Project Design Document - Verified Carbon Standard

Transcription

CCB Project Design Document Natural High Forest Rehabilitation Project on degraded land of Kibale National Park, Uganda Project Name Project Location Project Proponent Natural High Forest Rehabilitation Project on degraded land of Kibale National Park, Uganda
Kabarole district, Uganda
Face the Future. Contact: Martijn Snoep, +31202170370, [email protected]
Uganda Wildlife Authority. Contact: Wilfred Chemutai, UWA‐Face, +256775400517, [email protected] Auditor RINA Services. Contact: Rita Valoroso, +390106021711, [email protected] Project Start Date 15th May 1994 GHG accounting period and GHG accounting period: 1st January 2009 to 31st December 2068 lifetime Project lifetime: 15th May 1994 to 31st December 2068 Validation Full validation CCB Status History Undergoing initial validation and verification
CCB Standards Edition Used CCB Standards, Third Edition, December 2013
CCB Benefits Summary The project aims to restore natural high forest in Kibale National Park in Uganda by planting indigenous tree species and encouraging natural forest regeneration by protection against fires. This creates a favourable habitat for a variety of threatened and endangered wildlife species. The project creates social benefits by providing employment and also by promoting and funding income generating activities and imparting skills. The project aims to mitigate negative impacts of the presence of the park on surrounding communities, by addressing human‐wildlife conflicts, amongst others. Gold Level Criteria Biodiversity: conservation and development of the Kibale National Park landscape by establishing High Conservation Value Forest. Date of PDD Completion 03 July 2015 PDD Version Number V3.1 Expected Verification Schedule 25 – 29 May 2015
Contents
GENERAL SECTION G1. Project Goals, Design and Long‐term Viability G2. Without‐project Land Use Scenario and Additionality G3. Stakeholder Engagement G4. Management Capacity G5. Legal Status and Property Rights CLIMATE SECTION COMMUNITY SECTION CM1. Without‐Project Community Scenario CM2. Net Positive Community Impacts CM3. Other Stakeholder Impacts CM4. Community Impact Monitoring BIODIVERSITY SECTION B1. Biodiversity Without‐Project Scenario B2. Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts B3. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts B4. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring GL3. Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits References 1
1
12
13
18
20
25
26
26
3
6
7
8
8
14
20
21
22
24
GENERALSECTION
G1.
ProjectGoals,DesignandLong‐term
Viability
G1.1
Project Proponent The primary project proponents are Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) and Face the Future. UWA Plot 7 Kira Road, Kamwokya P.O. Box 3530 Kampala Uganda Telephone: +256 414 355 000 www.ugandawildlife.org Face the Future Prins Hendrikkade 185 1011 TD Amsterdam The Netherlands Telephone: +31 20 2170370 www.facethefuture.com [email protected] G1.2
Project Objectives General / Climate The purpose of the project activity is to realize multiple socio‐economic and environmental benefits (local community development, climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation and soil erosion control) through restoring forest vegetation on degraded lands. The project contributes to climate change mitigation by sequestering GHGs in sinks through assisted natural regeneration activities that aim to promote regeneration of natural vegetation in the forest interior areas by creating a forested zone around the edge of the park which will act as a buffer to relieve the interior areas of pressure from agents of deforestation and degradation (i.e. anthropogenically caused fires). Community Transfer forestry knowledge and skills to the local communities with an aim to make them environmental ambassadors of the project. Provide employment opportunities to the communities adjacent to the park. PDDKibaleCCB|1
Provide income generating opportunities by encouraging the establishment of locally owned and operated nurseries where seedlings are raised and later sold to the ARR VCS project. Biodiversity Restore the integrity of the degraded forest ecosystems in the National Park and thereby enhance biodiversity conservation and control of soil erosion. This is achieved by replanting the degraded areas with locally occurring indigenous trees species. Promote regeneration of natural vegetation in the forest interior areas by creating a forested zone around the edge of the park which will act as a buffer to relieve the interior areas of pressure from agents of deforestation and degradation (i.e. anthropogenically caused fires). G1.3
Location and Physical and Social Conditions Location The project activity is located in Kibale National Park (KNP), western Uganda, near the base of the Rwenzori Mountains and about 200 km north of the equator. It falls into Kabarole district and is within half an hour’s drive from Fort Portal town. The project area in Kibale National Park is 10,000 ha within which close to 4,000 hectares have been replanted and almost 2,600 hectares have naturally regenerated. Kibale project area is located south east of Fort Portal Town with bearings 0° 12” ‐ 0° 40” North and 30° 20” ‐ 30° 35” East in the counties of Burahya, Kibale and Mwenge. See the maps below in Figure 1 to Figure 3. KNP is covered by Uganda Department of Lands and Surveys map sheets 56/IV, 57/III, 66/II and 67/I (series 732) at 1:50,000. Figure 1. Location of Kibale National Park in Uganda. PDDKibaleCCB|2
Figure 2. Map of Kibale National Park, the project area and location of surrounding parishes (relevant parish communities adjacent to the project area are highlighted in grey). PDDKibaleCCB|3
Figure 3. Map of the project area showing the planting compartments. PDDKibaleCCB|4
Physical features Kibale National Park has a wide altitudinal range from 1590 m in the extreme North to 1,110 m in the South. 69km2 of KNP lies below 1,250m, 464 km2 at 1,250 – 1,500 m and 27 km2 above 1,500 m a.s.l. The park occupies undulating terrain on the main Uganda plateau slightly tilted to the South and is drained by R. Nsongi Mpanga and Dura rivers in a southerly direction emptying into Lake George. Climate It is tropical with two rainy periods, March to May and September to November. The annual mean temperature range rises from 14° ‐ 15°C, ‐ minimum to 26° ‐ 27°C maximum. The annual rainfall is 1,100 ‐ 1,600 mm. There is a pronounced dry season in December to February. Rain falls more in the North than in the South. Geology and soils The geology consists of rocks formed in the Precambrian period which are sedentary, strongly folded and metamorphosed. The Toro system overlaying these rocks forms prominent ridges of quartzite and sometimes schists and phyllites, which are intruded by amphibiolites, gneiss and granites. Some hills have layers of hard laterite exposed on them. About 90% of the Park is overlain by red ferralitic soils of which 70% are sandy clay loams in the North and 30% are clay loams in the South. These soils are deeply weathered, show little differentiation in horizon and are of very low to moderate fertility. The remaining 10% is where fertile eutrophic soil occurs on a base of volcanic ash limited to Mpokya and Isunga areas on the western edge of the park. Types of vegetation The forest cover in Kibale National Park is broadly classified into three. It is mid‐altitude, moist evergreen in the north, gradually decreasing in elevation to moist semi‐deciduous in the south and a mixture of deciduous and evergreens in the central parts. The UWA‐Face project area, lies in the southern part of the park and its natural vegetation cover can therefore be classified as moist semi‐
deciduous forest. According to the working plan for Kibale and Itwara forests of 1959 to 1965 and the Kibale National Management Plan of 1997 to 2001 and 2002 ‐ 2012, the moist semi‐deciduous forests occurring at an altitude of 1,100 to 1,200 m are dominated by Pterygota mildbraedii, Olea welwitschii, Cynometra alexandri, Celtis spp., Warbugia ugandensis, Lovoa swynnertonii, Markhamia platycalyx and Diospyros abyssinica. Other species are Prunus africanum, Trichilia splendida, Chrysophyllum spp., Parinari excelsa, Strombosia scheffleri, Blighia unijugata and Elaeodendron sp. The project area is situated in the south western part of Kibale National Park, which was heavily encroached between the 1960s and 1992. This encroachment led to large scale forest destruction and grassland clearing. In the early 1990s the Ugandan government decided to regain control over the Forest Reserves, which led to the eviction and relocation of settlers in 1992 (see section G5.3). After the eviction, most of the grassland areas became dominated by elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) due to recurring fires that were set by poachers or that spread into the park from neighbouring areas, preventing natural forest regeneration (Struhsaker, 2003; in Omeja et al., 2011). It is estimated that at least 15,000 hectares in the restoration zone have been affected by the encroachment. The degraded areas can be distinguished into seven main vegetation types1. 1. Open spaces in the forest (about 850 ha). 1
As distinguished in the UWA-Face PROJECT PLAN OF OPERATION KIBALE NATIONAL PARK January – December
2008
PDDKibaleCCB|5
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Encroached areas with shrubs (about 4800 ha). Elephant grass dominated areas (about 6340 ha). Grasslands with Combretum spp. (about 530 ha). Non‐forested riverine lands (about 2,810 ha). Quartzite ridges and inselbergs (about 1,250 ha). Forest (about 15,200 ha). Of this area, the vegetation types with shrubs (2), elephant grass (3) and grasslands with combretum (4) have undergone or are undergoing rehabilitation by planting or natural regeneration and are in the process of recovery or are already (partially) recovered(also see B.1.3) Social‐economic aspects Kibale is surrounded by densely populated areas, mainly due to immigration from southern Uganda and high birth rates. The people include the native Batoro and the immigrant Bakiga in the 27 parishes surrounding KNP. The people are primarily agriculturists, growing mainly banana, groundnuts, sweet potatoes, beans and maize. Crops are grown on a subsistence level and occasionally they bring in some income. Land pressure varies, in the north of the park around the tea estates less than 2 acres per family is available due to pressure from tea estates development, to the east and south the pressure reduces. A fallow system of 1‐2 years is followed to allow land to regain fertility in the agricultural areas. Planted tree patches, especially of eucalyptus, provide timber and fuelwood to some extent. Some livestock management occurs in the south but is still of very low production. Other activities include: brewing of local beer (waragi), working in the tea plantations and fishing. The local communities relied extensively on the forest in the past for a wide range of products and services such as logging, hunting, cultivation, collection of medicinal plants, firewood, poles, crafts materials and harvest of the wild coffee for their incomes. Through Collaborative management and Resource Access Agreement, local communities have been empowered to access resources in the park even in UWA‐Face areas which have been rehabilitated. These resources include fish, firewood, medicinal plants, grass, cultural sites etc. Park Management undertakes intensive awareness raising about the conservation importance of the park and sustainable harvesting of the resources there in through such programs as Revenue Sharing, drama shows, bee keeping, piggery and tree‐nursery etc. G1.4
Project Area and Project Zone The Kibale Project Area is located south east of Fort Portal Town with bearings 0° 12” ‐ 0° 40” North and 30° 20” ‐ 30° 35” East in the counties of Burahya, Kibale and Mwenge. See the maps in section 1.3. Figure 4 below shows the boundaries of the Project Area. PDDKibaleCCB|6
Figure 4. Map of the Project Area (red) projected in Google Earth, based on the polygon as registered in the VCS Project Database. G1.5
Stakeholder Identification Process A Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) has been carried out. The first step of the assessment was to identify the stakeholders. See Chapter 3 of the SBIA Report. The parishes have been selected because they are adjacent to the boundary of the project area. For each parish the local government of Local Council 1 (village level) and of Local Council 3 (sub‐county level) have been involved. UWA has to go officially through the local chairperson to approach the communities. For the SBIA process meetings were held at the village, parish and sub‐county level. All community members were invited though radio announcements and public notices / advertisements in the trading centres. The chairmen were informed through a written letter. The participants at the parish level were selected from the villages of each parish. The community members nominated and voted for their representatives to participate at the parish level workshop. The same process was adopted for selecting representatives for the workshop at the sub‐county level: the participants of the parish workshop nominated and voted for their representatives. In section 6 of the VCS Project Document a description is provided of which stakeholders have been identified. PDDKibaleCCB|7
G1.6
List of Communities, Community Groups and Other Stakeholders Resource users: Kiziba Bee keepers Bigodi Rattan users group Nyabweya Subcounty stakeholders: C/PERSON L.C.III Sub county Chief Secretary production/ environment Community Development Officers Parish chiefs NAADS Coordinator District stakeholders: C/Person L.C.V Secretary for production and Environment District Environment Officer Natural Resource Officer Parish communities’ stakeholders: Isunga Nyabweya Kakooga Kadindimo Bigodi Bujongobe Rugonjo Kiziba Nyabitusi Kyabandara Rwimi Rwenkuba G1.7
Location of Communities, Project Area, Project Zone and HCV areas. See Figure 2 for a map of the location of the communities, the Project Area and the Project Zone. The communities are divided in parishes, which are indicated on this map. There is no map available for the location of the villages. The identified areas with High Conservation Values (HCVs) are described in section B.1.2. Six types of HCV areas were distinguished following the criteria defined by the High Conservation Value (HCV) Resource Network2. The entire project area is considered to be HCV1 and HCV2 area, while only the planted and naturally regenerated project areas (excluding the future planting areas) are considered HCV3 and HCV4 areas. The project area was considered not to hold HCV5 and HCV6 areas. 2
http://hcvnetwork.org/
PDDKibaleCCB|8
G1.8
Project Activities This is a summary of the project activities. See for more detail the UWA‐Face Plan of Activities 2015 – 2024 for the project and for the relationships between the activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts, see the Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment report. PDDKibaleCCB|9
PDDKibale
eCCB|10
G1.9
Project Start Date, Lifetime and GHG Accounting Period Project start date: 15 May 1994. Project Lifetime: 74 years. Project GHG Accounting Period: 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2068. The GHG accounting period is shorter that the project lifetime, because the project switched to using another carbon crediting standard as per 1 January 2009 (i.e. VCS). G1.10
