“A funny place to store carbon” Chapter 4

30 Dec

THE UWA-FACE PROJECT

By Chris Lang and Timothy Byakola, published by WRM, December 2006

Back to contents

Plans to plant trees at Mount Elgon existed before the FACE Foundation arrived in Uganda. In the early 1990s, IUCN was working with Forest Department on the Mount Elgon Conservation and Development Project, which started in 1988. Under this project, the Forest Department planned to plant trees for timber around the boundary of Mount Elgon.[174]

The FACE Foundation’s involvement in tree planting in Uganda came through a personal connection. At the time a Dutch man called Jan Bettlem was a Technical Advisor working with IUCN. Bettlem knew people at the FACE Foundation and he arranged the introductions between the FACE Foundation and the management of Mount Elgon. The first discussions between the FACE Foundation and the management of Mount Elgon took place in 1992.[175] Two years later, “Uganda National Parks (the predecessor of UWA) concluded an agreement with the FACE Foundation to reforest the foot hills of Mount Elgon”, an UWA-FACE brochure explains.[176]

Under the contract, which runs for 99 years, The FACE Foundation owns the CO2 credits, while the trees “and all other proceeds” belong to UWA.[177] UWA is responsible for managing the trees.[178]

In Uganda, UWA and the FACE Foundation aim to plant a total of 35,000 hectares of land at Mount Elgon and Kibale National Parks (25,000 hectares at Mount Elgon and 10,000 hectares at Kibale).

Is the FACE project additional?

The FACE Foundation effectively took over from an ongoing tree-planting project under the Mount Elgon Conservation and Development Project, which “aimed to restore the degraded forest, and reduce the dependence of the local communities on its resources”, according to Gershom Onyango of the Uganda Forest Department in a paper written for the World Bank.[179]

According to a brochure produced by the UWA-FACE project, titled “Let the earth remain green,” the aims of the project are:

    “Preventing the degradation of National Parks of Uganda
    Restoring these previous ecosystems by planting indigenous trees
    Combating global warming.”[180]

In order for the FACE Foundation to claim that its tree planting is having an effect on climate change, FACE has to be able to argue that if its project did not exist less carbon would be stored on Mount Elgon. This gets us into an interesting area of trying to answer the question “What would have happened if?” As anyone who has ever watched a game of football knows, this question is impossible to answer. What would have happened if Zinedine Zidane hadn’t headbutted Italy’s Marco Materazzi in the chest and been sent off in the 100th minute of the 2006 World Cup final? Would France have won? Might Zidane have scored the winning goal during the penalty shoot-out? While such questions are fascinating to discuss, it is impossible to know the answer.[181]

This problem is faced by all carbon sink projects. In order to prove that their project is genuinely absorbing and storing carbon, project developers have to compare the situation with their project to one single baseline case of the situation without the project.

The organisation responsible for verifying the carbon stored in the UWA-FACE project is SGS Climate Change Programme, part of the SGS Group (another part of the SGS Group is responsible for the FSC certification). I asked Irma Lubrecht of SGS’s Climate Change Programme how SGS attempted to address the question of whether the tree planting at Mount Elgon is additional, or would not have happened without the project. Lubrecht, it seems, knows exactly what would have happened without the project. “The baseline scenario is the on-going agricultural encroachment into the National Park,” Lubrecht replied.[182]

Lubrecht appears ignorant of the fact that tree-planting was already happening under the Mount Elgon Conservation and Development Project before the FACE Foundation’s project started. “It is evident from experience,” wrote Lubrecht,

    “that under the baseline, without intervention from the UWA-FACE project, the MENP [Mount Elgon National Park] will continue to be encroached by neighbouring communities. Even stronger, the UWA-FACE activities consists for an important part in continuous protection of the park to avoid such infringements into the park. Without the continuous consultation, collaboration and sensitisation of the local communities the encroachment would continue.”[183]

Lubrecht is effectively dismissing the hundreds (or thousands) of possible without-the-project scenarios. She is also ignoring the fact that villagers continue to farm within the Mount Elgon National Park with the UWA-FACE project. An alternative baseline might be, for example, without the UWA-FACE project and the necessity to store carbon in trees planted around the park’s boundary for the next 99 years, there may be more political space to allow a more participatory definition of the boundary of the park. This might help facilitate recognition of villagers land rights and result in a fairer allocation of land around the park. It might even bring about an end to farming within the park and an acknowledgement by UWA that villagers’ livelihoods include management of areas of the national park. It might also result in more forest regeneration.

