Human-wildlife conflict in Uganda

There is a major conflict in one of Uganda's most popular National Park, where local pastoralists have invaded the National park and are grazing their cattle inside the National Park.

Park Authorities are trying to evict the pastoralists, but without much success. Here is my opinion in response to one columnist of the New Vision Newspaper who suggested that a National Commission of inquiry be set up to resolve the dispute. My article was published on 8th June 07, in the New Vision (www.newvision.co.ug)

Here it goes...

SIR — I would like to acknowledge your columnist, Opiyo Oloya for his article “Basongora need a home and wildlife must be protected” published June 6. Oloya highlighted the issue of the Basongora- wildlife conflict.

But I take issue with his appeal to President Museveni to set up a national commission of inquiry. This suggestion will not lead to a sustainable solution to this conflict, because it is well established that top-down approaches to biodiversity conservation don’t normally succeed.

Human-wildlife conflicts is a well studied issue in conservation science. More often than not, such conflicts are a symptom of an underlying problem, such as poverty, disgruntled communities, population growth or lack of appropriate biodiversity policies.

Or it could be a combination of these lethal factors that will spiral up to such conflicts. I am not schooled enough on the nature of the problem in Queen Elizabeth National Park to comment authoritatively on the specific situation.

But I am sure that the blame does not lie solely on the Basongora community as the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) would like to make us believe. In my opinion, there is a fundamental flaw in the biodiversity conservation model in Uganda, which puts too much emphasis on securing protected areas as the key approach to biodiversity conservation.

Coupled with that is the marketing of biodiversity primarily as the source tourism revenue. These approaches have major implications on how people perceive biodiversity conservation. Firstly, it might send a signal, albeit wrongly, that land outside protected areas is not important for biodiversity conservation.

Secondly, if biodiversity is marketed in terms of its tourism potential it is obvious that conflicts will arise especially if the revenue does not flow down to the grassroots.

Any Commission of Inquiry that is going to be set up as a knee jerk reaction to this conflict will be counterproductive, as it is going to come up with prescriptive measures that no one is going to buy into. Engaging with local communities and a concerted effort to increase the level of awareness on biodiversity issues are the only viable solutions.