Risk Identification and Mitigation A detailed risk assessment is provided in the VCS AFOLU Non‐Permanence Risk Assessment report 2011 and 2015, including mitigation measures if applicable. For the largest part risks to biodiversity benefits run parallel to the risks for climate benefits, which is covered in the VCS risk analysis. The establishment of the natural forest for climate mitigation, benefits biodiversity as well. An additional risk to the biodiversity benefits is poaching. This risk is addressed by creating support among the community members for the park and by organising awareness meeting. At the same time UWA rangers carry out patrolling inside the park to remove snares and to arrest poachers. A risk to the community benefits is the elephants from the park that affect the crops of the local farmers. The recovery of the forest ecosystem can have a positive impact on the elephant population, although it will especially improve the conditions for other species, like primates. The increase in elephant population in the park is likely caused by other factors than only the project activity (see section B2.1). To mitigate this effect the park management together with the communities dig elephant trenches around the park to prevent elephants and other big animals to enter and demolish the communities’ gardens. A risk to employment is when the project is not achieving its planting targets and in case of scaling down of the project. Employment has been generated by the project. In the period 2002 – 2013 the project created employment for an average number of 307 people from the local communities and for the period 2011 – 2013 specifically the average employment figure is 258 people. The goal of the project is to complete the planting of the remaining 700 hectares that are in need of restoration. For achieving the target there will still be employment needed of around 100 people. The rate at which the hectares are restored and the corresponding employment depends on the availability of finance. The elephant trenches dug with the communities require maintenance, otherwise there is a risk the trenches gradually degrade and don’t function as a barrier anymore. The project aims to provide maintenance of the trenches along the boundary of the project area. The risk for the collection of non‐timber forest products (NTFP’s) is overexploitation by forest user groups. There is a need for sustainable harvesting. This is mitigated by first assessing the resource stock and determining the sustainable volume of collecting NTFP’s, which is included in the agreement between UWA and the forest user group. UWA monitors the extraction of the NTFP’s and the condition of the ecosystem. PDDKibaleCCB|11
G1.11
Benefits Beyond Project Lifetime The restored area inside the National Park continues to stay under the jurisdiction of UWA after the implementation of the project is finalized. UWA continues to manage the forest. When the project has been completed in 2068, the forest has matured and does not need management other than what is common for the already existing forests in the National Park. The biodiversity benefits follow from the establishment of the forest; as long as the forest is there the biodiversity benefits will continue to be present. The community benefits are part of UWA general management activities and relationships with the local communities. G1.12
Financial Security The main costs of the project are for planting and tending in the first three to five years after planting. After that the trees can survive on their own and the planted compartments fall under general management of the park. The major part of the forest in the project area has already been established and the required funds have been spend for this establishment. New planting areas are only established when funding for the first 5 years of the new area is secured. For general management purposes there is a revenue sharing agreement between Face the Future and UWA. G2.
Without‐projectLandUseScenario
andAdditionality
G2.1
Most Likely Baseline Land Use Scenario As described in the VCS PD the most likely and conservative baseline scenario is ‘continued but less intensive encroachment’, assuming that UWA would have limited success in keeping encroachers at bay. This would mean that fires continue to roam the formerly encroached land and the carbon stock would be the result of a mix between agricultural activities, fire and partial regeneration of pioneer vegetation (grass, shrubs and bananas). Social implications: The illegal grazing activities and collection of firewood don’t provide a significant benefit for the local population. The park management would try to control these activities. Although not fully successful, this would result in a situation where the livestock keepers and the people collecting firewood can only benefit to a limited extent, because of the (partial) control by the park rangers. As a result the number of people entering the park without permission is limited and the amount of resource use is limited. The Park will create less opportunities for the local population around the project area. In the baseline situation the employment opportunities are limited. Without the restoration of the project area, the majority of the land is covered with elephant grass and this does not bring much benefits in terms of resources that the local population can access in the project scenario. The area is not attractive for tourists, limiting the opportunities of revenues for employment and local expenditure. Tourism will remain concentrated in the Northern parts of the National Park, where the primary forest is still present. Biodiversity implications: PDDKibaleCCB|12
The vegetation is dominated by grasses (mostly P. purpureum) and shrubs. The succession towards forest is prevented by the periodic occurrence of fire. The biodiversity of the natural high forest will not materialize and the area will be characterized by vegetation with low plant diversity, dominated by tall elephant grass. The areas have a relatively low biodiversity. Plant diversity (Simpson’s index) and species richness was observed to decline with the increased dominance of P. purpureum (Chapman and Chapman, 1999). It seems that the baseline vegetation is of significant value to elephants, which make can make up a large proportion of their diet. The P. purpureum dominated vegetation is considered to be valuable for many bird species that eat the seeds and use the tall grass for shelter (Tchamba and Seme, 1993). Bird species that mainly occur in habitats with this vegetation are moreover commonly found throughout Uganda (and beyond) in agricultural and rural areas outside the park and the biodiversity impact is therefor considered not to be significant. A more detailed description is given in section B.1.1. G2.2
Additionality of Project Benefits The additionality of climate benefits is demonstrated in VCS PD section 2.5. The biodiversity benefits of the restored native forest are directly linked to the climate benefits. Without the project funding for the establishment of the forest, these biodiversity benefits would not have occurred. The employment created by the project (i.e. on average about 300 persons employed in the period 2002 – 2013) is fully paid from the funding for forest restoration. The same applies to better resource access and the transfer of skills. Those are direct effects of the project intervention. G3.
StakeholderEngagement
G3.1
Dissemination of Project Information Any person or party can have access to project documentation. Documentation is available on the office at Mainaro, and/or on the head office at Isunga. Basically any information can be given out if asked for. However most stakeholders that wish to have information about an issue will ask for a meeting so that things can be explained and they have the direct possibility to give feedback. UWA Kibale gives out a magazine/news bullet about activities being done and yet to be done and other news involving the national park. Project activities and issues are included as they are a significant part of what is going on in the national park. This magazine is given out every year once. The programme for revenue sharing with the communities of tourism income is kept transparent by making the yearly income and the amount of money that is available for community projects public by local media. This can be the local radio, and also a local newspaper. The Conservation Area Manager of Kibale National Park is representing UWA and at the same time UWA/Face on regional decision making occasions. UWA and UWA/Face are frequently on the local radio in talk shows. They are invited by the radio stations and also invite radio stations themselves to let them talk and give information about park issues on the radio. PDDKibaleCCB|13
For the project there are 3 official languages that need to be used when sharing information or giving out publications meant for local stakeholders. That is English and the 2 local languages Lutoro and Lukiga. During the SBIA process meetings have been organized at the parish level and a workshop with key stakeholders was organized. During the meetings on the parish level, a presentation about the project was provided. G3.2
Information Provision for Participation of Communities The SBIA process included an assessment of the risks and negative impacts of the results of the project, based on a selection of main focal issues by the participating community members. See Chapter 7 of the SBIA report. When workers are hired, an advertisement is published and workers are recruited. Before they start the job a meeting is held in which the risks and the benefits are highlighted. They also receive training on the job they need to carry out, like nursery management, slashing firelines and planting. They are informed about the benefits that the job brings, on top of the wages. These benefits are free medical service during work, NSSF payment (pension fund), learning forest skills and getting protective ware. The risks are explained, which are the risks of injury when not handling the equipment well (like the panga or the hoe) and the risks of animal attacks. Stakeholder participation depends for a great deal on their participation in meetings. Meetings are open for anybody. During meetings the ideas of stakeholders and their interests are being shared with the staff of UWA/Face, and if reasonable and applicable these things are implemented in the planning of the project activities and strategies. For creating the management plans, consultations are held at parish‐level, with resource users (community groups), sub‐county level, district level and the national level government. The link between communities and the park is through the Community Conservation Unit, which consists of a Warden Community Conservation and a group of rangers. G3.3
Communication on CCB Validation and Verification The communities have been informed in a presentation about the VCS+CCB validation and verification process. The audit dates have been communicated with the stakeholders. G3.4
Consultation for Project Design The consultation of the local communities has been achieved through the Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment process. Focal issues have been identified with representatives from the local communities. During the SBIA workshops a risk assessment, an assessment of negative impacts, a theory of change, a without‐project scenario and a stakeholder identification analysis has been carried out for each focal issue. The outcomes has formed and confirmed the project design. See the SBIA report for a description of how the consultation has been implemented. Through the SBIA process the stakeholders have been consulted and have participated in the formulation of the project design by defining focal issues and vision statements. The continued communication is achieved through having regular meetings organized by the Community Conservation Unit. Each village is visited every quarter. The Warden Forest Restoration PDDKibaleCCB|14
communicates through the Warden Community Conservation and the feedback of communities on the project is also provided to the Warden Forest Restoration. G3.5
Legitimate Representatives There are minutes and attendance lists available for the meetings organized at the village and parish level. There is also a list of the legitimate representatives in the SBIA report. G3.6
Participation in Decision‐Making and Implementation The community conservation team organizes regular meetings with communities, like community awareness meetings. During these meeting there is an opportunity to express opinions and give feedback to Park related issues in general and also about the reforestation project. These meetings are open to all community members. To make sure that women have the opportunity to also participate, the planning of the meeting take into account at what part of the day women are available to join. Workers are participating in decision‐making through the Workers Committee. The members of the Workers Committee are elected by the workers. The Committee consists of 9 members. They have a meeting with all the workers every quarter of the year. The minutes of these meetings are submitted to the project office. The project management team organizes a general meeting to address the issues raised by the workers. All of the workers are invited to this general meeting. The implementation of the project relies on the participation of the local population. The fieldwork in terms of terrain preparation, planting, tending and maintenance is only made possible with the input from local labour. Decisions on the selection of focal issues in the SBIA process have been made by the local community representatives. For all of the focal issues input is given on risks and benefits are associated with them, mitigation strategies, option for improvement and selection of project activities. The monitoring of the indicators for these focal issues will be presented to the communities. The project staff and the UWA staff are very much aware of the local cultural conditions and are experienced in working with local communities in this specific region. A large part of the staff working for UWA and the project come from the region itself. G3.7
Anti‐Discrimination UWA’s Human Resource Manual deals with anti‐discrimination measures and points out the code of conduct for staff, amongst others applicable to discrimination and sexual harassment. Within the organisation the superiors at each level have to responsibility to act in cases where the code of conduct is not observed. G3.8
Feedback and Grievance Redress Procedure For grievances directly related to the project activity there is a Grievance Redress Procedure applicable. There is a conflict resolution mechanism available for the resource use agreements. The MOU has a clause to address any use right disputes that may arise. In the case of such disputes, they will be subject to amicable settlement through mutual discussion between the parties. Should the parties PDDKibaleCCB|15
fail to resolve the dispute, arbitration may be considered under the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Disputes about e.g. crop raiding and damage from baboons, monkeys and elephants, are recorded in the file with the Warden of Community Conservation. Sensitization meetings are held with communities following incidences. There are minutes of these meetings. During these meetings communities identify issues or complaints. The Park response is included in the minutes. The documents are available on request at the UWA head office. G3.9
Training The skills directly provided through training on the project are: ‐ nursery management ‐ forest restoration skills including the planting and tending of seedlings ‐ creating firelines and fire fighting ‐ safety precautions and first aid management ‐ training on road maintenance These skills enable community members to plant trees on their own lands and to establish nurseries for the sale of seedlings. Both men and women are hired for project implementation activities. Women mostly to nursery management work and spot hoeing and pitting. They are trained for these specific activities. In general the workers hired by the project are representative for the diversity that exists within the community with regards to status and income. As a consequence this representative group receives the necessary training for the job they are required to do. G3.10
Equal job opportunities Casual workers are hired for implementing the project activities. These are positions for which physical strength and fitness are important attributes. Such appointments are therefore made based on the physical abilities of applicants. They are also appointed on a probation basis to prove that they have suitable skills for the position before appointments are confirmed. However, when higher level staff such as accountants are appointed qualifications and experience form the basis for selection. With regards to equal opportunities, as described under section G 3.9, both women and men are offered job opportunities as well as people with different levels of status and income. Workers are mostly employed for planting, tending and maintenance activities. Most of the park rangers (75 %) also come from local communities. All tourist staff such as guides, porters, trail maintenance and hospitality staff are local people. Simple on the job training is provided to workers. Individuals that excel are selected for more advanced positions and the training that goes with more senior positions. The project recruits workers from the communities adjacent to the project area, coming from within a distance of 7km from the actual working site to minimize travelling time. Any person coming from a distance of more than 7km is only considered when he or she is to rent accommodation from the nearby area. The age limit is from 18 years and above. When it is time for the project to recruit workers, a written notice, informing the public employment opportunities by the project, is hanged in busy public places like churches and trading centers, specifying the number and types of jobs available. Workers already engaged on work are also informed during a meeting to inform the public about the recruitment opportunities in the project. PDDKibaleCCB|16