I asked Lubrecht how many people had been evicted from Mount Elgon National Park, how many more would be evicted in order that UWA-FACE could continue its tree planting and how SGS monitors the changes in carbon emissions caused by evicting people from the national park. “This is confidential information,” she replied. “I will have to check with the project developer whether I can provide you with these data.”[184] She declined to answer further requests for this information.[185]

I asked Lubrecht some questions about the details of how SGS determines how much carbon is stored by the UWA-FACE project. I asked whether SGS takes into account the carbon emitted as a result of soil disturbance to plant the trees. Lubrecht replied by quoting from SGS’s 2006 Surveillance Report:

    “Based on results from the National Biomass Study of lands surrounding Mount Elgon National Park, agricultural lands typically contain between 2 and 10 tonnes of above ground biomass. The encroached lands within the park are estimated to have an average carbon storage capacity of 2.8 tonnes carbon per hectare.”[186]

Which, I’m afraid, doesn’t answer the question at all. Lubrecht only mentions the carbon stored above the ground.

I asked Lubrecht whether trees would regenerate at Mount Elgon without any tree planting. “It is clear now from observing developments in areas that are yet to be planted,” she wrote,

    “that without this planting the invasive ferns and vines would prohibit the natural forest vegetation from growing back, either suppressing the natural regeneration or causing a fire hazard that periodically destroys any native vegetation that has been recurring. Hence, the project is instrumental in the regrowth of the forest, even if the Mount Elgon National Park is successful in avoiding further encroachment.”[187]

But Alex Muhweezi, IUCN’s Uganda Country Director, told us in July 2006 that areas of forest which have regenerated naturally are in some cases better than FACE areas where the land has been disturbed for tree planting.[188]

The FACE Foundation estimates that the average carbon sequestration rate will be 20 tonnes CO2/hectare/year for the first 20 years. According to a brochure produced by the FACE Foundation, the project was registered as an “Activity Implemented Jointly” and is “potentially CDM compliant”.[189] When I asked SGS’s Irma Lubrecht why the project is not listed on the UNFCCC website, she replied that, “The project does not intend to become a CDM project yet. I am sure that you are aware of the tedious process of just getting a methodology approved.”[190]

UWA’s version of events at Mount Elgon

In July 2006, Jutta Kill and I visited UWA’s new, World Bank-financed headquarters in Kampala. We wanted to let UWA know that we would be visiting Mount Elgon National Park and wanted to obtain any necessary approvals. The receptionist sent us to UWA’s director but he was in a meeting. The second choice was UWA’s Marketing Manager, John Friday. When we met him, Friday was dressed in full combat gear, although the most threatening thing he was likely to see during his day in the office was a paper clip.

Friday was friendly and helpful. He told us he would e-mail and telephone the UWA staff at Mount Elgon National Park to inform them of our visit. Unfortunately, when we got to UWA’s office in Mbale a couple of days later, both the chief warden and the FACE Foundation project manager were unavailable.

Friday told us that the FACE Foundation project had been successful. There were large landslides in the area up to 10 years ago. Since the FACE Foundation project started, he said, there have been no more landslides. Unfortunately, a month after we met Friday, in mid-August 2006, a mother and two of her daughters were killed when soil and stones rolled down Tasso Hill within Mount Elgon National Park and destroyed their home. Four more homes and about six acres of maize were also destroyed. LC1 chairman, Joseph Arenyo, told New Vision that the community was in dispute with UWA over the ownership of the land. “This was our land. Government only grabbed it from us,” Arenyo said.[191]

Friday acknowledged that people farmed in the National Park. These “encroachers” were a result of the times of political instability, during the Idi Amin regime. He didn’t mention the fact that the Benet and other local people lived there long before Mount Elgon was declared a national park.

He told us that the people keep coming back into the park. They think they have a right to be there, he said. “UWA has to remove them. Sometimes we have to use force. We can manage the park as long as the political climate allows.”[192]

When Timothy Byakola interviewed local people living around the park in December 2004 he found that many people acknowledged that the tree-planting activities of the UWA-FACE project have improved the regeneration of vegetation along the boundaries of the park. This was particularly true in areas that had been used for agriculture. But villagers told Byakola of a whole new set of environmental problems in the villages where people evicted from the park are now living. Most of these problems are related to the dependence of local communities on the forest.

