Following the gazetment of Bwindi as a national park in 1991, community access to the forest and use of its resources was no longer legal. This caused serious conflicts between the park management authority and the surrounding communities, and the number of illegal activities and deliberate fires in the park increased. In 1993, the management of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (BINP) agreed to granting local people controlled access to certain plant resources from the park through the multiple use (MU) program. The importance of monitoring the impact of this new approach on the park was emphasized and the Institute of Tropical Forest conservation (ITFC) was tasked with it.

This study aimed at determining whether granting local people access to the use of resources in BINP had reduced the level of illegal activities and unsustainable utilization of the resources. Interviews supported by observations from transect walks in the forest and recordings of socio-demographic and resource use data were conducted in two parishes bordering BINP, Mpungu one of the villages where the MUP was initiated and Rubuguri where resource use was not agreed (‘NON-MUP’).

The study revealed that people rely on forest resources for medicinal use, basket material and household utensils, due to the low household income and low educational standards. The socio-demographic profile of resource users did not differ much between the two parishes, the majority being in the age group of 30-49 years. Fewer people admitted to illegal activities in Mpungu (9) than in Rubuguri (23), but it is hard to draw any conclusions.

The transect walks, however, revealed a higher frequency of illegal activities in the MU zone (48) than in the NON-MU zone (39). These categories included the collection of wood resources, wild food, quantity or species of medicinal herbs and basketry materials not allowed by the MU agreement and grazing of domestic animals. The higher number of illegal activities in the MU zone was attributed to the fact that law enforcement and patrolling by rangers in the MUP area was more relaxed than in the NON-MUP area. Local people, including the legal collectors, may have taken advantage, harvesting more forest resources than allowed in the MUP agreement. Meanwhile in the NON-MUP, the higher intensity of park protection controlled illegal resource collection.

The author concluded that allowing access to resources through the MUP, restricted as it may be, played a role in controlling the number of illegal harvesters, contributed to a positive attitude towards forest conservation and reduced the unsustainable methods of harvesting. However, it was not sufficient to stop or reduce illegal resource use in BINP, and it should be accompanied by rigorous monitoring by local community members and park rangers. The initiation of the MU program in other parishes and the extension of the size of the zones depending on the resources abundance and distribution were also recommended.