Most casual workers in the project are men since the main activities for project implementation requires physical strength. Men are hired for ground preparation, tree planting, tending and fire protection. Female workers are mainly recruited for nursery operations, pitting and spot hoeing. Further details are provided in the document UWA‐Face Terms and Conditions of Service. G3.11
Labour laws and regulations The following laws and regulations are applicable:  The National Social Security Fund Act 1985  The Employment Act 1977  The Employment Decree 1975  The Employment regulations 1977  The Workers Compensation Act 2000  UWA Human Resource and Administration Policy Manual Revised Version 2008 Uganda is a signatory to ILO. Uganda has adopted the ILO requirements into the Labour Laws of the country. Copies of the ILO documents 87, 98 and ILO Code of Practice on safety and Health in Forestry Work (ILO1998) are available. UWA KNP has recognised the Uganda Hotels and Allied Workers Union. There is a committee in place headed by a Chairperson, representing the UWA staff. Casual workers do not belong to a union, but a workers committee has been formed where they can raise any issues of concern to them. Workers Committees are available as a means of bargaining for other workers who are not members of formal unions. Workers Committees are used to communicate between management and workers. This committee meets at least once per quarter. Minutes of all meetings are available. Section G 3.12 describes how occupational risks are dealt with. There is a Medical and Health Safety Policy (section 7 of the UWA Human Resource and Administration Policy Manual Revised Version 2008) regarding health and safety of its staff and employees. This document addresses aspects such as health and safety policy, personal accident policy, insurance, medical expenses, health management and working conditions. There is separate policy available on HIV/AIDS. UWA recognise the seriousness of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and its impact on the workplace. It supports national efforts, to reduce the spread of infection and minimise the impact of the disease. The purpose of this policy is to ensure a consistent and equitable approach to the prevention of HIV/AIDS among employees and their families, and to the management of the consequences of HIV/AIDS, including the care and support of employees living with HIV/AIDS. It also states that workers will not be discriminated or tolerate discrimination against employees or job applicants on any grounds, including HIV status. It takes into account the fact that employees with HIV may live full and active lives for a number of years. It also states the commitment of the company in maintaining a safe and healthy work environment for all employees based on the recognition that HIV is not transmitted through casual contact. G3.12
Occupational Risks Workers are sensitized about safety issues and are required to use PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) provided. UWA provides gumboots, overalls and raincoats. KNP has an arrangement with selected clinics to which serious medical cases can be taken in the event of occupational injuries. First aid kits are provided to work teams. Copies of various acts such as Workers Compensation Act, PDDKibaleCCB|17
Traffic and road safety Act, The Employment Decree 1975, and the Pocket Guide to your Rights are available in the park’s office. Risks are minimized and mitigated: - Headmen are trained in first aid (with Certificates) and carry first aid kits. - Summaries of injuries are provided monthly and summarized quarterly and annually. The health centres also keep records of injuries. - Safety is included in all general training sessions on e.g. how to safely and correctly sharpen tools. - Workers receive safety instructions at work from their supervisors before commencing work every morning and at the beginning of a new task. G4.
ManagementCapacity
G4.1
Project Structure The project is implemented by Uganda Wildlife Authority and Face the Future. The roles and responsibilities for Face and UWA are twofold: Carbon development project carried out by Face: The project proponent Face the Future holds responsibility for the carbon development of the project and is entitled to the carbon sequestration rights of the project. As such Face the Future is responsible for the following activities: - Project funding - Carbon development (PDD, monitoring plan, validation, verification and registration) - Overall project management Field project implementation by UWA: The project is managed on‐site by the UWA‐Face Warden, the Assistant warden for accounts, several forest clerks, Headmen, general workers and support staff. The project has implementation strategy and monitoring guidelines outlined in the Forest Management Plan. The carbon monitoring (biomass assessment) every 3 years is conducted by the UWA and Face the Future staff who are well trained in carbon monitoring and GIS inventory capacity. Below are descriptions of the operational and management structure for the ARR VCS project in Kibale. PDDKibaleCCB|18
UWA HQTS Conservation Area Manager. WARDEN UWA‐
Face WARDENS Assistant Warden
Accounts
ASST. WARDEN
Forest Clerk MONIS HEAD RANGER
Forest Clerks RANGER
SUPPORT STAFF HEADMEN PORTERS
WORKERS Warden ‐ Face The Warden ‐ Face (or Warden Forest Restoration) is the overall in‐charge of UWA‐Face Project activities in Kibale National Park under the Uganda Wildlife Authority. He reports directly to the Conservation Area Manager and Face the Future in the Netherlands. He/she is the technical link between Face the Future and Management of Uganda Wildlife Authority. Forest Clerk ‐ MONIS The MONIS Assistant, answerable to the Warden ‐ Face, is in charge of planning and monitoring within the project. Warden Accounts The Warden Accounts is responsible for financial record keeping and reporting and for supervision of day‐to‐day management of project office including finances and support staff. Forest Clerk He/she is in charge of fieldwork activities and works directly under Warden‐Face. The Forest Clerks are also referred to als Assistant Project Managers. Headman / woman Working directly under Project Assistants he/she is responsible for a team of twenty‐five men and women during field work. Workers They are responsible for achievement of project objectives. They work under the direct supervision of the Headmen and be organised in workers committees to enhance effective representation on management matters. Workers can only qualify for project remuneration and fringe benefits if they accomplish set targets. Support staff: PDDKibaleCCB|19
-
Office Attendant / Guest House Keeper Driver Turn man Store Keeper For more details on the responsibilities of each staff, see section 1.15 of the VCS PD. G4.2
Technical Skills The project started in 1995 and has led to the successful establishment of forest. The project works with experienced staff. The capacities of the staff are described in the document Management Capacity_150319, as part of the VCS AFOLU Non‐Permanence Risk Assessment. This takes into account the skills related to community engagement, biodiversity assessment and carbon monitoring. Further details on carbon monitoring capacities are provided in the VCS Monitoring Report 2011‐2014 for the project. G4.3
Financial Health and Integrity The project has already been implemented for the largest part. Funding for the restoration of about 85% of the area for planting has been secured and the planting has been implemented. The administration and accounts of Face the Future are audited by a third‐party accountant. The audited financial statements are available to the auditors on request. UWA‐Face project staff submits monthly and quarterly financial returns to UWA Headquarters. The Finance and Accounts Unit at UWA Headquarters checks on the statements. The Internal Audit Department conducts monthly auditing of the books of accounts. On top of that the project management submits the financial reports to Face the Future. UWA is also audited by external independent auditors. Integrity is an important value for UWA. In its Strategic Plan the Core Corporate Values are described, including Integrity: ‘a motivated, morally upright and duty bound staff that is honest, transparent, accountable and respectful’. Integrity is also a key issue in UWA’s code of conduct in the Human Resource Manual. G5.
LegalStatusandPropertyRights
G5.1
Description of Property Rights Kibale National Park was first reserved in 1932. In 1968 it became a Central Forest Reserve up to 1993 when it was elevated from Forest Park to National Park status. The Kibale National Park was proclaimed in terms of Statutory Instrument 1993 No 76 where Kibale Forest Reserve was merged with the game corridor and declared a national park. Its boundaries are marked with boundary pillars and planted Eucalyptus trees. They are also GPS‐positioned. The project area is situated within the boundaries of Kibale National park, and is part of the management plan for Kibale National Park. The National Park is managed by the Uganda Wildlife Authority, a governmental organisation. PDDKibaleCCB|20
In the zone surrounding the project area the local communities have customary land rights. Land ownership has fragmented over the last decades due to population growth – the plot size per household becomes smaller since the land has to be divided among the children for each new generation. If people buy land they enter into a written agreement with the seller of the land. Usually the land is not registered. If a landowner wants to register the land, they need to have the land surveyed and submit a request at the district level. There are communal lands in the project zone, which is governed by the Tooro kingdom. The lands are accessible for those who have registered with the Tooro kingdom for the particular communal land. The users pay an annual contribution to the kingdom for the use of the land. Most of this land is grazing land, and a minor part exists of arable land. The original population of the Batooro keep more distance to the park with their farms to avoid damage by elephants. The Bakiga immigrants are often farming closer to the park boundary, where they rent land and pay to the landlord per season. Local people have traditionally extracted a variety of resources, including firewood, wild coffee, water, medicinal plants, fish, honey and rattan cane. As described in KNP’s General Management Plan 2015 – 2024, UWA recognizes the local communities living adjacent to protected areas as key stakeholders in ensuring the protection of wildlife both within and outside the protected areas. This is enshrined in UWA’s statement of mission within the strategic plan 2013 – 2018. In addition, section 23 and section 29 of the Wildlife Act 2000, permits communities to access resources from the Park with permission from the Executive Director. The Ugandan Wildlife Statute stipulates collaborative management as an approach to Protected Area and wildlife management. This is in line with the UWA policy for encouraging greater appreciation of the National Park by local people and to encourage their participation in park management. Local people will be permitted to use these resources through resource use agreements signed between UWA and community Resource users. There is an integrated resource use zone. Neighbouring communities are allowed to utilize park resources in this area – such as firewood, medicinal plants, thatch grass and fishing. Resource use committees oversee the implementation of the collaborative resource use agreements – they monitor the off‐take and submit such data to the park for capture into their MIST monitoring system. Access to park resources is controlled through a permit book system kept by the chairman of the resource use committee and who is responsible for issuing of these permits. The chairman levies a small fee for this that goes to the local community. G5.2
Impact of Project on Property Rights The project does not encroach on private property or community property. The project area is located on land owned by the Government of Uganda. The project is mutual undertaking by Uganda Wildlife Authority, the institution responsible for managing the National Park, and Face the Future. In 1994 government invited Face Foundation to carry out restoration work. In 1994 a MOU was signed between Face and the Government of Uganda. No property rights are affected by the project. G5.3
Involuntary Relocation of People The project has not led to the removal or relocation of Property Right Holders. Encroachers and settlers had been evicted in the years before the project was established. However, the evictions were not caused by this particular project activity, but had to do with decisions by the Government of Uganda to regain control over its Forest Reserves. PDDKibaleCCB|21
In the past encroachment had taken place into the then Forest Reserve and Game Reserve of Kibale by people without formal or customary land rights. In the late 1950s people from the Bakiga tribe of Southwestern Uganda began to settle in the Kibale Game Reserve. The settlement within the Reserve continued during the 1960s and 1970s, and spilled over to the Kibale Forest Reserve. The main reasons was the lack of land in the region of origin on one hand, while there was political instability and a lack of law enforcement on the other hand. The government had the intention to address the settlement into the Reserve, but lacked the resources and commitment to do so. Since the 1980s the government worked towards recovering the forest reserves from encroachers in the whole country. Some eviction operations had been carried out in the 1970s and 1980s at a small‐scale and not effective, due to limited capacity and funds. As part of the European Development Funds’ Natural Forest Management and Conservation Project, the government of Uganda wanted to restore the Forest Reserves in the period 1988 – 1995. The government of Uganda decided to regain control of the Forest Reserves, which led to the eviction of the settlers from the Kibale Forest Reserve in 1992. The operation was poorly planned and coordinated, leading to the use of excessive force and alleged violation of human rights. The evictees were eventually relocated to Kibaale District some 100 km away. Following the relocation of the evictees, there were court cases where part of the evicted people claimed to have been insufficiently compensated after their relocation. The first court case was of a group of evictees in 1993 (civil suit no. 207 – 1995) against the government of Uganda. Both parties reached an agreement on the payment of damages by UWA to a total amount of 21 billion UGX, and 12 million UGX per household. There was a second group of evictees that started a case in 2001 (civil suit no. 1022 – 2001) against the government of Uganda. In 2010 both parties reached an agreement that each of the households receive 6 million UGX as compensation (the total amount is 21 billion UGX). This all happened after the relocation had taken place. Then there was a constitutional petition (no. 59 – 2011) by a group of children of the evictees, who claimed an infringement of fundamental and constitutional rights as children of the parents who were evicted in 1992. This case was dismissed in 2014 by the Court of Appeal. Currently there are no court cases related to the evictions and relocation of 1992. G5.4
