Human-Gorilla Conflict Resolution (HuGo) - the Uganda Experience

This study was conducted in the Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, located in southwestern Uganda between latitude 0° 53' to 1° 8' south and longitude 29° 35' to 29° 50' east (UWA 2001). It covers an area of 321 km2 on the
edge of the Western Rift Valley occupying the highest blocks of the Kigezi Highlands. The park lies along the border of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and is about 29 km by road to Kabale town and 30 km north of Kisoro town. Adjacent to the park are 21 parishes.
Historically, local communities have used Bwindi forest as a source of timber, minerals, non-timber forest resources, game meat and agricultural land. These activities led to continued significant losses of forest cover up to the late 1980s. Since 1991, the forest's tourism potential (mainly gorilla tourism) has been demonstrated as an -important additional direct economic value.
According to Weber & Vedder (1983, cited in Macfie 2000), the reduction in lower altitude forests reduced the gorillas' home ranges significantly. Further, Butynski (1984; cited by Macfie 2000) indicated that the presence of some mosaic forest patches left outside the park boundaries, coupled with the growing of new crops palatable to gorillas, like bananas, favoured the retention of the areas within gorillas' home ranges.
The result was that there was spatial overlap of human activities and gorilla home ranges outside the park boundaries, and the gorillas destroyed peoples' crops, stopping people from working in their gardens and at times inflicting injury to the people: thus the human-gorilla conflict.
It was only after the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) started earning money from gorilla tourism that the communities started demanding compensation for the losses incurred due to gorilla crop raiding (Macfie 2000). Attempts were made to minimise the conflict by giving a token of appreciation to the farmers who did not harm the gorillas during crop raiding, but these failed because of gross abuse of the procedures; besides, it was found to be unsustainable and also contravened the UWA policy of compensation.
Why HuGo? It was envisaged that the collapse of the compensation scheme was likely to have some negative impacts on the conservation of the critically endangered mountain gorillas, among them notably the following: there would be long-term negative community attitudes towards conservation of mountain gorillas, and also perhaps increased possibilities of transmission of communicable diseases from humans.
In February 1998, a workshop of key stakeholders to discuss the problems came up with several solutions, including:

• a) education,
• b) chasing,
• c) problem animal levy (levy on gorilla permits),
• d) hiring gorilla monitor response teams,
• e) development of a policy by UWA on problem gorillas,
• f) land purchase on the forest edges.

Solutions a, b, d and f have since been piloted in Uganda. The HuGo aims to increase the level of community support for gorilla conservation by monitoring gorilla group movements, and responding whenever gorillas move out of the park boundaries.
When HuGo? The implementation of the February 1998 workshop recommendations in Uganda began in September 1998 (Macfie 2000). Gorilla Monitoring and Response Teams (GMRTs), which follow gorillas whenever they range outside park boundaries and gently chase them out of fields and out of harm's way, were formed in Mukono and Nteko parishes with the primary aim of chasing gorillas whenever they would roam out of the Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (BINP).
The chasing was not very successful in Nteko because the Nkuringo gorilla group was under habituation and there were many wild groups. A decision was consequently reached to buy the park edge land in Nteko, the Nkuringo buffer zone. Education has been an ongoing activity since September 1998.

What Has Been Achieved?
Capacity building of GMRTs. There are 42 GMRTs in 9 villages surrounding BINP. They received training, and equipment and food rations.
The GMRTs had initial training in chasing methods, which included ringing bells, whistling, shouting and herding. They also had training in fire management and business development. Additional training was to be provided in GPS use, intelligence gathering and communication skills.
The International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP) and UWA supplied equipment to the GMRTs, ranging from gumboots, rain gear and pangas to GPS. In the calendar year ending 2005, UWA supplied them with 4 GPS while IGCP supplied them with 42 pairs of gumboots, 50 sets of rain gear and 30 pangas.
In addition to equipment, UWA provides food rations (beans and maize flour) to the GMRTs whenever they are on duty.
The GMRTs from the 9 villages hold biannual meetings, facilitated by IGCP and UWA. During these meetings, they share experiences on their work and the challenges, and chart a common way forward for the next 6 months. Training has also been conducted during such meetings.
Monitoring system and evaluation of chasing methods. A HuGo monitoring system was put in place. Every time the GMRTs go out, they fill out a monitoring sheet. The major data on this form include the GPS point, the type of crop eaten and to what extent, any injuries encountered during the chasing, the chasing methods used and the GMRT team composition. Using that data, trends (number of times out, crops destroyed and areas frequently visited) are analysed.
Using the same data, an evaluation was done of the methods frequently used and their success. Results indicate that the following methods are the most commonly used and are most effective when used in combination: shouting, making a cut line to stop further forward movement, and whistling.
One of the fears of chasing gorillas was that they might get habituated to chasing methods (Macfie 2000). The results of the evaluation are therefore used to assess which methods are frequently being used and which the gorillas resist, so that new chasing innovations can be put in place.
The efficiency of the monitoring system was still limited by inefficient data sheet filling. The GMRT required training in the proper handling and filling of datasheets.
Health and sanitation. The GMRT volunteers, by the nature of their work, are always in constant touch with the gorillas. If levels of hygiene and sanitation in their homes are indaequate, the disease transmission risk to the gorillas increases. For this reason, a health and sanitation survey was carried out in the homes of all the 42 GMRTs in November 2005.
The results indicate poor performance in sanitation and personal hygiene. Most (71%) took a bath less than 3 times a week and over 90% had no refusal disposal means, while 69% had pit latrines that were less than 5 m away from their homes.
Access to clean and safe water was another limiting factor in personal hygiene; only 2.4% of the households had access to safe and clean water at a distance of less than 0.5 km, possibly explaining why most household members went many days without a bath.
Assuming an average of 7 persons per household, 204 persons out of 297 (81%) over all households suffered at least once from communicable diseases. This constitutes a high risk of such diseases spreading to gorillas high.
Success in chasing gorillas back into the park, therefore, was highly compromised by this poor state of hygiene and sanitation. We therefore launched a competition to motivate the GMRTs to improve their hygiene and sanitation. There will be biannual competitions for prizes rewarding the most improved and best performance positions.
We shall use the results to appeal to local government intervention, as it is their mandate to ensure good health and sanitation within the communities. We hope this will be possible as we involved the local health assistants in the survey and have shared the results with them. The health assistants will also be the key persons in the health and sanitation completions.
In addition, we would wish to have these GMRTs be a model for the link between public health and conservation for the improvement of public health initiatives within communities surrounding the gorilla parks and beyond.
Enterprise. Gorilla Monitoring and Response Teams are community volunteers; they have been doing this work since they were selected by their communities in September 1998. To keep their morale up, AWF/IGCP gave each member a grant of 400,000 Uganda shillings for a business venture, so a total of 16,800,000 USh (approx. 9,333 US$) was disbursed to the 42 members. Projects included rearing of sheep, goats and pigs, and some have bought cattle.
During the household surveys conducted in November 2005, the grant assessment was also carried out. Results indicated that 29.1% of the grant was invested in domestic problems like sickness and bride price. We learned from this that the GMRTs required more training in business development.
The GMRTs agreed in their December 2004 meeting to form a community-based organisation (CBO) which would unite them and also work as a vehicle for development. Through this CBO, they have been able to pull together resources (mainly financial) on a monthly basis. The collection from the group is given to one or two individuals on a rotational basis. Some have used the money to buy more sheep and goats, thus improving their business ventures and livelihoods, and consequently their morale for voluntary gorilla chasing improved.
Nkuringo buffer zone. This is a 12 km by 350 m stretch (4.2 km²). It consists of a 2.4 km² stretch that will remain intact, while the remaining
1.8 km² on the outer part would be used by the communities to grow crops which are not palatable to the gorillas and other problem animals. A number of such crops have been piloted. These include:

• Artemisia annua. This is an annual crop that provides an active ingredient for the manufacture of antimalarial drugs.
• Wheat. A variety that is not eaten by birds was to be grown in rotation with Artemisia annua.
• Pasture. Under this programme, 8 in-calf heifers are to be given to households in the frontline communities on a revolving basis. The first beneficiaries would give the first calf to the second beneficiaries and so on.

The effectiveness of these crops in keeping away problem gorillas and other problem animals from the communities is yet to be assessed.
If these crops are found effective, they would contribute greatly to the reduction of the human-gorilla conflict as well as the improvement of the peoples' livelihood. We hope that such a combination will do a great deal to increase community support for conservation.
Other activities tried out in the buffer zone are the growing of Mauritius thorn hedge that would form a barrier to the problem gorillas and other animals, and the removal from the buffer of exotic plants that are palatable to
the gorillas.

Lessons Learnt

• The GMRT are a widely recognised institution in the communities acting as a bridge for conflict resolution over gorilla raiding.
• Conflict resolution solutions developed by all stakeholders in a participatory manner are sustainable.
• The association of the GMRTs has increased their organisational capacity and sense of belonging/ownership.
• The volunteer spirit of the GMRTs can only be kept moving through motivation schemes that improve household livelihoods.
• Community-based solutions need a lot of patience and tolerance.
• The skills of the GMRT in monitoring need to be improved if the success story of HuGo is to be adequately recorded.

Challenges
GMRTs

• Incentive to keep the GMRTs motivated over a long period of time in a poverty stricken environment was not sustainable.
• Balancing livelihoods and chasing when the gorillas stay out for long periods left the CMRT's spirit of volunteerism wanting.
• Ensuring high health standards (hygiene and sanitation) in their homes should reduce the risk for cross infection of contagious diseases with the gorillas.
• Active training in gorilla regulations and GPS use is necessary.
• Ensuring entrepreneurship skills may require a lot of work.

Buffer zone

• The presence of forest patches with abandoned banana plantations outside the buffer zone still attracts gorillas, and they are hard to chase from such areas.
• The socio-economic implications of purchasing land from the communities are not known - sustainability?
• Active involvement of the communities in buffer zone management is an uphill task.

Conclusion/Recommendations
The HuGo pilot interventions employed in Uganda are a great successful, but the following areas should be improved:

• Monitoring of data collection and analysis.
• Sustainable motivation scheme for the GMRTs are put in place.
• The health and sanitation of the -GMRTs homesteads was improved to the level where they would act as role models in their communities.
• The socio-economic impacts of the land purchase for the buffer zone was done and evaluated.

James Byamukama and Stephen Asuma

References
Butynski, T. M. (1984) Ecological Survey of the Impenetrable (Bwindi) Forest, Uganda, and Recommendations for its Conservation and Management, Wildlife Conservation International, New York Zoological Society
Macfie, L. (2000) Human-gorilla conflict resolution Recommendations for Component within IGCP Uganda Programming (unpublished)
UWA (2001) Bwindi/Mgahinga Conservation Area General Management Plan. Kampala
Weber, A. W. & Vedder, A. (1983) Population Dynamics of the Virunga Gorillas: 1959-1978. Biological Conservation 26: 341-366

James Byamukama has worked for IGCP as a Field Officer since April 2004. Since 1991 he has worked with the Uganda Forest Department in various capacities and with the UNDP/GEF East African Cross-Border Biodiversity Project.
Stephen Asuma is Field Officer for IGCP in Uganda.

Bwindi overview

Homepage