|dc.description.abstract||This Community Based Monitoring (CBM) activity report presents the actual implementation of Uganda’s 2012 revenue sharing guidelines in the three parishes bordering Bwindi Impenetrable National Park. It also identifies key gaps and strengths in revenue sharing policy implementation based on experience from the southern sector of Bwindi. This CBM activity involved training and capacity building of monitors from local villages, as well as monitoring revenue sharing policy implementation, which entailed: awareness and meetings; identification of projects, selection of beneficiaries and monitoring and follow-up of revenue sharing projects. Three parishes of Kisoro district bordering Bwindi were selected for the monitoring and 184 revenue sharing beneficiaries for 2012, 2013 and 2014 disbursements were interviewed. Informal community discussions were conducted with local leaders at LC1 level. Results reveal that only a few stages of revenue sharing policy implementation have been followed; the majority of the beneficiaries and implementers do not understand the 2012 revenue sharing guidelines; and this creates disparities and variance in the implementation of the policy.
Key findings from the 184 beneficiaries that were interviewed for this study were:
Who benefits from Revenue Sharing?
• Most RS beneficiaries were closer to village centres and vehicle roads, whereas those living near the Park (and most likely to suffer from crop raiding) were less likely to be RS beneficiaries
• There was an almost equal gender balance of 51% female and 49% male RS beneficiaries
• Most RS beneficiaries are permanent residents of their localities, living within their community for more than 10 years
• Most people benefitting from RS had no positions in society
Do people understand the 2012 RS Guidelines?
• Most RS beneficiaries did not know or understand RS guidelines, although there were marked differences in awareness of revenue sharing guidelines across parishes and villages.
Are people consulted before benefitting from RS?
• While most RS beneficiaries were consulted on funded projects before they benefitted, people in remote areas were least likely to be consulted
In accordance with UWA’s guidelines, are RS funds allocated to reduce human-wildlife conflict?
• Exteremly limited amounts of the RS money is alloacted to human wildlife conflict mechanisms
Are RS projects monitored?
• Monitoring had mostly be undertaken by UWA officials followed by LC1 officials; there was no monitoring reported from the district and the sub county
Are feedback reports produced?
• Most respondents reported that there are almost none feedback reports presented to RS beneficiaries which evaluate the success and failure of RS projects; UWA was responsible for the few feedback reports that had been generated
How to RS beneficiaries define equitable RS?
Beneficiaries of RS were asked to define equitable distribution of revenue sharing projects in terms of both implementation and benefits. Most respondents reported that, ‘equitable distribution of RS’ means targeting RS benefits to those that are mostly affected by conservation costs, i.e. residents who are the most affected by crop raiding Park animals regardless of whether they live in frontline or non-frontline villages. This is important to note because the 2012 RS guidelines focus on frontline parishes only.
The recommendations are to increase training and capacity building at the local level, enable local interpretation of the revenue sharing guidelines and improve some sections of the guidelines.
The report is presented in three parts as follows:
1. Section 1 introduces the context including goal and objectives of CBM, methodology and summary of the activities conducted.
2. Section 2 presents the results and a brief discussion of the findings
3. Section 3 looks at the conclusions and recommendations for further policy actions and redress
The activity was conducted by ITFC staff with support from URP staff. The team included; Medard Twinamatsiko, Robert Mujuni, John and Beatrice Kabihogo. The team made time to time consultations with Kisoro NGO forum. We were guided by the Terms of Reference and funding provided by IIED in June, 2014.||en_US