Illegal Activities Relevant illegal activities are poaching of wildlife, illegal firewood collection, over‐extraction of resources beyond the carrying capacity of the forest. Illegal timber cutting and grazing are not significant. Illegal activities within KNP are resolved with an effective combination of law enforcement and community education strategies. The illegal activities are controlled by UWA park rangers. The rangers arrest poachers and remove snares and fill pits. Sensitization is carried out with the communities. Resource extraction is being monitored to make sure there is no over‐extraction. G5.5
Unresolved disputes or conflicts There are no unresolved tenure or use right disputes. See section G5.3 for previous court cases. With regards to resolved conflicts related to human‐wildlife interactions: data sheets and minutes are held of e.g. damage done by elephants to the crops/property of local communities that resulted in disputes between KNP and their neighbours. The records are in a file with the Warden of Community Conservation. Steps that are taken to address these disputes are recorded in these minutes such as the use of scare‐shooting or the digging of trenches. PDDKibaleCCB|22
G5.6
Laws and Regulations Current laws and/or regulations such as the constitution of the Republic of Uganda (1995) and the National Environmental Act (1996) allow the reforestation on the degraded lands. Below are a list of laws and regulations that are in favour of the project activities: 1.
The constitution of the Republic of Uganda of 1995, which is the supreme law of the country, empowers Parliament to enact laws to protect and preserve the environment from abuse, pollution and degradation and also to promote measures intended to manage the environment for sustainable development and to promote environmental awareness. The constitution enjoins the state to protect important resources, including land, water, wetlands, oil, minerals, fauna and flora on behalf of the people of Uganda. The Constitution empowers the Government (or where appropriate local government) to hold in trust for the people and protect natural forest reserves and any land to be reserved for ecological and tourism purposes for the common good of all citizens. 2.
The National Environmental Act of 1996: The main objective of the National Environment Act is to provide for the sustainable management of the environment. The Act establishes the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) as a coordinating, monitoring and supervisory body. NEMA is the main institution responsible for the operation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regime. Projects which must undergo the EIA process include forestry related activities such as reforestation and afforestation. Under the Act, NEMA is required, in consultation with the lead agency which is the National Forestry Authority (NFA) to issue guidelines and prescribe measures for the management of all forests in Uganda. These guidelines have to take into account forests in protected areas, including forest reserves, national parks and game reserves; and forests on lands subject to interests held by private persons. NEMA, in consultation with the National Forestry Authority, is given powers to expressly exclude human activities in any forest area by declaring it a specially protected forest. 3.
The National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, 8/2003. An Act to provide for the conservation, sustainable management and development of forests for the benefit of the people of Uganda; to provide for the declaration of forest reserves for purposes of protection and production of forests and forest produce; to provide for the sustainable use of forest resources and the enhancement of the productive capacity of forests; to provide for the promotion of tree planting; to consolidate the law relating to the forest sector and trade in forest produce; to establish a National Forestry Authority; to repeal the Forests Act, Cap. 147 and the Timber (Export) Act Cap. 151; and for related matters. 4.
The Uganda Wildlife Act, Cap. 200 aimed at: - the conservation of wildlife throughout Uganda so that the abundance and diversity of their species are maintained at optimum levels commensurate with other forms of land use, in order to support sustainable utilisation of wildlife for the benefit of the people of Uganda; - the sustainable management of wildlife conservation areas; - the conservation of selected examples of wildlife communities in Uganda; - the protection of rare, endangered and endemic species of wild plants and animals; - ecologically acceptable control of problem animals; - the enhancement of economic and social benefits from wildlife management by establishing wildlife use rights and the promoting of tourism; - the control of import, export and re‐export of wildlife species and specimens; - the implementation of relevant international treaties conventions, agreements or other arrangement to which Uganda is a party; and public participation in wildlife management. PDDKibaleCCB|23
G5.7
Approval by Authorities The project takes place in a National Park, owned by the government and managed by Uganda Wildlife Authority. It is a joint project by Uganda Wildlife Authority and Face the Future. At the start of the project a MOU was signed between the Government of Uganda and Face. There are no established traditional authorities over the area of the National Park (see section G5.1). There is the Toro kingdom, but it has no influence in and around the project area. The kingdom is a cultural stakeholder and it’s consulted for planning purposes at the Park level, e.g. the General Management Plan. This does not have consequences for the project activity. G5.8
Benefits Claimed by the Project Since the land is owned by the Ugandan Government, there are no overlapping claims. All resources, below or above the surface belong to the government, except for those which have been agreed otherwise, for example the carbon ownership by Face the Future in the following signed agreements: 1. The MoU between Face and the Government of Uganda (1994), see article 2.e. 2. Form of Agreement contract example, the contract of the first area, 1994. This contract refers to the General conditions of Contract . 3. The General conditions of Contract (1992), see article 33. The biodiversity benefits are the results of the forest restoration activities carried out by the project, based on funding for the project. The community benefits in terms of employment, skills, NTFP’s are a result of the same funding for restoring the forest by the project. G5.9
Avoidance of Double Counting There are no offsets sold from the project area based on climate, community or biodiversity benefits, outside of VCS and CCBS offsets. Uganda does not participate in a compliance mechanism for carbon (reforestation projects), biodiversity or community benefits. PDDKibaleCCB|24
CLIMATESECTION
The project is VCS certified: validated and verified in 2011. See the VCS Project Database for the project name Natural High Forest Rehabilitation Project on degraded land of Kibale National Park. The Climate Section is covered in the VCS Project Description and the VCS Monitoring Reports available in the VCS Project Database. PDDKibaleCCB|25
COMMUNITYSECTION
CM1. Without‐ProjectCommunityScenario
CM1.1
Community Description Kibale is surrounded by densely populated areas, mainly due to immigration from southern Uganda and a high birth rate. The people include the native Batoro and the immigrant Bakiga in the 27 parishes surrounding KNP. The people are primarily agriculturists, growing mainly banana, groundnuts, sweet potatoes, and sugar cane. Crops are grown on a subsistence level and occasionally they bring in some income. Land pressure varies, in the north of the park around the tea estates only about 2 acres per family is available, to the east and south the pressure reduces. A fallow system of 1‐2 years is followed to allow land to regain fertility in the mainly agricultural north. Planted tree patches, especially of eucalyptus, provide timber and fuelwood to some extent. Some livestock management occurs in the south but is still of very low production. Other activities include: brewing of local beer and a hard liquor (waragi), working in the tea plantations and fishing. The local community relied on the forest in the past for a wide range of products and services such as pit‐
sawing, hunting, cultivation, collection of medicinal plants, firewood, poles, crafts materials and harvest of the wild coffee for their incomes. The standards of living are low. Many children do not have regular access to schooling and many families are without primary health care. Tourism is an important source of income for the region, with several locally based groups facilitating access to the forest and wetlands. For example, the Kibale Association for Rural Development (KAFRED) is an NGO promoting and managing the Bigodi Wetland Sanctuary. Visitors come to see primates, including chimpanzees and over 370 species of birds. Other sources of income in the area are limited to employment by the Local Government, the local demand for agricultural labour and trading. An overview of the 12 parishes included in the SBIA process is given in the following Table 1. PDDKibaleCCB|26
Table 1 ‐ Description of the 12 parishes bordering the project area. The information is based on villages meetings during the SBIA process. Parish
GENERAL
Villages
Nearest town
Number of vilages included for SBIA
Number of trading centers
Number of households (estimate 2014)
Isunga
Nyabweya
Kadindimo
Nyabweya A, Nyabweya B, Nyabweya C, Isunga, Kanyante, Nyabinyonyi, Rweraza, Iruhura A, Rwenkuba, Iruhura B
Kitojo
Fort Portal Rwimi (20 (30km)
km)
Rwimi
Kakooga
Bigodi
Kajumira AB, Kajumira C, Rubariga IIA, Rubariga IIB Kisanga
Kakooga A, Kakooga B, Kakyinga, Kibuga A, Kibuga B
Rwimi (6km)
Rwimi (4km)
Kyakagunga, Kachwamakai
Kyabakwere, to, Nkyingo, Rwengobe, Mahango, Nyabihara, Nyabubale, Bujongobe, Bigodi
Mabono
Kamwenge Kamwenge (20 km)
(16 km)
Rwimi (0km)
4
3
7
8
550
1150
Bakiga, Batoro
Rukiga, Rutoro
Moderate
Bakiga, Batoro
Rukiga, Rutoro
Moderate
Christians
Subsistence agriculture, some tillapia fisheries
Christians
Christians
Subsistence agriculture, some tillapia Subsistence fisheries
agriculture
Access to markets
PUBLIC SERVICES
Nursery school
Primary school
Secundary school
Health center (policinique)
Access Roads
Electricity
Christians
Subsistence agriculture, some tillapia fisheries
weekly market present
10 km
5km
Present
present
present
present
unpaved
Present
not present
present
present
present
unpaved
not present
present
present
not present
present
unpaved
not present
Water services
not present
not present
present
Tribes
Language
Litracy level
Religions
Main Economic Activity
Bakiga, Batoro
Rukiga, Rutoro
Low
NAADS (national agriculture advisory services)
present
4
6
1
1
5
4
100
550
Bakiga, Batoro
Rukiga, Rutoro
Moderate
Bujongobe
1100
Kyanbandara Busingye
Kyanbandara Rugonjo, Bunyonyi I, I, Bunyonyi II, Kyanbandara Bigaga, Ngeza II, Kitzhurizo, Kabingo III
I, Ngeza II
Kamwenge Kamwenge (16km)
(8km)
5
3
6
2
6
3
650
450
Bakiga, Batoro
Rukiga, Rutoro
Low
Christians & Muslims
625
Bakiga, Batoro
Rukiga, Rutoro
Low
Christians & Muslims
Bakiga, Batoro
Rukiga, Rutoro
Low
Bakiga, Batoro
Rukiga, Rutoro
Moderate
Christians
Christians
Subsistence agriculture
daily market present
3km
Rugonjo
Nyabitusi I, Nyabitusi II
Kamwenge (8km)
4
2
Kiziba
Rwenkuba
Kiziba I, Kiziba II, Butemba I, Rushoroza, Mwibale
Kamwenge (10km)
Nkarakara, Lyamukonera, Rubaba
Kamwenge (15km)
2
1
300
5
2
200
3
4
300
650
Bakiga, Bafumbira
Rukiga, Rufumbira
Low
Bakiga, Bafumbira
Rukiga, Rufumbira
Moderate
Bakiga, Bafumbira
Rukiga, Rufumbira
Low
Bakiga, Bafumbira
Rukiga, Rufumbira
Moderate
Christians
Christians
Christians
Christians
6km
12km
8km
8km
daily market
present
present
not present
not present
unpaved
not present
present
present
present
present
unpaved
present
not present
present
not present
not present
unpaved
not present
not present
present
not present
not present
unpaved
present
not present
present
not present
not present
unpaved
not present
not present
present
not present
not present
unpaved
not present
not present
present
not present
not present
unpaved
not present
not present
present
present
present
present
unpaved
present
Piped water (gravity flow)
not present
not present
not present
not present
not present
not present
not present
present
present
present
present
unpaved
present
Piped water (pump)
present
present
present
present
present
present
present
present
present
present
PDDKibaleCCB|1
Parish
AGRICULTURE
Agricultural System
Cash crops
Subsistence crops
Timber plantations
NATURAL RESOURCES
Land availibility
Soil fertility
Water
Fuelwood
Mining
EMPLOYEMENT
Main Opportunities
Isunga
Nyabweya
Kadindimo
Rwimi
Kakooga
Bigodi
Bujongobe
Rugonjo
Kiziba
Rwenkuba
Shifting cultivation
coffee, tea
matoke, coffee, rice, tomatoes, gabages
onions
rice, maize, tomatoes, onions, gabages
rice, maize
coffee, maize, coffee, maize coffee, maize coffee, maize coffee, maize coffee, maize coffee, maize tomatoes
potatoes, potatoes, potatoes, potatoes, potatoes, potatoes, potatoes, potatoes, potatoes, potatoes, potatoes, potatoes, beans, beans, beans, beans, beans, beans, beans, beans, beans, beans, beans, beans, casava, casava, casava, casava, casava, casava, casava, casava, casava, casava, casava, casava, matoke, matoke, matoke, matoke, matoke, matoke, matoke, matoke, matoke, matoke, matoke, matoke, maize, millet, maize, millet, maize, millet, maize, millet, maize, millet, maize, millet, maize, millet, maize, millet, maize, millet, maize, millet, maize, millet, maize, millet, sorghum, etc. sorghum, etc. sorghum, etc. sorghum, etc. sorghum, etc. sorghum, etc. sorghum, etc. sorghum, etc. sorghum, etc. sorghum, etc. sorghum, etc. sorghum, etc.
Eucalyptus, Eucalyptus, Eucalyptus, Pine
Pine
Pine
Scarce
fertile soils
Scarce
fertile soils
insufficient insufficient clean water; clean water; Shallow Shallow wells, wells, Protected Protected Springs, Lake, Springs, Lake Stream
insufficient insufficient
sand
sand
FACE, HIMA cement factory, Tea Estates, Tourism, UWA KNP
FACE, Tea Estates, Tourism, UWA KNP
Scarce
fertile soils
insufficient clean water; Shallow wells, Protected Springs, Lake, Stream
insufficient
sand
Scarce
fertile soils
insufficient clean water; Shallow wells, Protected Springs, Stream
insufficient
sand
Scarce
fertile soils
insufficient
sand
Scarce
poor soils
insufficient
sand
Scarce
poor soils
insufficient
sand
Scarce
poor soils
insufficient
sand
Scarce
poor soils
FACE, UWA FACE, UWA FACE, UWA KNP, Tourism KNP, Tourism KNP, Tourism FACE
Scarce
poor soils
Scarce
poor soils
Scarce
poor soils
insufficient insufficient insufficient insufficient clean water; clean water; clean water; clean water; Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow wells, wells, wells, wells, Protected Protected Protected Protected Springs, Springs
Springs
Springs
Stream
insufficient insufficient insufficient insufficient
sand
sand
sand
sand
UWA KNP
UWA KNP
UWA KNP
PDDKibaleCCB|2
Parish
Isunga
RELATION WITH FACE PROJECT
Distance to Mainaro
20km
Distance to planting area (2011‐2014)
<1km
Employement FACE (per year between 2011‐2014)
female employees (at mainaro compound and field tree nurseries)
Nyabweya
Kadindimo
Rwimi
Kakooga
Bigodi
Bujongobe
Rugonjo
Kiziba
Rwenkuba
24km
28km
34km
26km
8km
2km
7km
25km
20km
15km
13km
2km
<1km
2km
<1km
15km
25km
29km
43km
38km
33km
28km
80
120
0
5
30
5
40
5
20
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
no need for trenches, a hill is Elephant trenches (funded blocking by FACE & UWA KNP)
95%
98% passage
0%
10%
50%
95%
60%
0%
0%
40%
0%
Water sources programs
present
present
not present not present not present present
present
not present not present not present not present not present
RELATION WITH UWA KNP
Employement UWA (2011‐
2014)
5
2
0
0
0
10
4
2
0
1
1
1
5
0
0
0
40
4
1
0
0
0
0
Tourism
10
Fuelwood, Fuelwood, poles, poles, medicinal Ratan canes medicinal plants, reeds, MoUs in MoUs in MoUs in (for kampala MoUs in MoUs in MoUs in MoUs in Access to KNP resources
plants, reeds fish
development development development market)
development development bee keeping development development bee keeping
UWA Revenue sharing
in place
in place
in place
in place
in place
in place
in place
in place
in place
in place
in place
in place
almost nill (only baboons and other Human‐Wildlife conflict
low
low
monkeys)
moderate
moderate
low
low
low
moderate
moderate
high
low
PDDKibaleCCB|3
CM1.2