In Buwabwala, villagers said that many young girls are crossing over to neighbouring Kenya to look for work so that they could buy land for their parents. Many have contracted HIV/AIDS, presumably because the only work they can find is in prostitution.[193]

The UWA-FACE project and the boundary of the national park

The boundary area of the park – precisely the area that the UWA-FACE project aims to plant with trees – is a major focus of conflict with communities around the park.

Anthropologist David Himmelfarb notes that

    “mapping and remapping park boundaries have been key points in the conflicts between communities and park managers in the Benet Resettlement Area. In the struggle for control over the contentious region of the resettlement area, boundary demarcation seems to have been part of the UWA strategy to assert dominance over community actors. My preliminary research suggests that the tenure insecurity produced by shifting those boundaries has brought about increased soil and water degradation, economic and social inequality between communities and further utilization of in-park resources.”[194]

Both UWA and the FACE Foundation play down any conflict over the park boundary. An UWA-FACE project brochure states that “Between 1988 and 1992 the boundary of the forest reserve was resurveyed and planted with eucalyptus trees. Agricultural encroachments were for the greater part terminated, while a sustainable development programme was initiated to improve the local livelihoods.”[195]

According to the FACE Foundation website,

    “The border between the agricultural area and the forest reserve is at an altitude of roughly 1900 metres, but had become indistinct because of the activities of the neighbouring people. It was therefore resurveyed over a 120-kilometre stretch during the 1990-1994 period and defined by planting a 10-metre-wide strip of recognisable fast-growing eucalyptus trees. It is now clear for everyone where the National Park begins.”[196]

This is simply not true. When we spoke with villagers living around Mount Elgon, we found that to villagers it was far from clear where the boundary was. In one village, local people talked about three parallel boundaries to the National Park. Villagers did not know which one was the actual boundary of the park. Villagers told us how surveyors had tried to extract bribes for not extending the park boundaries into their fields and gardens.

The FACE Foundation and UWA both claim that their work with local communities has resolved (or at least are in the process of resolving) the problems at Mount Elgon. For example, Stonewall Kato, a Senior Warden with UWA, wrote in a presentation earlier this year that “All in all CBIs [Community Based Institutions] is having positive role on management and conservation of natural resources on Mt. Elgon by supporting the civil society in many ways, and achieving sustainable conservation appears to be near.”[197]

But academics Linda Norgrove and David Hulme list a series of strategies that local people use to resist UWA’s conservation agenda: feigning ignorance, not turning up for meetings, letting roads become overgrown (so that UWA rangers cannot access some boundary areas), bribing park staff, moving boundaries under cover of darkness, open threats of violence, actual violence and taking MENP to court.[198]

For example, they write, the boundary in Bamasobo has been under dispute since the early 1990s, when the Forest Department, working with MECDP attempted to redraw the park boundary. In the mid to late 1990s UWA tried on several occasions to redraw the boundary, but “these were marred by widespread bribery”, write Norgrove and Hulme. Villagers moved UWA’s boundary markers, including eucalyptus trees.[199]

In 2000, UWA bought a Global Positioning System (GPS) and after negotiations with local leaders decided that a “neutral” party should redraw the boundary. The surveyors marked a boundary somewhere between the boundary that UWA wanted and the boundary that the community wanted. The park’s senior management was unhappy with this compromise and sacked the surveyors.

In 2001, during meetings with park staff, Bamasobo villagers agreed to a boundary redrawing exercise. But when it came to accompanying the surveyors to redraw the boundary, villagers’ representatives “rejected the idea of tracing the 1993 boundary saying it is the very boundary which they had disputed about and that it had been put in place using armed rangers and that they had never accepted it” according to a letter from the surveyors to the Chief Park Warden.[200]

In February 2001, a visit from UWA’s top management led to an agreement allowing villagers to continue cultivation within the park. Later in 2001, UWA’s armed rangers resurveyed the boundary using GPS. Villagers were allowed a final harvest of crops after which the land was planted with native tree species.[201] Norgrove and Hulme do not mention whether this planting was part of the UWA-FACE project or not. Whether it was part of the project or not, the conflict in Bamasobo provides an example of how controversial the drawing of the park boundary is – and therefore how controversial UWA-FACE’s tree planting scheme on the boundary is to local communities.

