NAMA : ARIN FEBRIANA CRYSANTY

NIM : 1111095000030

Wildlife Management Strategies in The Lake Mburo Area
An Assessment of the impact of onthropogenic threats on 93 protected areas in 22
tropical countries including LMNP by Bruner et al. (2001) showed thay parks are more
effective at mitigating some impact than others. Parks are in a far better condition than their
surroundings with respect to land clearing, with the majority of parks being intact or only
slighty cleared. Habitat loss by land alteration and clearing is arguably the most serious threat
to biodiversity. Tropical parks have been surprisingly effective at protecting the ecosystems
and species within their borders despite chronic underfunding and significant land use
pressure. Even in the Lake Mboru area, the park is in better condition than the surrounding
farmland and ranchland. Althought LMNP is small, conservation works. Populations of topi,
eland, and warthog increased recently, especially inside the park.
However, if we acceept a minimum population size of 50 individuals to preserve
demographic viability and 500 to maintain genetic varition on genetic adabtability in
mammals (Frankel 1983), the populations of most species in LMNP (buffalo, bushbuck,
duiker, eland, oribi, topi, and waterbuck) are already threatened (see Table 12.1). The Large
mammal populations are found in the park and the ranches. It is clear that protecting the park
without regard for the surrounding landscape is insufficent to serve the well-being of the
wildlife species and their habitats in LMNP.

Conservation and Use
One approach UWA might consider is to conserve wildlife in the Lake Mburo area.
First, law enforcement work is the central feature of Ugandan conservation pratice and has
been moderately successful. But the present number of rangers involved in law enforcement
activities is too small to cover the area inside and outside LMNP. Only UWA has the means
and resources to conduct and effective antipoaching program inside the park. Tourism is the
main source of income for the parks, but the number of tourists traveling to Uganda in
general and LMNP specifically is low. In the last years LMNP has had less than 10.000
visitors per year. The income generated from the park entrance fees is hardly sufficient to pay
staff salaries and operating costs. Therefore, UWA probably will not be able to employ more
staff in the near future to ensure the protection of thewildlife outside the protected area.
Second, despite significant policy chages and practical actions, the UWA retains a
protectionist culture, and ideas about a more proavtive approach to the communities that
neighbour protected areas have only recently begun to fillter throught to the majority of
ragers and wardens. Moreover, the U.S. agency for International Development (USAID)-
funded communiity conservation program in the communities living adjacent to the park has
not helped to stop illegal hunting inside the program area. The community conservation
program has not altered significantly the cost-benefit equation for communities around the
park. Most projects supported have been to construct social infrastructure. Because of their
communal nature indivuduals may not necessarily perceive them as direct benefits (Infield
and Namara 2001). The ultimate achievement of community conservation at LMNP, from a
conservation perspective, are the ways in which it has chaged the ideas local communities
hold about conservation. The initial contribution of community conservation has been
positive in helping to reduce the antiwildlife values so strongly held by local people in the
late 1980s (Hulme and Infield 2001).
Third, communal wildlife management projects in other parts of Africa have shown
that the sustainablr use of wildlife can complement the income derived from agriculture.
These projects lead to an improvement of the household situation and therefore effer an
incentive for the protection of flora and fauna of the communal area (Nuding 1996). Wildlife
use that is not financiallyviable, such as the first attempts at wildlife use for meat in
Zimbabwe (Child 1998) and Kenya (Elliot and Mwangi 1997), ultimately will fail. Trophy
hunting can geerate much more income than wildlife cropping.
Trophy hunting is currently under attack antiuse activists. However, different
arguments favor trophy hunting over toursim or cropping. Experiences from Zimbabwe and
Tanzania show that trophy hunting can be a valuable source of income even while wildlife
populations are low and recovering. The off-takes are limited (see Table 12.1), and the
negative impact on local environments is minimal. With the focus on high-quality trophies,
economically sustaianable harvests are small and include a high proporation of males, which
are surplus in ungulate populations with polygynous breeding systems. The argument in favor
of shooting males should not be taken to extremes, hoeover. Certain male:female sex ratios
are desirable for healthy populations. Impacts of removal on social behavior are unknown.
Trophy hunting is a labor-intensive service industry that is beneficial to people in areas
unsuited to general tourism (Baldus 1991:Child 1995). Trophy hunting in Uganda could
easily become an attraction. Uganda was once one of the prime hunting areas in Africa
(Herne 1979).