HCV’s for Community Well‐Being There is a resource use zone along the boundaries of the National Park, where communities have access to Park resources. Access and extraction are subject to agreement with the management of the Park. The map (Figure 5) below shows the resource use areas in the General Management Plan 2014 – 2024. There are agreements with communities to have access to the park for fishing, beehive keeping, harvesting wood from exotic tree species and the collection of craft material. The management of these areas is described in Kibale’s General Management Plan 2014 – 2024. These areas are not considered as High Conservation Value areas. There are no areas identified inside the project area that are critical to the traditional cultural identity of communities. Although not considered critical, the project area provides ecosystem services by filtering water from the rivers that enter the park and flow in Southern direction, draining into Lake George. The perceived ecosystem services benefits from the park are a better rainfall (more rain) and climate (cooler), and improved soil fertility close to the Park (Mackenzie, 2012). PDDKibaleCCB|1
KNP ZONE MAP
Sebitoli
#
Kinyantale
Kanyawala
#
#
Ngogo outpost
Isunga
#
#
#
Bihehe outpost
Kanyanchu
#
Kabwegyemere
#
Kanyante #
Mainaro outpost
#
#
Kakooga out post
#
Ngeza outpost
Kabaleke
#
N
Nyabitusi outpost
#
W
E
S
Kasenda-mainaro tourism trail
Resource use zone
6
0
6
12 Kilometers
Tourism zone
Restoration Zone
Wilderness zone
Figure 5. Map showing the Resource Use zones. CM1.3
Without‐project scenario Without the project the situation of the people in the communities would not have differed much from the situation before the start of the project. Probably few possibilities would have come up to add on the economic situation as before the project. It would have meant that self‐sustaining agriculture together with some small scale production of cash crops would still have been the only economic activities in the area surrounding the project area. Without the project, there would not be the employment as provided by the project. The project area is less attractive for tourism in the without‐project scenario compared to the restored ecosystem in the project scenario, and therefore revenues from tourism in the areas adjacent to the project area don’t increase. The incidental illegal PDDKibaleCCB|2
extraction of firewood and cattle grazing inside the park provides some benefits to some people living around the park. However, even in the project scenario these illegal activities continue to happen, although limited by law enforcement by the UWA rangers. The human wildlife conflicts are part of the baseline situation. Mainly elephants and also baboons and bushpigs and other species destroy a part of the crops on the lands surrounding the Park. These species have always been living in this area. The project aims to restore the natural forest, which provides a habitat for the wildlife. As a result, the population of wildlife species could increase by enlarging the habitat. It can therefore be argued that the human wildlife conflict is smaller in absence of the project activity. Although the enlargement of the forest area does not especially favour the habitat of the elephant, which is the main species causing the human‐wildlife conflicts. The human wildlife conflict is one of the focal issues that was selected by the community representatives in the SBIA process (see the SBIA report). CM2. NetPositiveCommunityImpacts
CM2.1
Community Impacts Employment is the largest positive impact of the project. In the period 2002 – 2013 on average about 300 local people were employed for fieldwork activities. Labour for fieldwork creates the majority of employment by the project. Then there are also permanent jobs for the project (6 to 8 over the last five years). When the project started, seedlings were raised in the project nursery. In later years the project decided to promote the development of nurseries owned by local people and to buy the seedlings for the tree planting from those local nurseries. This way the project promotes local economic activity and generates revenues for the nursery owners. As part of the project activity the local people acquire skills for the planting and maintenance of local tree species, which they can replicate in their own farms. By converting the area covered with elephant grass to forest, the availability of Non Timber Forest Products is increased for the future. Access to these NTFP’s is arranged in agreements with the Park management. Within the project area the local people are allowed to collect medicinal plants. The established forest makes the area more attractive for tourism, resulting into more employment and revenues related to tourism. UWA shares part of the revenues from visitor in the park with the surrounding communities. This is channelled through a Revenue Sharing Fund. Communities submit proposals with a request for funding for a variety of purposes. For the future the project aims to support the establishment of woodlots outside the project area and to fund income‐generating activities for local communities. There are some other positive side effects of the project. The access roads to the project offices and other roads leading to the project area have significantly improved over the past as a result of the project. The people living in the villages along these roads benefit from the improved quality of the road. Another side effect of the project is the purchase of project inputs from the local markets, benefiting the local economy. This ranges from buying food for the workers, to equipment and office PDDKibaleCCB|3
supplies. Lastly, the project has also established water wells with additional funding made available for the project. Along the boundary of the park, the communities suffer from crop raiding by mainly elephants, and also baboons, bushpigs and other species. During the participatory assessment of the SBIA process, the human wildlife conflict is selected as one of the focal issues. The importance of human wildlife conflicts is further confirmed by the research of Mackenzie, who investigated the benefits and losses of the National Park for the local population (i.e. not of the project separately but for the Park as a whole). Crop raiding by park‐protected animals are perceived as the biggest problem of living next to Kibale National Park by the majority of surveyed households (Mackenzie, 2012). This affects the well‐being of the people with lands along the Park boundary, due to loss of crops and time spent on guarding the fields. Although it is expected that the elephant population increase can be positively affected by the project, the problem of crop‐raiding by elephants is primarily caused by the existence of the Kibale National Park, which provides a sanctuary for the elephants within its borders. If the project was absent, the area would still exist within the boundaries of the national park. Even though the crop raiding map provided by McKenzie (2012) indicates crop raiding loss due to elephants along the boundary of KNP near the project area, it also shows that there is a lot of variation in crop raiding pressure that does not seem to be directly related to forest cover or an increase in forest cover. Moreover, when considering the distribution of human population around the park, crop raiding loss seems to be more strongly correlated with population density (see map below). This is also in line with the study of Southworth et al. (2010) which illustrates that the growing human population in the parks increased isolation and ‘islandization’ of the park, affecting natural movement patterns of animals (e.g. hampering elephants to move to other forest areas). In relation to the overall observed increase in elephant population in Kibale National Park over the past decades, it seems that more strict conservation and anti‐poaching policies and regulations as well as more intensive surveillance have proven effective, as this trend can be observed in the whole of Uganda, whereas in most neighbouring countries a decrease in elephant population is observed (WCS, 2015). WCS also argues that periods of conflict in neighbouring countries such as DRC have caused elephants to migrate to Uganda. This is considered to play a role in the increasing in human‐
wildlife conflicts as well. For other species like primates and bushpigs the population increase can be linked to the project. PDDKibaleCCB|4
Human population count per km2 Source: Landscan TM, 2003. Global Population Database, Oak Ridge TN CM2.2
Mitigation of Negative Impacts and Strategy for HCV attributes The negative project impact for local communities identified under CM2.1 in the SBIA process is the possible increase in the human wildlife conflict, for as far as the population increase of especially elephants can be partially attributed to the project. Mitigation activities to deal with the human‐
wildlife conflict have been identified in consultation with the local communities. The main activity is creating elephant trenches along the park boundary in places of high risk for elephants crossing the boundary and affecting the crops. This has already been implemented for a large part and this will continue in the future. Part of the current management practices of the Park as a whole is that the UWA rangers are called to settle the issue. The human wildlife conflict can further be mitigated through the introduction of unpalatable crops along the park boundary, in order to reduce the attractiveness of these lands and thereby reducing the number of incidences. The details of these mitigation measures are found in the UWA‐Face Plan of Activities 2015 – 2024. As described in more detail in the Project Implementation Report, the current monitoring data on crop raiding incidences around the park seems to give insufficient insight in the effectiveness of the realised trenches. To assure effective monitoring in future, of the effectiveness of established trenches and the planting of unpalatable crops as well as their joint effects, spatial data will be collected of: the location of established trenches, the location of planted crops, the weak spots in the trenches, location of surrounding villages and associated estimates of human population size. PDDKibaleCCB|5
In section CM1.2 no HCV’s have been identified. The project does provide ecosystem services and generates NTFP’s, which will only be improved by the project though the establishment and growth of the natural forest. CM2.3
Net Well‐Being Impacts The project results in several positive impacts, as identified in CM2.1. The negative impacts are limited and are mitigated as described in CM2.2. The overall net impact is therefore positive.3 CM2.4
Impact on HCV In section CM1.2 no HCV’s have been identified. The project does provide ecosystem services and generates NTFP’s, which will only be improved by the project though the establishment and growth of the natural forest. CM3. OtherStakeholderImpacts
CM3.1
Identification of Other Stakeholder Impacts The stakeholders presented in section G1.6 are not negatively impacted by the project. For the stakeholders in the tourism sector, the project has a positive impact by making the area more attractive. With regards to the research stations in Kibale National Park, the restoration of the project area provides an interesting opportunity to study the effects of large scale restoration efforts with native species. CM3.2
Mitigation of Negative Impacts of Other Stakeholders Not applicable. CM3.3
No Net‐Negative Impact of Other Stakeholder Only positive impacts have been identified. 3
WCS.
2015.
Uganda’s
Elephants
Increasing
in
Number.
WCS
News
Releases.
http://press.wcs.org/NewsReleases/tabid/13614/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6761/Ugandas-ElephantsIncreasing-in-Number.aspx
Southworth, J., Hartter, H., Binford, M. W., Goldman, A., Chapman, C. A., Chapman,, L. J., Omeja, P. and
Binford, E. 2010. Parks, people and pixels: evaluating landscape effects of an East African national park on its
surroundings. Tropical Conservation Science Vol. 3 (2):122-142.
PDDKibaleCCB|6
CM4. CommunityImpactMonitoring
CM4.1
Monitoring Plan for Community Objectives See the separate CCB Monitoring Plan for the UWA‐Face project. CM4.2
Monitoring Plan for Community HCV Not applicable. CM4.3
Dissemination of Monitoring Plan A summary of the Monitoring Plan has been presented to the stakeholders. PDDKibaleCCB|7
BIODIVERSITYSECTION
B1.
BiodiversityWithout‐Project
Scenario
B1.1
Description of Biodiversity at Project Start The biodiversity in the original baseline vegetation of the project area is limited. The areas selected for reforestation mainly consisted of elephant grass (P. purpureum), spear grass and Hyperrhenia grass, with some scattered trees and former homesteads. The areas have a relatively low biodiversity. In a study by Chapman and Chapman (1999), executed in the FtF‐UWA regeneration areas of KNP, with 60 sample plots, it was observed that with the increased dominance of P. purpureum both diversity (Simpson’s index) and species richness of the plants dominating the sampling plots declined. On the other hand, many studies have shown that grasses, such as P. purpureum, are an important component of the elephant's diet, suggesting that the areas have significant value to these threatened species. For instance, P. purpureum makes up the bulk of the diet of forest elephants in West Cameroon (Tchamba and Seme, 1993). Depending on the season and varying between eco‐
regions elephants consume more herbaceous or woody vegetation. In Kibale, generally more herbaceous foliage than woody forage was eaten on a volume basis, but feeding on woody vegetation occurred more commonly (Spinage, 1994). There are studies that suggest that elephants prefer to forage in sites which have undergrowth in which herbaceous plants are dominant (Nummelin, 1990, in Struhsakker et al., 1996) and that they preferentially utilize forest clearings and secondary forest, instead of closed canopy primary forest (Owen‐Smith 1988, Prins and Reitsma 1989, Struhsakker et al. 1996). The P. purpureum dominated vegetation is considered to be valuable for many bird species that eat the seeds and use the tall grass for shelter (Tchamba and Seme, 1993). Bird species that mainly occur in habitats with this vegetation are moreover commonly found throughout Uganda (and beyond) in agricultural and rural areas outside the park and the biodiversity value is therefor considered not to be very significant. UWA monitors (animal) species biodiversity in Kibale NP in two ways:  Transects: There are 37 permanent transects throughout the park, of which approximately 6 intersect with the project area. Every 5 years an assessment is executed which is registered in a database.  MIST: Sightings of (mostly) key animal species by the rangers that work throughout the park are registered in a spatial database. PDDKibaleCCB|8
Figure 6. Line transects established in KNP (left) and line transects (partially) overlapping the planting compartments and regeneration area (right). There are various studies, related to biodiversity in Kibale NP have been executed, either by UWA or (independent) researchers. Examples are:  Forest Department. 1996. Kibale National Park Biodiversity Report. Edited by: Peter Howard, Tim Davenport and Roger Matthews.  Ground census report of mammals in Kibale National Park 2005 and 2010.  Wanyama, F., Muhabwe, R., Plumptre, A. J., Chapman, C. A., & Rothman, J. M. 2010. Censusing large mammals in Kibale National Park: evaluation of the intensity of sampling required to determine change. African Journal of Ecology, 48(4), 953‐961.  Chapman, C.A., Chapman, L.J., 1996. Exotic tree plantations and the regeneration of natural forests in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Biological Conservation 76, 253–257.  Chapman, C.A., Lambert, J.E., 2000. Habitat alteration and the conservation of African primates: case study of Kibale National Park, Uganda. American Journal of Primatology 50, 169–185. Some studies are specifically focussed on the effects of the forest rehabilitation program. Some of these studies are:  Chapman, C.A., Chapman, L.J., 1999. Forest restoration in abandoned agricultural land: a case study from East Africa. Conservation Biology 13, 1301–1311.  Struhsaker, T.T., 2003. Evaluation of the UWA–FACE Natural High Forest Rehabilitation Project in Kibale National Park, Uganda. A report prepared for the Centre for Applied Biodiversity Science of Conservation International and for the FACE Foundation – Conservation International, Washington, DC. PDDKibaleCCB|9

