing which also covers other National Parks in Uganda. Policy has, since 1995, guaranteed a system of revenue distribution with the communities who live around National Parks. Initially this involved the allocation to community development activities of 12% of all revenues collected by Park authorities, subsequently changed by legislation to 20% of gate fees less VAT.

These revenues are supplemented by donor funds and by contributions made by communities themselves at LMNP, and distributed through a Support of Community-Initiated Projects (SCIP) fund earmarked for local development projects. Support of Community-Initiated Projects (SCIP) (1994) Conservation activities and systems of benefit-sharing have undergone some change in LMNP over recent years. There has been a general shift from financing individual enterprises such as beekeeping, bakeries, handicrafts and tree nurseries to community development projects −mainly the rehabilitation and construction of primary Schools and dispensaries, and arrangements for resource utilization in LMNP including Agreements made concerning fisheries, traditional medicines collection and access of Cattle to 8 water in drought. Development projects are currently sequenced over the Parishes bordering LMNP so that each part of the park-adjacent area shares in funds Raised.