Norgrove and Hulme conclude that “park management is an active battle site between park management authorities, who resist the preferred land use strategies of park neighbours, and park neighbours, who struggle against the preservationist thrust of the conservation agenda.”[202]

“Throughout my interviews,” David Himmelfarb of the University of Georgia writes,

    “villagers spoke with great animosity towards the park and its employees. There was great confusion about why their access to the mountain’s natural resources was restricted. Park officials told me they had made numerous attempts at ‘sensitizing’ villagers as to the purposes of the park as well as their rights and restrictions, however, few villagers I interviewed claimed to have heard of these sensitization meetings. The mosop [Benet] interviewed were deeply distressed that park managers could keep them from using certain resources that they have had historically depended on and felt they had inherent rights to use; these included, timber for building materials, honey, firewood, medicinal herbs, bamboo, and fodder. Only a small minority of my research participants felt they derived any benefit from the park’s existence, and even then had difficulty enumerating such benefits. As well, most villagers discussed the park rangers with fear and disdain.”[203]

Himmelfarb notes that UWA rangers patrol villages in an intimidating way, carrying rifles and dressed in military-like gear. UWA rangers frequently approach villagers in their fields and tell them that the land is not theirs but belongs to the National Park and that they should therefore leave.[204]

Benefits to local people from carbon sales?

When Timothy Byakola visited Bubita sub-county in December 2004, he found that local councillors were unaware that the UWA-FACE tree-planting activities would earn the FACE Foundation carbon credits that could be sold on an international carbon market. Several villagers mentioned that UWA-FACE project workers had visited their farms in the past to count trees. They thought that this might have been some sort of carbon monitoring work. Byakola found that the lack of knowledge about the carbon trading aspect of the project was not limited to the lower councils. A discussion with the Mbale District LC5 vice-chairman revealed that he was also unaware of the fact that the FACE Foundation was gaining carbon credits from the trees planted at Mount Elgon.[205]

At a meeting with villagers in Buwabwala sub-county in September 2006, Byakola found that UWA staff had made little or no attempt to convey to villagers the basic principles of carbon offset projects. “We remember some years ago a group of white people came and told us that the forest will help us repair the Ozone layer, but we wondered how that will be done here in poor Buwabwala,” one man said during the meeting. “This would not be a problem if the project did not make people suffer,” he added.[206]

UWA-FACE’s English language brochure, “Let the Earth Remain Green”, is supposed to help explain the project to local people. The brochure explains that “With the creation of new forests, CO2 from the atmosphere can be fixed.” The brochure adds that “Reduction of the green house gases, especially Carbon dioxide will reduce global warming and it’s [sic] associated side effects.”[207] However, the brochure omits to mention that the FACE Foundation hopes to profit from the sale of carbon credits generated by the project.

Fred Kizza, FACE Foundation’s project coordinator in Mbale, declined to answer Byakola’s questions about the carbon credits generated by the project. Kizza mentioned that the project had stopped any tree planting because of the slow international market response to carbon trading. However, he anticipated that planting would resume soon particularly once the Kyoto Protocol came into force.[208]

When we visited UWA’s office in Mbale in July 2006 we asked UWA’s Richard Matanda about carbon sequestration at Mount Elgon. Matanda apologised and said he couldn’t explain that to us.[209]

Matanda told us that the farmers are in the forest because of the 1970s breakdown. By 1980, they had cleared so much forest that there was a drought. 25,000 hectares had been cleared. FACE started its reforestation in 1994. More than 8,000 hectares had been planted. The programme is planned to continue for 25 years. Tree planting has “stopped briefly”, he said.

When we asked what the most serious problems with the project were, he replied that other than a lack of funding, there were no problems. Then he added, “Encroachment could be another problem because the trees are cut down.” In late 2005, he explained, local communities started to take more land to plant maize. They even cleared some land planted by UWA-FACE.

Matanda explained how UWA-FACE involved local people in the tree-planting. “Before planting starts,” he said, “we go to the village and inform them what we are going to do. Then when you’ve got their confidence you recruit workers.”

He explained that meetings to discuss the tree-planting are held at the parish level, or at the sub-county level. “But we can combine,” he added, “for example when there is a local meeting already organised, we go [to the meeting] and explain our position.”