Omeja, P. A., Jacob, A. L., Lawes, M. J., Lwanga, J. S., Rothman, J. M., Tumwesigye, C., & Chapman, C. A. 2014. Changes in Elephant Abundance Affect Forest Composition or Regeneration?. Biotropica, 46(6), 704‐711. B1.2
Identification of HCV’s The conservation values of KNP are numerous and diverse. Some are primarily local or regional in character, while others are significant at the national or international level. These values also range from those that are of importance for the economic well‐being of residents of the region to those that are less tangible and more aesthetic in character. A basic assessment of High Conservation Value (HCV) areas was made based on available existing data such as:  Kibale National Park General Management Plan 2014‐2024;  UWA‐Face PROJECT PLAN OF OPERATION JANUARY 2008 – DECEMBER 2008;  Kibale National Park Biodiversity Report, 1996  UWA MONITORING AND RESEARCH PLAN 2003 – 2008  Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment Report: Natural High Forest Rehabilitation Project on degraded land of Kibale National Park, 2014  Biomonitoring data from Wildlife censuses  Biomonitoring data collected opportunistically by park rangers during their daily activities. MIST 2004 ‐ 2014, observations are georeferenced The Common Guidance for the Identification of High Conservation Values, developed by the HCV Resource Network (https://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/cg‐identification‐sep‐2014‐english), was used. For this assessment the project area is considered to consist out of two distinct areas: 1) the planted and naturally regenerating areas (3992 ha): Depending on whether the area naturally regenerates or is planted and when trees have been planted, these areas are to a more or lesser extent on their way to become an integral part of the Kibale National Park forest ecosystem. 2) the future planting areas (700 ha): These areas will be planted in the (near) future, but are predominantly degraded open landscapes dominated by elephant grass, spear grass and Hyperrhenia grass. In relation to the above we think that ‘the planted and naturally regenerating areas’ will develop High
Conservation Values similar to the forest ecosystems of KNP. The project intends to monitor the
development of biodiversity in order to demonstrate the succession of the vegetation towards a climax
forest type.
The Six High Conservation Values (https://www.hcvnetwork.org/) HCV1 Concentrations of biological diversity including endemic species, and rare, threatened or endangered species, that are significant at global, regional or national levels. The forest areas contain regionally and nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values. It is the third largest forested national park in Uganda. Size and continuity of forest habitat make Kibale of particular value for biodiversity conservation. It is a diverse botanical resource including 351 forest PDDKibaleCCB|10
tree species (28% of Uganda’s total). Most species occur elsewhere in Uganda. However some are noteworthy because their occurrence in Kibale is part of a limited range in western Uganda, e.g. Elaeophorbia spp., Cola congolana, Tabemaemontane odoratissima and Hannoa longipes. Endangered timber species include Milicia exclesa, Cordia millenii, Entandrophragma angolensis and Lovoa swynnertinii. The forests support nine animal species considered to be globally threatened or nearly so such as elephant (Loxodonta africana), leopard (Panthera pardius), chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and L’Hoest’s monkey (Cercopithecus l’hoesti). Of particular importance is that thirteen species of non‐human primates (67% of the country’s total species) occur in KNP. As well as chimpanzees, Kibale is home to the red colobus monkey (Procolobus rufomitratus ssp. tephrosceles), in what is probably their last viable population in Uganda. KNP is listed as one of the thirty Important Bird Areas in Uganda. At least 375 species of birds, occurring in 58 families, have been listed. Two near‐threatened birds occur viz. white‐naped pigeon and Papyrus gonolek. Those noteworthy due to their limited distribution or threatened status include: olive long‐tailed cuckoo, western green tinker bird, Willcock’s’ honeyguide, collared apalis, red‐faced woodland warbler, white‐bellied crested flycatcher, blue‐headed sunbird, purple‐breasted sunbird, dusky crimson‐wing, white‐checked olive back, and the Kibale Prigogine’s ground thrush (Turdus kibalensis) which has not been seen outside Kibale. Howard (1991; in Obua et al. 2010) carried out an inventory of twelve principal forest reserves in Uganda and reported that in Uganda there are 427 tree species, 329 forest bird species, twelve diurnal forest primate species and 71 species of forest butterflies that are indicators of biodiversity. Table 2 below provides an overview of the presence of these indicator species in KNP. Table 2 The number of species belonging to four biodiversity indicator groups present in Kibale Source: extract from Howard, 1991 in Obua et al. 2010 Although for many of the above endemic, rare, threatened or endangered species the ‘future planting areas’ are less suitable or preferable habitat, the areas are still frequented by, among others, elephants (feeding on the elephant grass), many of the primate species (e.g. chimpanzee nest in the areas) and birds (feeding on the seeds). By themselves the areas hold little value, but as part of the mosaic of ecosystems in KNP, when following the HCV Resource Network guidance, these areas can be considered to qualify as HCV1 areas. On the other hand, one should consider that the elephant grass dominated areas, being a fire driven ecosystem, can also pose a threat to biodiversity in the surrounding (forest) ecosystems. Conclusion: the project area can be considered as HCV1 area. Depending on the extent that forest has been restored in the individual compartments, this value may vary, but is assumed to reach the same level of the undisturbed areas in KNP. HCV2 Large landscape‐level ecosystems and ecosystem mosaics that are significant at global, regional or national levels, and that contain viable populations of the great majority of the naturally occurring species in natural patterns of distribution and abundance. The Kibale National Park, although most of its boundaries adjoin agricultural smallholdings, forms part of an extensive system of contiguous protected areas which encircle Lake Edward and extend for PDDKibaleCCB|11
350 km along the Albertine Rift Valley from Lake Albert to Lake Kivu. This system
m, which ontains a remarkable vaariety of eco
osystems encompasses at leaast twenty‐fiive protecteed areas, co
o‐montane habitats to low and medium m
altituude tropical forests, ranging from high‐aaltitude Afro
N
wildl ife protecte
ed areas include Queen Elizabeth Protected P
savannahs and lakee systems. Nearby Rwenzori Moountains Nattional Park.
Area, Semliki National Park and R
Figure 7. National Parks and Wildliffe Reserves a round KNP As descrribed above,, the ‘future planting areeas’ areas byy themselves hold little value, but a
as part of the mosaic of ecosysstems in KNP
P they do co ntribute to ssome extent, even thouggh this can in
ncrease if the areas are restoreed to forest lland. Conclusion: The projject area, be
eing an integgral part of the Kibale Na
ational Park ccan be considered as HCV2 areea. HCV3 Rare, threatened, or enddangered eco
osystems, ha
abitats or refu
fugia. The foreests constitutte a threatened and enddangered eco
osystem. Forrests coveredd 20 % of Ugganda 40 years aggo, but now
w cover only 10 %. The ‘future plan
nting areas’ areas howeever, being disturbed d
ecosysteems are not considered to be threattened or end
dangered. The dominatiing elephantt grass as well as tthe other graasses thrive in disturbedd (open) areas, are comm
monly foundd throughoutt Uganda (and beyyond), have aa huge distribution potenntial and is o
often conside
ered as a pesst.4 Conclusion: The projject area, exccluding the ‘ffuture planting areas’ can be consideered a HCV3 area. HCV4 Basic ecosysstem servicees in critica
al situations,, including protection of water catchments and control of erosion off vulnerable soils and slop
opes. The parkk representss an important water cattchment area, as it prote
ects and filteers the wate
ers of the Dura and Mpanga riivers from p
pollution as tthey flow towards the Lake George Ramsar Site
e and the Queen EElizabeth Pro
otected Area. KNP is an iimportant etthno‐botaniccal resource.. It is a repository for wild stocck of commeercially important speciess; e.g. robustta coffee, ba
anana and plaants with esttablished medicinaal value. KNP
P also contains many sp ecies with unknown qua
alities which may yet pro
ove to be of intern
national sign
nificance. Th
he ‘future pplanting areaas’ however do not seeem to provide many (known) ecosystem sservices. 4
http://w
www.tropicalfo
orages.info/ke
ey/Forages/Me
edia/Html/Pen
nnisetum_purpureum.htm
PDDKibale
eCCB|12
Conclusion: The project area, excluding the ‘future planting areas’, can be considered a HCV4 area. HCV5 Sites and resources fundamental for satisfying the basic necessities of local communities or indigenous peoples (for livelihoods, health, nutrition, water, etc...), identified through engagement with these communities or indigenous peoples. The forests in KNP provide fundamental resource for local communities. This is in part related to the values associated with traditional foods and medicines obtained from KNP such as wild coffee, firewood and medicines, etc., together with less tangible benefits, e.g. climate control and protection of water catchments. A section of the park has been designated for regulated resource extraction by the local communities. The project area is outside of this zone. However, through benefit sharing, the project will provide some economic benefits to the local communities. But this is considered to be a minor contribution to their livelihoods Conclusion: The project area is not considered as a HCV5 area HCV6 Sites, resources, habitats and landscapes of global or national cultural, archaeological or historical significance, and/or of critical cultural, ecological, economic or religious/sacred importance for the traditional cultures of local communities or indigenous peoples, identified through engagement with these local communities or indigenous peoples. There are no known or identified sites, resources, habitats and landscapes of global or national cultural, archaeological or historical significance, and/or of critical cultural, ecological, economic or religious/sacred importance for the traditional cultures of local communities or indigenous peoples in the project area. Conclusion: The project area is not considered as a HCV6 area B1.3
Without‐Project Scenario Before the project start date the project area is dominated by grasslands with scattered trees. There are also parts with former homesteads. The selected baseline scenario is that the park management would lack the funds to reforest the area and has limited funds to control the fires that come in from outside the project area. In the dry seasons the grasslands are highly susceptible to fire risk. The frequent fires on the lands outside the park will enter the park and maintain a fire climax ecosystem. The elephant grass will stay there due to the fire regime favouring elephant grass and thwarting the natural regeneration of trees. Different types of vegetation will converge into fire‐prone grassland, comprising mostly long and some short grasses and few fire tolerant bushes or trees, like the fire resistant Combretum trees. Due to the fire regime it is unlikely that a shrubland will develop. This is supported by the abundant presence of elephant grass in the restoration area where no planting activities have yet been carried out, which is about 19 years after the start of the project activity. Only the areas that are protected against fire by the establishment of forest by the project have naturally regenerated. These areas are mainly located to the east of the planted areas and are therefore not affected by the fires that enter from the west. The dominant presence of grassland in the baseline scenario means the biodiversity conditions in terms of habitats and species in the project area will stay the same, and there will be no increase of forest habitat. The connectivity of Kibale National Park with the Queen Elisabeth National Park in the south will be there, since species like elephants and buffaloes will move through the grasslands. In terms of national and international biodiversity conservation goals, the overall impact of no project is likely to be unbeneficial since forested habitats in this region are not only richer in species than grasslands, but also support a larger number of regional endemics that are globally threatened with extinction. These grasslands are not the same as the typical savannah ecosystems as in Queen Elisabeth National Park. PDDKibaleCCB|13
B2.
NetPositiveBiodiversityImpacts
B2.1
Changes in Biodiversity in the Project Scenario Positive impacts on biodiversity As described in the section B 1.3 on the without‐project scenario, the biodiversity in the fire‐climax grasslands is relatively low. The project results into the establishment of native forest that support and increases High Conservation Values, as described in section B 1.2. Omeja et al. (2011) demonstrate that intensive replanting can accelerate the natural accumulation of biomass and biodiversity. The improvement of habitats for vulnerable and threatened species is expected to be significant. Connecting formerly isolated forest patches to the larger contiguous forest will facilitate the movement of forest specialist animals (such as many of the primate species), which will in turn facilitate further, natural forest regeneration by attracting seed dispersers (Jacob, et al., 2014). The observations of animals in parts of the project area that have been established since the project start date in 1995 clearly show significant presence of many species that prefer forest habitat (Table 3). The limited amount of data however does not allow for a clear trend analysis that could substantiate the expected increase in forest specialist species in the project area. We expect that this will become possible to analyse in the future with the execution of more censuses. The MIST observations within the planting compartments and regeneration areas show a predominantly positive trend in number of elephant, chimpanzee, red colobus, black‐ and white colobus and red‐tailed monkey sightings between 2004 and 2014, although there seem to be quality issues with the observations recorded in the MIST data, especially in the years 2004 – 2007. This quality issue is explained by the fact that MIST had just been introduced and it took time for the management and the rangers to get used to the new procedures. Moreover, there were less rangers stationed in or close to the project area, resulting into less sightings. For the red colobus and red‐
tailed monkey populations, this trend seems to differ from the census data of the whole of Kibale National Park (see Table 4 and Figure 8 to Figure 10), where there seems to be a considerable decline in red colobus and red tailed monkeys over the past 10+ years. On the other hand the extracted census data that overlap the project area does not show a strong decline in observations of both primate species. The overall observed decline in red colobus population in the whole of KNP might be explained by unusual high predation of the increasing chimpanzee population (Lwanga et al.,2011). However, according to the expert opinion of Prof. Chapman (pers. comm., 2015), local declines in colobus populations may be observed, but in other areas, among which the Mainaro site, they seem to increase in abundance. The apparent decline in red tailed monkeys, observed in the census data, however, seems to contradict the observed increase in red tailed monkey sightings in the study of Lwanga et al. (2011). It is expected that because this study was based on the Ngogo study site, while the census data is based on transects throughout the park, the difference can be attributed to local processes (such as increased forest cover) in the Ngogo study area. Table 3. Mammals observed in the project area, extracted from the census data of 2005 and 2010. Species 2005 Nr of observations Nr of individuals 2010 Nr of observations Nr of individuals PDDKibaleCCB|14