Possible Institutional Setup of a Wildlife Use Scheme

The World Conservation Union in Gland, Switzerland (IUCN) maintans that
sustainable use requires an institutional structure of management and control, both incentives
and negative sanctions , good governance, and implementation at an appropriate scale. Such
structure should include participation of relevant stakeholders and take account of land
tenure, acces rights, regulatory system, traditional knowledge, and customary law.
Considering the size of the wildlife population, the values of the comunities, the
outcomo of the study tour to Kenya, and the results of the cropping exercise, I suggest the
following steps as an appropriate wildlife use project in the Lake Mboru area
Step 1 : Land owners living adjacent to the park together with a representative of the
UWA, the Mbarara District, and local leaders should from an organization. The organization
might be called the Lake Mboru Wildlife Forum (LMWF).
Step 2 : Land owners might then sign a contract with UWA to create a community
wildlife area and to receive the user rights of woldlife on their land. UWA will be responsible
for monitoring the wildlife populations and fixing a hunting quota. The land owners are
responsible for controlling illegal hunting.
Step 3 : LMWF would then auction the quota to a private operator. The private
operator could sell the wildlife products (the trophy, meat, hides ) to the consumer. The
consumer pays the operator, and the operator pays LMWF.
Step 4 : throughout the process, LMWF would receive advice from different
institutions, such as the WARM unit, Makerere University, the Uganda Meat Technology
Center, and UWA.
In 2001as a result of the study tour to Kenya, the land owners of Rurambira, east of
LMNP, with assistance of the Community Conservation Unit of LMNP , founded an
organization called the Rurambia Wildlife Utilization Association (RWUA). The senior
management of UWA, on the basis of the findings of this study, agreed to a pilot wildlife use
project in Nyabushozi. UWA signed a contract with RWUA and a private Ugandan operator
for a period of 1 year, from June 2011 to June 2002. The first clients for te sport hunting
arrived in Nyabushozi in September 2001.
Figure 12.2. Possible institutional setup of a wildlife use project in the Lake Mboru
area, Uganda.

UWA decided to allow active management by the communities of the area adjacent to
LMNP for 1 year. After a trial phase of 1 yaer UWA will decide whether to continue with
community-based wildlife conservation in the Lake Mboru area.

Conclusion
In an unpredictable world that is complex, diverse, and contingent with goals that are
constantly refined and redefined, the idea that idea that a single right policy can be identified
and then indenfinitely pursued is unrealistic. What is needed are broad-based enabling
policies that promote the creation and strengthening of networks of institutions and
organizations that have the flexibility to deal with contingency and complexity. The question
is not wheteher state action or community action is better: Both are essential. So too is
private sector support. The challenge is how to develop effective mixes of state, community,
and private action in specific contexts (Adams and Hulme 1998). Management should be an
iterative process that is adaptable and flexible to suit local conditions. Law enforcement,
community conservation in the from of environmental education, and community wildlife use
projects , with a combination of data-based management strategies, are all needed and can
help ensure the persistence of the wildlife resource (Ostrom 1990). I argue that park
authorities and manager should acknowledge that the park is not an island and cannot be
managed without reference to the surrounding landscape and the people who inhabit it. Parks
such as LMNP in Uganda are threatened because they have not served the needs of the local
communities. This must change.
Summary
Like many other protected areas in Africa, LMNP in Uganda is small(260 km
2
), its
wildlife community is incomplate, and the surrounding landscape is used heavily for farming
and hearding by a growing human population. Illegal hunting and herding within the park are
additional problems. For ecological as well as socioeconomic reasons , the parkss existence
and potential to sustain wildlife depend heavily on its surroundings. At present, LMNP is in
danger of becoming a paper park.
In this chapter I illustrate the intricate networks of ecological and socioeconomic
relationships between the park and its surroundings and point to problems that affect wildlife
conservation. I argue for integrating rural community development and wildlife conservation
around LMNP as a vital prerequisite for longer-term persistence of the Lake Mboru
ecosystem. To the extent that land owners living around LMNP are able to derive tangible
and legitimate benefits from the wildlife on their land, they would have an incentive to
protect wildlife on their land, they would have an incentive to protect wildlife from illegal
hunting. As residents on the land, land owners may be more efficient than goverment in
protecting the wildlife populations. Legalization, coupled with effective control of hunting,
may be the only viable option to stabilize the wildlife population in the Lake Mboru area.