IUCN’s Alex Muhweezi told us that in the past five years FACE has had no physical presence at Mount Elgon. UWA plants the trees and enforces the law to protect them. FACE pays for the FSC certification. “FACE is careful to invest in areas that are likely to remain under conservation. Mount Elgon is not going to be degazetted. So from the carbon perspective it’s a success.”[210]

Notes from a visit to Mount Elgon

In July 2006, Jutta Kill, Timothy Byakola and I visited Mount Elgon. We drove from Mbale up to the southern boundary of the national park, near to the border with Kenya. The land is green and the volcanic soils are fertile. Farmers grow bananas, maize, beans, potatoes, other vegetables and fruit trees. Some villagers grow coffee. Villagers also graze cattle in and around the park. Donkeys carry goods along the roads, competing with four wheel drive cars and speeding minibuses.


The land around Mount Elgon is intensively farmed.

We visited one village where villagers had planted their crops on land that UWA claims as part of the national park. The village council chairperson (LC1) told us that some people died as a result of the evictions from the national park in 1993. “We got the land in 1980,” he said. “After Mount Elgon was declared a national park, our property was destroyed and our homes were burned. Since then, we have lived here in this Trading Centre.”

UWA promised compensation, he told us, but none has ever arrived. Because the villagers had not illegally occupied the land they took out a court case against UWA. Late last year, the court issued an injunction allowing them to farm land within the park boundary. From where we were in the village we could see the fields of maize further up the mountain, but UWA had threatened not to allow villagers to harvest the crops from these fields.

“We planted crops last year,” the village council chairperson said. “But when we went to the forest we were beaten. About six people have died. We have reported what happened to the court but we are still waiting for what the court decides.”

At the beginning of 2006, he said, the President saw that people were desperate and said that we could go back to the land. “But we have gone back in fear. UWA is not treating us like human beings.”

He pointed to the children who had gathered around us. Most of the children here do not go to school because we have no money to send them, he said.

The parish council chairperson (LC2) spoke next. He confirmed what the chairperson LC1 had said and added that the same things were happening throughout Soono Parish.

Villagers pointed out a large rock on the hillside above their village and explained that this forms a natural boundary between the Park and their land. Their fields were below this natural boundary.

Several villagers told stories of violence and threats from UWA rangers. One villager told us of a villager who was forced to eat the intestines of a dead mouse. Another told a story of UWA rangers forcing a villager to have sex with a goat. Others told stories of UWA rangers forcing male villagers to have sex with each other.

I told them that the FACE Foundation acknowledges that there were some problems in 1993 but claims that things generally are better now. “No. The problems have worsened,” a villager replied. “The things we are describing have happened recently,” another added.

None of the villagers had heard of the Forest Stewardship Council.

I told them that the FACE Foundation claims that its project is providing jobs. They laughed. No, a villager replied, the FACE Foundation is not providing any jobs in their village. I asked whether anyone from the FACE Foundation had ever come here. UWA-FACE last planted trees in this area in 1994 was the reply.

We left the village and drove along a muddy, steep track for a couple of hours until we arrived at a trading centre in Buwabwala Parish. The land along the track was all intensively farmed. Small plots of trees grew between some of the fields, including some plots of large eucalyptus trees. We stopped for a moment next to an area of eucalyptus where a couple of the trees had recently been cut.

The trading centre was set up in 1993, after the villagers were evicted from the national park. A villager told us that many of the villagers had bought land from forest officers during the late 1970s and early 1980s. At the time, forest guards had not been paid for months, so they were keen to earn money from fees for land allocation. At the same time, the government was encouraging forest-clearing so that anti-government groups could not hide out in the forest. Villagers saw that the land up the mountains was more fertile than their land lower down the valleys. After 1993, many of the villagers lost everything. They had sold their land lower down in order to pay the forest guards for the land higher up. When the government declared these transactions illegal, they became landless.


Villagers who lost their land to the national park currently have no alternative other than to continue planting inside the park.

By now, it was beginning to rain quite heavily. We gathered in a large meeting room without walls, near to the village school. We sat in a row facing about fifty villagers. A villager introduced himself as a representative of the people evicted, not just here in the village, but also in the High Court. Another villager translated into English. “In the old days,” he said, “people and the Park lived amicably. We want the forest to be there. We know the benefits of forest.”