observed bush pig dung bush pig elephant dung elephant babboon grey cheeked mangabey red colobus red tailed monkey black and white colobus chimpanzee nest chimpanzee blue monkey red duiker vervet monkey buffalo dung buffalo blue duiker bushbuck Squirrel civet cat giant forest hog giant forest hog dung 17 ‐ 82 ‐ 8 7 13 24 13 72 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 8 ‐ 2 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ observed 20 ‐ 83 ‐ 84 42 172 192 91 85 ‐ 10 ‐ ‐ 8 ‐ 2 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 6 137 5 22 9 22 20 17 37 9 2 8 2 12 4 5 9 2 2 1 1 1 12 137 23 444 86 235 182 139 39 46 7 9 36 12 8 5 12 2 2 3 1 Potential negative impacts on biodiversity Since grassland and shrubland communities will convert into forests the effects of the project will have a negative impact on the biodiversity of these systems. As described in section B 1.1, there are studies that suggest that elephants prefer to forage in sites which have undergrowth in which herbaceous plants are dominant and that they preferentially utilize forest clearings and secondary forest, instead of closed canopy primary forest. This suggests that forest restoration could potentially have a negative influence on elephant abundance. On the other hand, it might be possible that elephants are able to change their diet according to the changing circumstances or that they can influence the landscape to such an extent that they are able to maintain sufficient open areas for them to have access to preferred grasses and other herbs. A recent study by Omeja et al. (2014) in KNP, and specifically in the project area, indicates that the elephants inhibit the regeneration of restoration areas and can even arrest forest succession in these areas. When considering the most recent elephant population data of KNP (Wildlife censuses (Table 3), MIST database (Figure 8); literature, e.g. Omeja et al. 2014), no apparent trend can be seen that would suggest a negative impact of forest restoration on elephant abundance. Moreover, the elephant population seems to have increased considerably. Similar increase in elephant population can be observed in the neighboring Queen Elizabeth NP, where the population seems to have (more than) doubled between 2000 and 2010 (Plumptre et al., 2010). No forest restoration activities have taken place in this park in the last 20 – 30 years, which seems further substantiate that the increase in elephant population cannot be attributed to forest restoration activities in KNP. One has to take into account that other processes could play a more significant role in determining elephant abundance. For instance, it is suggested that unrest in neighboring national parks such as Virunga NP in DRC could have caused migration of elephants to KNP in the past. Also, as Omeja et al. (2014) indicate, it is unclear what the equilibrium state of elephant abundance in the park would be and whether the current elephant abundance has already reached this equilibrium state, if it even exists. In conclusion, it seems that the baseline vegetation is of significant value to elephants and they are likely not positively affected by the forest restoration activities. Based on elephant population census data, it can however not be said that they are necessarily disadvantaged by the forest restoration and other processes likely play a significant role. Furthermore, when considering the overall goal of the project, which is to restore forest ecosystems in the degraded areas of the PDDKibaleCCB|15
park, it can be argu
ued that maintaining eleephant abun
ndance in the project arrea is not off primary concern. Table 4. A
Animal population trends ffor KNP (20011, 2005 and 2010) Source: K
Kibale Nationa
al Park Generral Managem
ment plan, 201
14 ‐ 2024. Da
ata from Plum
mptre et al 20
001, UWA Census 20005, UWA Cen
nsus 2010 htings per yeaar in project area (2004 ‐ 20
013) Figure 8. MIST: Nr. of Elephant sigh
20
15
10
5
0
20004 2005 2
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
3
Figure 9. MIST: Nr. of Red colobus ssightings per yyear in projecct area (2004 ‐ 2013) PDDKibale
eCCB|16
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Figure 10. MIST: Nr. of Red‐tailed monkey sightings per year in project area (2004 ‐ 2013) The populations of bird species that mainly occur in P. purpureum vegetation are likely to decline. However, as described in section B 1.1, these species are commonly found throughout Uganda (and beyond) in agricultural and rural areas outside the park and the negative impact on biodiversity can therefore be considered low, from a regional or national perspective. Furthermore, it is expected that the numbers of rare and endangered (forest dependent) bird species will increase over time with the establishment and regeneration of forest. For the newly planted areas, the removal of wildlings can on the long term negatively affect natural regeneration of the forest. About 50% of the seedlings for the project are from wildlings while the other part is raised from seeds in the nursery. For the mitigation of this potential problem, removals are carefully planned as to result in minimal disturbance. In this planning, experience from earlier years is implemented. When collecting the wildlings, only the smaller wildings are collected and not all of them are taken. The wildlings selected for the project are only shallow rooted. Road construction can have a negative impact on biodiversity since it disturbs the forest. Furthermore, it may facilitate poachers and cattle herders to access the project area. To minimize the impact already existing tracks will be used as much as possible, and fire lines will also be used as roads. The cooking site, used during operations in the forest, can have a negative impact on the biological environment by means of noise pollution and waste production. There are strict rules as to reduce the negative impacts of workers camps, mainly by observing waste management principles. These principles are described in the General Management plan KNP 2014 – 2024. For the nurseries water is needed which is extracted from the rivers like the river Dura streaming through the park. However, the total amount of water taken from the river is relatively low, and it is unlikely that the extraction of water for the project will have negative effects on water levels in the rivers. One of the nursery activities will involve the removal of topsoil (up to 6 cm depth) from part of the forest for use in raising tree seedlings for reforestation. Planting bags are approximately 13 by 10 by 10 cm (= 0.0013 m3). Per hectare, considering a planting distance of 5 x 5 meters, this means that 0.52 m3 of topsoil is removed. With regards to the foreseen planting of another 700 hectares, it is expected that approximately 364 m3 will be needed. Although the forest soil will not really leave the park, it is likely to impact negatively on the specific site from which it is removed. To mitigate the negative effects of these operations, soil is only extracted at a small scale with as less as possible disturbance of the surrounding vegetation so that vegetation can quickly cover the spot where soil PDDKibaleCCB|17
has been extracted in order to prevent soil erosion. Furthermore, the vegetation that is cut before removing the soil is returned to cover and protect the soil from erosion. In the nurseries no chemicals are applied that might affect the environment or biodiversity in the areas. For disposal of petroleum products the same waste management procedure as for the above mentioned domestic waste disposal applies. This is described in the General Management plan KNP 2014 – 2024. B2.2
Net biodiversity impacts As described in section B2.1, the available literature as well as the census and MIST data undersign the considerable positive impact of the project on biodiversity. A more quantitative assessment of the effects on key animal species, that is statistically sound, is expected to be possible in the future, when more census data becomes available. B2.3
Mitigation of Negative Impacts on Biodiversity The main identified potential negative impacts that the project aims to mitigate are:  Removal of wildlings, which could negatively affect natural recruitment: o Mitigating measure: The removal is planned in such a way that sufficient wildlings remain in the areas where they are collected.  Road construction: o Mitigating measure: Already existing tracks will be used as much as possible, and fire lines will also be used as roads.  Disturbance from worker camps: o Mitigating measure: Implementation of waste management plan, planning of activities (taking into account animal seasonal activity)  Water usage by nurseries and worker camps: o Mitigating measure: In order to make sure that the project has no significant negative impact on water resources in the area, water usage will be monitored.  Removal of topsoil to provide soil for the nurseries: o Mitigating measure: soil is only extracted at a small scale with as less as possible disturbance of the surrounding vegetation so that vegetation can quickly cover the spot where soil has been extracted in order to prevent soil erosion.  Waste production: o Mitigating measure: Waste is carefully managed following strict waste management procedures, as described in the General Management plan KNP 2014 – 2024. The management of the HCV forests will be managed in accordance with the current management strategy for identified High Conservation Values in the National Park, outside of the project area, as described in the General Management Plan KNP 2014 – 2024, section 2.1. The activities carried out to protect the HCV forests are the removal of alien plants, prevention of illegal activities such as poaching through a system of ranger patrols, prevention of timber cutting, minimize illegal grazing in forests, and the management of the sustainable utilization of NTFPs from the forests. Five management programmes have been defined to guide management activities for the national park and the HCV forests in specific. These programmes are extensively described in section 2.5 of PDDKibaleCCB|18
the general management plan 2014 – 2024 and also form to a great degree the basis for organisational structure of the management of KNP. They are grouped under: 1. Resources conservation: This section describes boundary management, control of illegal resource use, fire management, exotic species control, forest restoration and regional environmental management issues. 2. Ecological Monitoring and Research: The Ecological Monitoring and Research Program aims at undertaking activities that enhance the welfare of wild animals, their habitats and the ecosystem in general and to provide scientific information to assist management decisions. Priority ecological challenges for KNP are highlighted in the Monitoring and Research Plan 2014‐2018. Furthermore, this section describes the use of Kanyawara and the surrounding forest for research by the Makerere University Biological Field Station (MUBFS), management of the MIST monitoring system, monitoring of key species, habitats and forest activities in order to collate data which will be used to guide management interventions, restoration in the UWA‐Face areas and regeneration in logged plantation areas. 3. Climate change: This section describes the preliminary identified impacts of climate change on the (micro‐) climate and environment in and around the park. It lists specific management actions to assess the impact, create awareness and design adaptation strategies. 4. Community Conservation: The main issues in this programme include Revenue sharing, collaborative management and resource access, wildlife use rights program, problem animal management / human‐wildlife conflict, conservation education and awareness, and community based tourism among others. 5. Park operations and maintenance: including aspects such as auxiliary services, staff training, capital projects, improving infrastructure. B2.4
Project Impact on HCVs The project aims to establish native forests, of which already parts have been realised in varying stages of regeneration, and is expected to further increase the High Conservation Values considerably. As described in section B 2.1, with specific regards to elephant abundance, the project is expected to have no positive effect. However, there is currently also no evidence that suggests that they are necessarily negatively impacted by the project. Moreover, current observation data shows an increase in elephant abundance. Considering the overall project goals and the observed and expected positive impacts on the ecosystem and biodiversity of plants, birds and mammals (i.e. primates), it is unavoidable to accept a possible negative (or non‐positive) impact on elephant abundance. B2.5
Invasive Species The project only uses native species for reforestation: - Bridelia micrantha - Cordia africana - Cordia mellenii - Croton macrostarchys - Croton megalocarpus - Ficus natalensis - Mimusops bagshawei - Prunus africana - Spathodea campanulata - Warburgia ugandensis PDDKibaleCCB|19
There are exotic species present in the park: Eucalypt, Cassia spectabilis and Lantana camara . The project does not introduce the species, but aims to remove them from the project area by debarking of the exotic trees and by slashing and uprooting the L. camara. Furthermore, the establishment of forest, in the long term, will prevent L. camara to establish. Shading by intact canopies is an effective barrier against successful invasion by L. camara and is the most appropriate strategy for managing invasion (Duggin and Gentle, 1998) B2.6
Non‐native species Not applicable. The project does not make use of non‐native species. B2.7
Use of GMOs The project only plants native species that are raised in the nursery from seeds collected from natural trees and that are not genetically modified. B2.8
Use of Fertilizers, Chemicals and Biological Control Agents The project does not use fertilizers, chemicals, pesticides and biological control agents. B2.9
Waste Management The types of waste resulting from project activities are: - Domestic waste at the project site and cooking sites - Oil from vehicles - Plastic planting bags - Broken tools and equipment The following rules are observed for waste management: - Bins and waste pits at all sites are available and are marked either bio‐degradable or non‐
biodegradable. - Organic waste is placed in deep pits covered with planks so that the primates cannot access these areas. - Non‐organic waste is taken to demarcated areas. - The communities collect the tins and plastic bottles for re‐use so there is very little general waste. - The remaining part of non‐biodegradable waste goes to the incinerator at the park headquarters. B3.
OffsiteBiodiversityImpacts
B3.1
Negative Offsite Impacts on Biodiversity No negative offsite biodiversity impacts as a result of the project activity have been identified. B3.2
Mitigation of Negative Offsite Impacts on Biodiversity Not applicable, see B 3.1. PDDKibaleCCB|20
B3.3
Net Biodiversity Impact Not applicable, see B 3.1. B4.
BiodiversityImpactMonitoring
B4.1
Monitoring Plan for Biodiversity See the CCB Monitoring Plan for the UWA‐Face project. B4.2
Monitoring Plan for HCVs Maintenance and enhancement of the High Conservation Values present in the project area are an integral part of the management of Kibale National Park. The General Management Plan (GMP, 2014 ‐ 2024) of UWA describes which management activities are foreseen and which measures are taken. The project area is categorised as restoration zone, and is considered as wilderness zone after 10 years on completion of the planting activities. Within the restoration zone the following main activities take place:  Planting of trees  Removal of exotic species  Prevention of fire Within the wilderness zone the primary objective is to ensure minimal disturbance and maximum protection of the biodiversity and ecological processes. Protection of the biophysical values is of primary concern. Within the wilderness zone the following main activities take place:  Fire prevention  Research and monitoring activities  Patrols  Access to cultural sites under agreed terms and conditions (not applicable in our project area)  No harvesting is permitted (with the exception of temporary permits in specific situations) and visitor access is carefully managed. Section 2.5 of the GMP of Kibale details specific management activities to ensure the protection of High Conservation Values within KNP. Subsection 2.5.1 covers activities focussed on resource conservation. These activities are divided in the main themes: boundary management (e.g. maintenance, community stakeholder meetings), illegal activities (e.g. patrolling, evict encroachers, develop control gates), restoration of forest (e.g. implement MoU with interested communities to remove exotics, regular monitoring of planted trees, fire management) and Environmental Impact assessment of developments. Subsection 2.5.2 covers activities focussed on ecological monitoring and research. These activities include research on the management of exotic and invasive species (research monitoring and dissemination of findings), ensure that ecological research relevant to management is undertaken (e.g. identify priority areas in the Research Plan, review existing research, create more research opportunities for researchers, monitor and manage activities of researchers). Subsection 2.5.3 describes the detailed management actions with regards to Ecological monitoring. These are:  Carry out animal species monitoring‐census  Carry out vegetation mapping PDDKibaleCCB|21