LINKING THEORY AND APPLICATION
Case Studies
Natural environments are patchy, so species have evolved a number of adaptations
to cope with patchiness. However, human land use activities alter and intensify the natural
patchiness in space and time, and this often happens at extents and rates that exceed a species,
ability to adapt. Consequently, habitat fragmentation is a central issue in conservation
biology. As conservation aims to minimize the adverse effect of human-caused loss and
fragmentation of wildlife habitats on species, ecological concepts that allow predictions
about the dynamics and survival chances of populations in patchy environments offer
valuable guidance to practitioners.
In this situation, case studies that explicitly apply theory for finding concrete
management solutions are important in two ways. First, case studies test the usefulness of an
ecological concept for conservation tasks. They bring a theory from the ivory towers of basic
research into the real world, and the out come is often that a number of unrealistic
assumptions on which the theory originally was based are unveiled. Thus case studies may
lead to necessary adjustment of a concept before it is adopted by practitioners. Second, case
studies test the relevance of theoretical frameworks to practice and provide concrete example
of how theory can be applied in wildlife management and conservation practice. When
successful, case studies can stimulate others to adopt landscape ecological thinking in their
own research ang management efforts. This is the intention of Chapters 13-17In Chapter 13,
ilse storch argues that in conservation practice, despite the advances in landscape ecological
thinking among scientists, habitat is commonly still described exclusively through the
vegetation types a species inhabits, and the spatial dimensions of the habitat are neglected.
She uses the capercaillie (Tetrao uragalleus) in central Europa as an example to show that
species-habitat relationship are characterized by multiple spatial scales and concludes that a
multiscale habitat concept is needed that is widely adopted by land managers and
conservationists. In chapter 14, David Maehr, John Cox, and Jeffery larkin further illustrate
the significance of a landscape perspective to conservation programs usin wide-ranging large
mammals in the United States. Despite constrasting life history strategies, the elk (Cervus
elaphus) in eastren Kentucky, the Florida panther (Pumaa concolor coryi), and the black bear
(Ursus americanus floridanus) in florida are all examples of species whose current status is a
product of autecology and varyingg degrees of landscape denaturement. The authors suggest
that extenvation flagships for combining landscape restoration with species recovery. They
conclude that strategic promotion of flagship species and the adoption of an ecosystem
philosophy bt natural resource agencies will benefit conservation programs.
In Chapter 13, Ilse Storch argues that in conservation practice, despite the advances in
landscape ecological thinking among scientists, habitat is commonly still described
exclusively through the vegetation types a species inhabits, and the spatial dimensions of the
habitat are neglected. She uses the capercaillie (Tetrao uragalleus) in central Europa as an
example to show that species-habitat relationship are characterized by multiple spatial scales
and concludes that a multiscale habitat concept is needed that is widely adopted by land
managers and conservationists. In chapter 14, David Maehr, John Cox, and Jeffery larkin
further illustrate the significance of a landscape perspective to conservation programs usin
wide-ranging large mammals in the United States. Despite contrasting life history strategies,
the elk (Cervus elaphus) in eastren Kentucky, the Florida panther (Pumaa concolor coryi),
and the black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) in florida are all examples of species whose
current status is a product of autecology and varying degrees of landscape denaturement.
In chapter 15, Christof Schenck, Jessica Groenendijk, Frank Hajek, Elke Staib and
Karin Frank also apply the flagship species concept. The giant otter (Pteronura brasiliensis)
was once common in the rivers, lakes, and sawmps throught the South American lowland
rainforests. The population has been significantly reduced by poaching and is now under
threat from deforestation, river pollution, overfishing, and tourism. Because the giant otter is
a major ecotourist attraction in the Manu National Park of Peru, it has become a symbol for
the park and is an important flagship for the conservation of the ecosystem at very large
spatial extents. Schenck et al. Used their field studies on otters in Peru to develop an
individual-based simulation model. The model shows that small-scale ents that reduce the
numbers of dispersing otters may result in a large-scale decline of the entire population. The
result indicate tha the giant otter population of Manu National Park, one of the largest
protected areas worldwide, is not large enough to be considered viable in the long term.
Connectivity with other populations seems to be a prerequisite for long term viability.
Another example for the need for landscape-scale approaches to species conservation is
provided in Chapter 16. David Sample, Christine Ribic, and Rosalind Renfrew argue that
protected lands, such as public wildlife areas enhanced through prairie restoration, are not
sufficient for grassland bird preservation in the midwestern United States. For succesful
management of these species, landscape management must be linked with conservation goals
at the landscape scale (i.e.,throughout the human-dominated agricultural system). To deduce
management guidelines for grassland birds at the landscape scale, the authors assess the
effect of within-patch and landscape-level characteristics grassland bird abundance and
productivity based on their studies on secondary grasslands in southwestern Wisconsin over a
period of 15 yearsThis volume ends with a plea not to forget individual variation and
adaptation within populations despite the need for large-scale approaches to ecology and
conversation. In chapter 17, Frederick Provenza, Juan Villalba, and John Bryant argue that
ecosystem function and stability are integral components of biological diversity, although
little is known about how biochemical links between herbivores and plants and link upward
to landscape. They argue that associational effects involving plant chemistery and herbivore
learning may influence species coexistence and plant species diversity and either enhance or
counteract the evolution of plant defenses. Grazing management can encourage the use of all
plants by hebivore, thereby maintaining plants diversity.