He told us that in 1993 after the evictions, the government left villagers with too little land. “UWA and UPDF evicted us by the force of the gun. All our property was demolished and our land was added to the national park.”

“In 1998, we made claims in the court of law,” he said. “The court has helped us. It has given us land to use until it makes its decision. But UWA’s rangers are not allowing people to use the land. We have planted the land, but we are threatened day and night. UWA sometimes destroys our crops. We have documents of title deeds and court documents, including ‘Certificate of Title’ documents. We have requested that the government helps us to get UWA to stay where it is until the court decision.”


Villagers pointed out their maize crops. UWA’s rangers prevented them from harvesting the crops and have sometimes destroyed villagers’ crops.

Villagers told us that there are three boundaries. The first is from the time they were evicted. Another came from a second time that the boundary was demarcated. Then the boundary was planted with eucalyptus trees. “We don’t know where the boundary is,” a villager said.

In some places the teams carrying out the boundary demarcation deliberately moved the boundary into farmers’ land. The only way that farmers could keep their land was by bribing the survey teams to put the boundary back where it should be.

One of the villagers was beaten and taken to the police. Another man showed us wounds he’d received on his chin, where UWA rangers had hit him with a rifle. Another has a broken hand, a result of being beaten by UWA rangers. Another man was laid down flat on the ground and had a heavy stone placed on his back so that he could not move. He is now in bad health. Another villager was beaten and is now bed-ridden. “These are only a few of the many cases,” said the village representative. “UWA has never been prosecuted for any of them. We have reported UWA’s actions to the authorities many times, but because we are poor nothing has ever happened.”

“Yesterday UWA uprooted onions in our gardens,” said a villager. “This morning there was a gun-shot,” added another.

I asked whether the UWA-FACE project had provided jobs in this village. “None of us is ever employed in the national park. None,” was the reply. No one from the FACE Foundation had visited this village.

I asked about FSC. Again, they’d never heard of it. In any case, when people do come to the village, they have their own agenda, a villager explained. “When you ask, you hear a bullet,” he said.

One of the villagers opened up an envelope containing bullet shells. “The bullets were shot by people trying to kill us,” he said. “Some people have died. Others have been injured.”

“We don’t want the whole National Park, we just want our land back,” a villager said. Land rights are the key to villagers’ well-being. “Taking a child to school is almost impossible without land.”

REFERENCES AND FOOTNOTES

[174] Interview with Alex Muhweezi in Mbale by Timothy Byakola, Jutta Kill and Chris Lang. 19 July 2006.

[175] Interview with Alex Muhweezi in Mbale by Timothy Byakola, Jutta Kill and Chris Lang. 19 July 2006.

[176] UWA-FACE (no date) “Let the earth remain green”, UWA-FACE brochure.

[177] UWA-FACE (no date) “Let the earth remain green”, UWA-FACE brochure.

[178] Timothy Byakola (no date) “Carbon Sequestration Plantation Forests: Community struggles and impacts of the Uganda Wildlife Authority-FACE Foundation Carbon Sequestration Forest Project around Mt Elgon National Park“, Climate and Development Initiatives, Uganda.

[179] Onyango, Gershom (1996) “Local participation for the conservation and management of natural forests, Uganda“, paper presented at WB/UNEP African Forestry Policy Forum Nairobi, 29-30 August 1996. Gershom was Assistant Commissioner for Forestry, Forest Department, Ministry of Natural Resources.

[180] UWA-FACE (no date) “Let the earth remain green”, UWA-FACE brochure.

[181] Larry Lohmann points out that the threats to carbon credits generated by planting trees are impossible to calculate, because they are based not just on risk, but also on uncertainty, ignorance and indetermacy. See Global warming and the ghost of Frank Knight, in Larry Lohmann (Ed.) (2006) “Carbon Trading. A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power“, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, Durban Group for Climate Justice and The Corner House, October 2006.

[182] E-mail from Irma Lubrecht, SGS Climate Change Programme, to Chris Lang. 11 August 2006.

[183] E-mail from Irma Lubrecht, SGS Climate Change Programme, to Chris Lang. 11 August 2006. Villagers living with daily intimidation and threats from UWA staff might be surprised to hear Lubrecht describe this as “consultation, collaboration and sensitisation”.