Carry out hydrological monitoring of major water bodies in the park Analyse, interpret and disseminate meteorological information to staff and partners Monitor the impacts on the park ecosystem arising out of the use of pesticides in the neighbouring tea plantations Monitor the survival of the introduced parrots in the park Establish a mini‐general laboratory at Kanyawara The biodiversity indicators and measurements as defined in the CCB Monitoring Plan for the UWA‐
Face project, also partially cover the monitoring activities related to High Conservation Values in the project area. B4.3
Dissemination of Biodiversity Monitoring Plan A summary of the Monitoring Plan has been presented to the stakeholders. GL3.
ExceptionalBiodiversityBenefits
Being part of the Kibale National Park, the project is part of an area that holds exceptional biodiversity benefits. With regards to vulnerability, the project area contains chimpanzees (endangered), red colobus (endangered), elephants (vulnerable). The table below show the MIST observations between 2004 and 2013 of these species in the planting compartments. Table 5. Extract of MIST database : Nr. of observed chimpanzees, elephants and red colobus’ in the planting compartments. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Chimpanzee 4 0 0 0 4 7 12 33 0 9 Elephant 0 5 0 10 43 13 40 12 22 53 Red 0 0 6 0 47 23 58 41 77 211 Colobus Similarly, the wildlife census data that covers the planting compartments shows the following observed numbers of these mammals (Table 6) Table 6. Elephants, red colobus and chimpanzee observed in the project area, extracted from the census data of 2005 and 2010. Species elephant dung elephant red colobus chimpanzee nest chimpanzee 2005 2010 Nr of individuals Nr of Nr of individuals Nr of observations observed observations observed 82 83 137 137 ‐ ‐ 5 23 13 172 22 235 72 85 37 39 ‐ ‐ 9 46 Furthermore, rare and threatened plant and bird species that have been observed in KINP might be present in the project area, however, there is currently no observation data that supports this. PDDKibaleCCB|22
With regards to irreplaceability, the Kibale National Park is considered to hold the only viable red colobus population for Uganda. There is debate regarding this particular red colobus as to whether it is a subspecies of the Procolobus rufomitratus or an isolated species Procolobus tephrosceles (see e.g. Groves et al., 2005). On the IUCN Red List it is considered a subspecies that is endangered because the species has an extent of occurrence less than 5,000 km², the subpopulations are severely fragmented (with no movement between them), and there is a continuing decline in overall numbers due primarily to predation by Chimpanzees in some of these protected areas, and habitat loss/degradation outside of the protected areas. It can therefore be argued that the project area, being part of KNP holds (part of) a red colobus population that is of irreplaceable value Furthermore, within KNP endemic bird species have been observed that can be considered of irreplaceable value, such as the Kibale Prigogine’s ground thrush. There is currently no observation data that supports that these species occur within the project area. As described in earlier sections, the elephant population has been growing over the past 20‐30 years in KNP. Also in the project area elephant abundance seem to have increased, regardless of the possibility that forest restoration does not seem to benefit elephants. There are no specific actions identified to maintain or enhance elephant population in the project area, other than those discussed in the KNP general management (e.g. prevention of poaching). The apparent impact of predation by chimpanzees on the red colobus in KNP, as described by Lwanga et al. (2011), represents an unusual situation involving two species of conservation concern in which one is negatively impacting the other. As both species are expected to benefit from forest restoration, their population is expected to (relatively) increase. It is however difficult to determine how both populations will respond over time. However, the reduction in the population of the red colobus is only observed in Ngogo. In other parts of the park the concentration of the red colobus has increased. There are no management actions taken. PDDKibaleCCB|23
References
Duggin, J. A., & Gentle, C. B. 1998. Experimental evidence on the importance of disturbance intensity for invasion of Lantana camara L. in dry rainforest–open forest ecotones in north‐eastern NSW, Australia. Forest Ecology and Management, 109(1), 279‐292. Chapman, C.A., Chapman, L.J., 1996. Exotic tree plantations and the regeneration of natural forests in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Biological Conservation 76, 253–257. Chapman, C.A., Chapman, L.J., Kaufman, L., Zanne, A.E., 1999. Potential causes of arrested succession in Kibale National Park, Uganda: growth and mortality of seedlings. African Journal Of Ecology 37, 81–92. Groves, C. P. ,Wilson, D. E. Reeder, D. M, eds. 2005. Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 170. OCLC 62265494. Lwanga, J.S., Struhsaker, T.T., Struhsaker, P.J.,Butynski, T.,Mitani, J.C. 2011. Primate population dynamics over 32.9 years at Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda. Am J Primatol 73:1–15. Mackenzie, C.A. (2012). Accruing benefit or loss from a protected area: Location matters. Ecological Economics 76, 119‐129. Obua, J., Agea, J. G., & Ogwal, J. J. (2010). Status of forests in Uganda. African Journal of Ecology, 48(4), 853‐859. Omeja, P. A., Chapman, C. A., Obua, J., Lwanga, J. S., Jacob, A. L., Wanyama, F., & Mugenyi, R. (2011). Intensive tree planting facilitates tropical forest biodiversity and biomass accumulation in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Forest Ecology and Management, 261(3), 703‐709. Omeja, P. A., Jacob, A. L., Lawes, M. J., Lwanga, J. S., Rothman, J. M., Tumwesigye, C., & Chapman, C. A. (2014). Changes in Elephant Abundance Affect Forest Composition or Regeneration?. Biotropica, 46(6), 704‐711. Plumptre, A.J., Mugume, S., Cox, D., & Montgomery, C. 2001. Chimpanzee and large mammal survey of Budongo Forest Reserve and Kibale National Park. Report to WCS on surveys in Western Uganda. Southworth, J., Hartter, H., Binford, M. W., Goldman, A., Chapman, C. A., Chapman,, L. J., Omeja, P. and Binford, E. 2010. Parks, people and pixels: evaluating landscape effects of an East African national park on its surroundings. Tropical Conservation Science Vol. 3 (2):122‐142 Spinage C.A. 1994. Elephants. London:T & A D Poyser. Struhsaker, T. T., Lwanga, J. S., and Kasenene, J. M. (1996). Elephants, selective logging and forest regeneration in the Kibale Forest, Uganda.Journal of Tropical Ecology, 12, 45–64. Struhsaker, T.T., 2003. Evaluation of the UWA–FACE Natural High Forest Rehabilitation Project in Kibale National Park, Uganda. A report prepared for the Centre for Applied Biodiversity Science of Conservation International and for the FACE Foundation – Conservation International, Washington, DC. Tchamba, M. N., & Seme, P. M. 1993. Diet and feeding behaviour of the forest elephant in the Santchou Reserve, Cameroon. African Journal of Ecology, 31(2), 165‐171. Uganda Wildlife Authority (2015). Draft Kibale National Park General Management Plan. PDDKibaleCCB|24
WCS. 2015. Uganda’s Elephants Increasing in Number. WCS News Releases. http://press.wcs.org/NewsReleases/tabid/13614/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6761/Ugandas‐
Elephants‐Increasing‐in‐Number.aspx PDDKibaleCCB|25

Project Design Document - Verified Carbon Standard

Transcription

Similar documents

SUSTAINABLE PACIFIC GROVE APRIL MEETING

Some facts about Biggest Roulette Win In Vegas

Folie 1

Los combustibles fósiles liberan bióxido de carbono al quemarse e

Climate Change - Ev-K2-CNR

In Kind - Venture for Fund Raising

Pasadena Now » Enchanted Physics Forest Sprouting at Kidspace

Forest Management Helps Save Chadron State Park from Fire

What`s Happening at Oak Forest UMC

Retail Leasing Brochure Here