[184] E-mail from Irma Lubrecht, SGS Climate Change Programme, to Chris Lang. 11 August 2006. In her e-mail Lubrecht stated that she would be visiting the project developer in a few days time and would ask for permission to release this and other information.

[185] Lubrecht has declined to answer my further e-mails dated 16 August 2006 and 15 September 2006.

[186] E-mail from Irma Lubrecht, SGS Climate Change Programme, to Chris Lang. 11 August 2006.

[187] E-mail from Irma Lubrecht, SGS Climate Change Programme, to Chris Lang. 11 August 2006.

[188] Interview with Alex Muhweezi in Mbale by Timothy Byakola, Jutta Kill and Chris Lang. 19 July 2006.

[189] FACE (no date) “UWA-FACE Uganda”, FACE Foundation brochure.

[190] E-mail from Irma Lubrecht, SGS Climate Change Programme, to Chris Lang. 11 August 2006.

[191] Nathan Etengu (2006) “Mother, children killed in landslide“, New Vision, 16 August 2006.

[192] Interview with John Friday by Jutta Kill and Chris Lang. 17 July 2006.

[193] Interviews carried out at Mount Elgon by Timothy Byakola, December 2004.

[194] David Himmelfarb (2006) “Moving People, Moving Boundaries: The Socio-Economic Effects of Protectionist Conservation, Involuntary Resettlement and Tenure Insecurity on the Edge of Mt. Elgon National Park, Uganda“, Agroforestry in Landscape Mosaics Working Paper Series. World Agroforestry Centre, Tropical Resources Institute of Yale University, and The University of Georgia, page 16.

[195] UWA-FACE (no date) “Let the earth remain green”, UWA-FACE brochure.

[196] FACE Foundation website, cited in Mark Reed (no date) “A Comparative Review of Agroforestry Practices in Two Forest-adjacent Parishes on Mount Elgon, Uganda“, Project Elgon, Leeds University.

[197] Stonewall Kato and James Okot-Okumu (2006) “The role of community based institutions in sustainable management of forest, water and soil: A case study of Mount Elgon ecosystem, Uganda“, A paper presentation at the 11th Biennial Global Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property in Bali, Indonesia, 19-23 June 2006.

[198] Linda Norgrove and David Hulme (forthcoming) “Confronting conservation at Mount Elgon, Uganda“, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.

[199] Linda Norgrove and David Hulme (forthcoming) “Confronting conservation at Mount Elgon, Uganda“, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.

[200] Linda Norgrove and David Hulme (forthcoming) “Confronting conservation at Mount Elgon, Uganda“, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.

[201] Linda Norgrove and David Hulme (forthcoming) “Confronting conservation at Mount Elgon, Uganda“, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.

[202] Linda Norgrove and David Hulme (forthcoming) “Confronting conservation at Mount Elgon, Uganda“, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.

[203] David Himmelfarb (2006) “Moving People, Moving Boundaries: The Socio-Economic Effects of Protectionist Conservation, Involuntary Resettlement and Tenure Insecurity on the Edge of Mt. Elgon National Park, Uganda“, Agroforestry in Landscape Mosaics Working Paper Series. World Agroforestry Centre, Tropical Resources Institute of Yale University, and The University of Georgia, page 11.

[204] David Himmelfarb (2006) “Moving People, Moving Boundaries: The Socio-Economic Effects of Protectionist Conservation, Involuntary Resettlement and Tenure Insecurity on the Edge of Mt. Elgon National Park, Uganda“, Agroforestry in Landscape Mosaics Working Paper Series. World Agroforestry Centre, Tropical Resources Institute of Yale University, and The University of Georgia, page 11.

[205] Interviews carried out at Mount Elgon by Timothy Byakola, December 2004.

[206] Timothy Byakola (2006) “Brief Report of A Community Consultative Meeting on UWA-FACE Foundation’s Tree planting Project in Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda”, 3rd October 2006.

[207] UWA-FACE (no date) “Let the earth remain green”, UWA-FACE brochure.

[208] Interview carried out at Mount Elgon by Timothy Byakola, December 2004.

[209] Interview with Richard Matanda in Mbale by Timothy Byakola, Jutta Kill and Chris Lang. 19 July 2006.

[210] Interview with Alex Muhweezi in Mbale by Timothy Byakola, Jutta Kill and Chris Lang. 19 July 2006.

%d bloggers like this: