Bwindi Impenetrable National Park
Country
Uganda
Inscribed in
1994
Criteria
(vii)
(x)
The conservation outlook for this site has been assessed as "good with some concerns" in the latest assessment cycle. Explore the Conservation Outlook Assessment for the site below. You have the option to access the summary, or the detailed assessment.
Located in south-western Uganda, at the junction of the plain and mountain forests, Bwindi Park covers 32,000 ha and is known for its exceptional biodiversity, with more than 160 species of trees and over 100 species of ferns. Many types of birds and butterflies can also be found there, as well as many endangered species, including the mountain gorilla. © UNESCO
Summary
2025 Conservation Outlook
Finalised on
11 Oct 2025
Good with some concerns
Current state and trend of VALUES
Good
Overall THREATS
Overall PROTECTION and MANAGEMENT
Full assessment
Description of values
Mountain Gorillas and other threatened mammals
Criterion
(x)
Bwindi is home to 459 (51%) of the world’s mountain gorillas (Hickey et al., 2019), and other rare and endangered mammals, including approximately 76 elephants, as well as chimpanzee and l’Hoests monkey (World Heritage Committee, 2011; Hickey et al., 2019). The property has an unusually rich small mammal fauna with 47 species of rodents, 20 shrews, and numerous bats (UNEP-WCMC, 2012), at least four of which are rare Albertine Rift endemics (Davenport et al., 1996).
Rich montane flora and fauna.
Criterion
(x)
The park has one of the richest montane floras of any site in Africa, including many endemic species. For all major taxonomic groups, available information indicates unusually high total species counts for an area of this size. The property has the highest diversity of tree species (over 200 species including 10 endemics) and ferns (some 104 species) in East Africa, and maybe the most important forest in Africa for montane forest butterflies with 202 species (84% of the country’s total), including eight Albertine endemics (World Heritage Committee, 2011). There are at least 1,000 known species of flowering plants, 120 species of mammals, 350 species of birds in an area of just 321 km2 (UNEP-WCMC, 2012; Ugandan Wildlife Authority, 2014)
Rare and endemic birds
Criterion
(x)
The property is internationally recognized as an Important Bird Area (BirdLife, 2012; NatureUganda, 2015) and lies within the Albertine Rift Mountains Endemic Bird Area (Stattersfield et al., 1998). At least 350 species of birds have been recorded, including 22 of the 36 known Albertine Rift endemics (UNEP-WCMC, 2012; Ugandan Wildlife Authority, 2014). Several species of avifauna are included in the IUCN Red List of Threatened species, including: Grauer’s Swamp Warbler (Bradypterus graueri, VU), Turner's Eremomela (Eremomela turneri, NT), African Green Broadbill (Pseudocalyptomena graueri, VU), Chapin’s Flycatcher (Fraseria lendu, VU), Shelley's Crimsonwing (Cryptospiza shelleyi, EN), Lagden’s Bush Shrike (Malaconotus lagdeni, NT), and Forest Ground-thrush (Geokichla oberlaenderi, NT) (IBA Factsheet 2012; IUCN, 2025).
Occurrence of Albertine Rift endemic species
Criterion
(x)
Although knowledge of the site’s biodiversity is far from complete, most groups of flora and fauna exhibit high levels of endemism. Eleven (41%) of the 27 known amphibians are endemic to the Albertine Rift (UNEP-WCMC, 2012), as well as 8 of the known 202 species of butterfly (Davenport et al., 1996), 3 species of which are of restricted range (Ugandan Wildlife Authority, 2014), and nine (64%) of the 14 recorded species of snakes (UNEP-WCMC, 2012)
Diversity of co-evolving habitats
Criterion
(x)
There is an exceptional diversity of habitats on account of the range of altitude (1,190 to 2,560m), equatorial location and high rainfall. These cover the complete transition from lowland to montane forest, with some notable swamps and a small grove of bamboo at the highest elevations.
Batwa cultural heritage
The Batwa people lived in Bwindi and Mgahinga forests for centuries before their forced removal for the creation of the Bwindi and Mgahinga National Parks. Their culture is deeply rooted in the forest (Fauna and Flora, 2013; Mbarara University of Science and Technology, 2020). Indeed, Batwa livelihoods, traditional practices and belief systems are directly linked to forest plants, animals and sites. Many forest myths, taboos, totems and folklore are narrated by Batwa. Batwa also attach considerable cultural importance to forest sites including caves, hot springs, swamps, rivers, hills, big stones and pits. Many of these sites have spiritual values which they believe helped their ancestors to live for many years. For instance, burial sites were usually deep in the forests near big trees.
The Batwa are one of the recognised Indigenous peoples around BINP (MWE & UWA, 2023; UWA, 2015). In 2022, 1,403 (863 Males and 720 females) members of the Batwa community were estimated to be living on the fringes of BINP. Specific cultural values associated to the BINP have been formally recognized, such as the beliefs and indigenous-local knowledge about medicinal herbs, Batwa spiritual beliefs and practices valuing the park as a home, Batwa unique forest experience and Batwa music, dance and drama (MWE & UWA, 2023).
The Batwa are one of the recognised Indigenous peoples around BINP (MWE & UWA, 2023; UWA, 2015). In 2022, 1,403 (863 Males and 720 females) members of the Batwa community were estimated to be living on the fringes of BINP. Specific cultural values associated to the BINP have been formally recognized, such as the beliefs and indigenous-local knowledge about medicinal herbs, Batwa spiritual beliefs and practices valuing the park as a home, Batwa unique forest experience and Batwa music, dance and drama (MWE & UWA, 2023).
Assessment information
The park’s rugged terrain, long history of protection and low potential for commercial forestry result in generally localized threats. The continued growth of gorilla-based tourism has created a strong economic incentive for enhanced protection efforts and the park has attracted strong donor support for an array of interventions to mitigate development pressures, engage local communities and strengthen management, thus reducing threat levels. Collection of some non-timber forest products (honey, medicinal plants and basketry materials) continues under management agreements with local communities. However, there remains some conflict between park authorities and local communities over access to forest resources, fair and equitable distribution of benefits from the national park, as well as crop damage by wildlife and park governance issues. There is a limited amount of illegal hunting of bushmeat. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need for alternative livelihoods and diversification of community livelihood projects. The temporary closure of the park during the outbreak resulted in a loss of tourism revenue, which exacerbated poverty in the already vulnerable and marginalized neighbouring communities, leading to a rise in illegal activities. The infrastructure development for nearby communities, specifically road infrastructure, is a current threat to wildlife dispersal and habitat, and can potentially facilitate illegal activities within the park through better park accessibility. Gorilla-based tourism is increasing and there are some associated risks including the growing possibility of human disease transmission and increased scope for illegal killing of gorillas, particularly if numbers of habituated gorillas are allowed to increase. In the long-term, climate change may cause far-reaching ecological changes with direct impacts of the forest ecosystems and well as more indirect human-mediated impacts as a result of changing livelihood scenarios surrounding the site caused by climate change.
Residential Areas
(Ecological isolation and small size)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
The property is an ‘ecological island’ of forest in one of the most densely populated (and intensively cultivated) parts of Africa. Local population densities around the forest edge are typically 160-320 people per km2 (UNEP-WCMC, 2012), and the forest has been progressively isolated from other protected forests along the Albertine Rift through the clearing of forest remnants in the agricultural areas. The small size of the forest (321 km2) means that maintaining viable populations of larger species – such as elephants, gorillas, chimpanzees, birds of prey – may not be possible without sustained intervention. Ecosystem restoration strategies have been applied in the past and led to the recovery of some fauna and flora species in the park (e.g. trends in ecological restoration 2010-2020 for African loxodanta +73%, Gorilla beringei +25.5%, Cercopirhicus lhoesti +72%, Cercopithecus mitis +85%) (Wanjera et al., 2022). Ecological monitoring and mapping done by the park and other partners has been reported to have helped the progressive regeneration of fauna and flora from early 2010 to date. Challenges remain, including the perception of the local community, insufficient funds, the overall poverty in the region and deforestation as major hindrances (Wanjera et al., 2022).
Logging, Harvesting & Controlling Trees
(Tree cutting and pole cutting)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Outside site
The forests of the site are not generally suitable for commercial exploitation and are well regulated and enforced. However, a small number of illegal tree cutting (pitsawing) incidences are reported annually, usually for local demand for building materials and fuel (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
Roads, Trails & Railroads
(Rural access road through the park)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
While an upgrade in rural road networks is necessary for economic development (Muhwezi et al., 2021), the construction of new roads and upgrade of older ones might increase illegal activities within the park, such as hunting and harvesting, as park accessibility has been shown to be one of the main drivers (Bitariho et al., 2021), as well as impact on wildlife dispersal and habitat. An unsurfaced rural access road, the Ruhija road, cuts through the highest reaches of the park, along its boundary and through the narrow ‘neck’ that connects the two parts of the forest. This seems to serve as a barrier to gorilla dispersal and use of habitat, and may also affect other species. It is frequented by local people on foot, bicycle and car, and used as a main through route for lorries transporting goods from the regional capital at Kabale to villages lying to the north of the forest. There are still proposals to upgrade this road to bitumen which would increase vehicular traffic, thus potential traffic accidents. Most concerning is however the ongoing construction of the Nteko-Buhoma road on the western part of the park to connect Kisoro and Kanungu districts through Bwindi Impenetrable National Park by Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) and the local community (Daily Monitor, 2021). The road cuts off part of the park to the west towards the DRC border, which make it difficult to control its use in addition to impacts on biodiversity in that section (IUCN Consultation, 2020; IGCP, 2021). There are also other smaller roads that may be opened and further developed in the future e.g the Nteko-Buhoma road (currently only used as a footpath), and the Bugarama-Rwesanziro road in Ruhija area.
Fire & Fire Management
(Fire)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Fire can cause localized habitat destruction when conditions are exceptionally dry, especially along the forest edge where fires can spread from neighbouring agricultural lands (EoH, 2007). However, the wet closed canopy forest is generally resilient to outbreaks of fire. In 2016, only one incidence of fire was recorded (IUCN consultation, 2017). The last fire occurred in May 2019, impacting an area of 25 km2 (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
Recreational Activities
(Habituation of mountain gorillas)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Whilst habituation of mountain gorillas for tourism brings enormous economic benefits, it also puts them at risk of disease transmission from human visitors (Hanes et al., 2018), and exposes them to the threat of being killed easily (for example, by those who may not benefit directly from gorilla tourism and resent the sacrifices being made by local people denied access to other forest resources; or by ‘dealers’ wanting to sell gorilla babies or body parts on international markets). Gorillas may also suffer disturbance from the activities of local people taking forest produce in the designated ‘integrated resource use zones’ around the edge of the forest, and tend to avoid using such areas, thus reducing the area of suitable habitat available to them (EoH, 2007). Many claim that habituating gorillas is increasing gorilla crop raiding. There is no empirical evidence on this. However, crop raiding gorillas face additional risks of contracting diseases from local people (IUCN Consultation, 2014). However, there are efforts by HUGO (human – gorilla conflict resolution teams) to mitigate these conflicts (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Overall, there are 215 individuals habituated viable to be tracked out of the 459 individuals known to exist in the site (Hickey et al., 2019; IUCN Consultation, 2020). Although the risk to mountain gorillas of disease transmission from humans is growing with increasing tourism, efforts are being made to cap habituated gorillas at 50% as a precaution to avoid dangers of loss of gorilla population to epidemics.
Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, the risk of transmitting COVID-19 and other pathogens to gorilla became evident. Prevalence of COVID-19 was reported in a community neighbouring the parks where gorilla tourism is the key economic activity and human-gorilla encounters occur on a daily basis (Kungu et al., 2023). To minimize the risk of COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases spreading from people to gorillas, several conservation and health NGOs worked with UWA and Bwindi Community Hospital (BCH) to train 400 park staff and 119 Gorilla Guardians who are community volunteers from the Human and Gorilla Conflict Resolution (HUGO) team, to prevent transmission of diseases between people and from people to gorillas (Kalema-Zikusoka et al., 2021).
Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, the risk of transmitting COVID-19 and other pathogens to gorilla became evident. Prevalence of COVID-19 was reported in a community neighbouring the parks where gorilla tourism is the key economic activity and human-gorilla encounters occur on a daily basis (Kungu et al., 2023). To minimize the risk of COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases spreading from people to gorillas, several conservation and health NGOs worked with UWA and Bwindi Community Hospital (BCH) to train 400 park staff and 119 Gorilla Guardians who are community volunteers from the Human and Gorilla Conflict Resolution (HUGO) team, to prevent transmission of diseases between people and from people to gorillas (Kalema-Zikusoka et al., 2021).
Other Human Disturbances
(Human-wildlife conflict)
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Crop damage around the forest edge remains a source of conflict between park authorities and local farmers, with crop raiding by elephants, gorillas, chimps, baboons and other primates, as well as bushpigs, antelope and birds (EoH, 2007; Akampurila et al 2015). This conflict is exacerbated by the long boundary (relative to area protected), and high population pressure all along it. Crop raiding influences the attitudes of communities negatively towards conservation, reduces the ability of families to feed themselves and leads to poaching and snaring (EoH, 2007). Resentment by local people over the lack of support for crop raiding drove illegal activities. This has important implications for conservation, as local feelings of injustice about conservation is a primary driver of illegal activities (in addition to the poverty drivers) (Baker et al., 2014). Crop raiding is the biggest threat to the already improved people/park relationship at the site (UWA 2013; Akampurila et al 2015). Several methods to mitigate the problem of crop raiding have been proposed but the problem still persists in part due to lacking funds to implement the measures. Despite the problem, only a few areas have implemented the crop raiding mitigation measures around the park. However, these interventions are being strengthened to reduce the conflicts. The HUGO teams numbering 134 individuals are in all frontline parishes (IGCP, 2024b) that are prone to crop raiding. 4.1 km of the park which is a hot spot for crop raiding by elephants is targeted for bee fences (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Several methods to mitigate the problem of crop raiding have been introduced in the problem locations, though their efficacy has been patchy due to several challenges that include limited funds for materials, commitment of farmers to maintenance of established interventions and cohesiveness of the interventions.
Recreational Activities
(Impacts of tourism)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Although the tourism numbers are relatively low compared to other national parks such as those in the savannah, since 1993, Bwindi tourist numbers have been increasing as a result of increased numbers of gorillas available for tourism. The tourist numbers have increased from 1300 per annum in 1993 to 36,341 in 2019 (UWA, 2016; IUCN Consultation, 2020) and 39,000 in 2023 (Cairns and Thin, 2025). Guidelines exist to ensure an effective management of gorilla and chimpanzee tracking (UWA, 2024) The Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) has developed rules to help protect the health of the gorillas during gorilla tourism encounters, limiting each habituated gorilla group to a single 60 min visit each day by a group of no more than 8 tourists. Visitors are generally taken into the forest in groups of 8 to track and locate a known group of gorillas and spend an hour with them, maintaining a >7 m distance from gorillas at all times (increased to 10 m as an additional measure during the COVID-19 pandemic). Controls on tourist visits to gorillas are tight, with each group visited once daily, and at US $700 fees are substantial. However, the lack of rule-adherence remains concerning (Weber et al., 2020). There is strong pressure from tourism operators to increase the number of gorilla groups that are habituated, which currently stands at nine groups habituated for tourism, and one group for research (UWA, 2022-2023), composed of 19 gorillas, with a further three under the process of habituation (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Habituation of gorillas means that they become fearless of encounters with people – making them potentially vulnerable to those who might want to kill them and susceptible to transmission of human disease (Hanes et al., 2018). The COVID-19 outbreak had serious impacts on gorilla conservation (Kalema-Zikusoka et al., 2021). Gorilla populations are very vulnerable to such human-borne transmission of the virus. In this respect, UWA closed the park in March 2020 to prevent infection and transmission. However, the loss of tourism revenue had a twofold effect, first on park management and law enforcement operations such as anti-poaching patrols, and second on local communities bordering the park exacerbating poverty, which led to an increase in poaching. The park was subsequently re-opened in September 2020 largely to promote domestic tourism taking mitigations measures to reduce the threat of disease transmission and poaching (Wanyera, 2021; Kalema-Zikusoka et al., 2021). Park staff and community volunteers from the Human and Gorilla Conflict Resolution (HUGO) team were trained to reduce disease transmission between people and gorillas. New standard operating procedures were instituted for gorilla tourism activities, including mandatory wearing of masks within 10 m of great apes and increasing the viewing distance from seven to 10 m. To reduce hunger in vulnerable community members, an emergency food relief “Ready to Grow” program was launched through the Conservation Through Public Health (CTPH) non-profit, which that has worked with around 10,000 households around the national park to improve the community’s health and well-being.
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Invasive alien species)
Invasive/problematic species
Lantana camara
Other invasive species names
Tea,eucalyptus and Mauritius thorn
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
The occurrence of alien exotic vegetation is generally limited to areas around the edge of the forest and affects no more than 2% of the property (EoH, 2007). Alien species in the site include Lantana camara, tea,eucalyptus and Mauritius thorn. Combined with anthropogenic activities, invasive plant species have driven the disappearance and degeneration of some of the park’s plant species (Wanjera et al., 2022). Efforts are however in place to restore some of the plant species which disappeared, such as Pardocurpus milanjianus.
Annual & Perennial Non-Timber Crops
(Agricultural encroachment)
Outside site
Although the park boundary is clearly demarcated, there have been periodic instances of encroachment by neighbouring cultivators. 22 MoUs were signed with communities to harvest eucalyptus boundary markers and replant them. This reduces boundary conflict as communities are aware of the boundary and the live boundary markers reduce pressure on park resources for domestic needs (IUCN Consultation, 2020; UWA, 2015).
Hunting, Collecting & Controlling Terrestrial Animals
(Poaching)
Other targeted species names
Black fronted duikers (Cephalophus nigrifons), Yellow backed duikers (Cephalophus silvicultor), Bush pigs (Potamochoerus larvatus)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Low-level subsistence hunting has been a way of life for the local Bakiga people and (especially) the former forest-dwelling Batwa community for centuries. Its impact has been limited due to the extremely rugged terrain, park law enforcement activities, improving relationships between local communities and park management, provisions of other park benefits such as local tourism development and other means of livelihoods for local people. Hunting is illegal, but there is still hunting pressure, generally using wire snares and hunting dogs to trap animals (EoH, 2007; IUCN Consultation, 2014). Bushmeat has historically been the most desired forest resource and the most widely consumed by local people, and is mostly concentrated in remote areas and the frontline zone of the national park, and driven by the poverty associated with a lack of money to buy meat or livestock (Baker et al., 2014). There was an emerging threat of illegal wildlife trade targeting elephants around 2014. This was contained by law enforcement operations and did not significantly impact the elephant population (IUCN Consultation, 2020). In June 2020 during the closure of the park due to COVID-19, it was reported that a male silverback (Rafiki) from a habituated group of gorillas was killed by a hungry poacher who was entering the park illegally to hunt for duiker and bushpig. The number of snares being retrieved by the site management increased substantially during the lockdown to contain the COVID -19 pandemic, with 151 collected in May 2020 compared to 9 removed in the same month in 2019 (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Sources indicate that poaching increased since the pandemic due to loss of livelihoods associated with closing of the park to tourism (Kalema-Zikusoka et al., 2021), however this is considered to be now under more control with a reduced 33 snares collected in October 2020. An emergency food relief “Ready to Grow” program was launched to provide fast growing seedlings that take 1–4 months to produce food and reduce hunger in vulnerable community members, addressing hunger, and mitigating the poaching threat. Overall, the pandemic demonstrated a clear need to reduce poaching by addressing hunger and among vulnerable community members and by supporting community livelihoods, especially by providing other sustainable financing mechanisms for conservation when tourism is not possible (Kalema-Zikusoka et al., 2021).
Gathering, Harvesting & Controlling Terrestrial Plants & Fungi
(Harvest and use of non-timber forest produce)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Non-timber forest produce, notably honey, medicinal plants and basketry materials, make an important contribution to local livelihoods and these products may now be taken from designated zones under the terms of community-use Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs). According to the existing Community Resource Management CRM arrangement under UWA's Resource Access programme, off-take is monitored by park rangers and resource users (MWE & UWE, 2023). The demand for these non-timber forest products by the local people is still high despite the MoUs allowing a section of the local people (resource users) to access these resources at given offtake quotas. Not all the local people are registered under the MoU to access these resources, therefore the pressure for these resources is still there and illegal access still occurs. The illegal access of these resources is a potential threat to the site (Bitariho, 2013; Bitariho et al 2016). Park accessibility has been identified as the the most important driver of illegal activities in BINP (Bitariho et al., 2021). Distribution and number of illegal activities in the study parishes with increased park accessibility resulting in increased illegal activities. On the other hand, increased funding of community projects resulted in reduced illegal activities (Bitariho et al., 2021). The provisioning of alternatives and diversification of the types of community livelihood projects has a positive impact on reducing illegal activities within BINP. This indicates that the long-term funding, well targeted and good implementation, and monitoring of community projects are important factors in the mitigation of illegal activities. A targeted and increased funding of community projects in those parishes identified as hotspots of illegal activities within Bwindi is recommended (Bitariho et al., 2021).
Changes in Temperature Regimes, Changes in Precipitation & Hydrological Regime
(Climate change)
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Rising temperatures due to climate change is expected to cause a general shift of vegetation zones to higher elevations. This will increase the area of the forest suitable for lowland forest species and reduce its suitability for higher-elevation montane species (which tend to be the rarer ones). The small grove of bamboo which currently exists at the highest point may no longer survive under warmer conditions. A substantial decrease in rainfall between 1983–2016 has also been recorded which carries significant implications for agriculture production, food security, wildlife habitat, and economic impact at the community and societal level (Ssentongo et al., 2018). Changing climate may also lead to expansion of gorilla home ranges, and facilitate the spread of pests, diseases and invasive alien species. Whilst there is an overall lack of data and understanding of local climate change scenarios, ongoing phenological studies into the effects of climate change in the area seek to address this issue (IUCN Consultation, 2020). The impacts of climate change to local communities surrounding the site still remains poorly understood. Addressing this knowledge gap is key to understanding the indirect effects of climate change on the management of human-mediated threats to the sites values and inform appropriate remedial/preventative measures.
As part of the "Investing in Forests and Protected Areas for Climate Smart Development Project" (IFPA-CD), funded by the World Bank and the Government of Uganda, a Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups Plan (2020-2026) was developed for the Batwa people living around Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park. The plan aims to enhance the climate resilience of forest-dependent communities by strengthening coping strategies, diversifying forest management-related livelihoods and employment opportunities, and improving adaptive planning and management.
As part of the "Investing in Forests and Protected Areas for Climate Smart Development Project" (IFPA-CD), funded by the World Bank and the Government of Uganda, a Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups Plan (2020-2026) was developed for the Batwa people living around Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park. The plan aims to enhance the climate resilience of forest-dependent communities by strengthening coping strategies, diversifying forest management-related livelihoods and employment opportunities, and improving adaptive planning and management.
The possibility of civil unrest and insurgency cannot be ignored, since the park lies in a region that has a long history of instability and there is reoccurring unrest across the border in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Along with the possibility of upgrading roads through the park and the increasing use of pesticides in the surrounding area, the potential threat on the site's important attributes is considered high. Especially as a renewed surge of violence at the border to eastern DRC would have severe consequences on the site's flora and fauna and visitation. Additionally, the potential road construction would exacerbate existing threats like illegal hunting and harvesting, while also creating an ecological barrier preventing gorilla movements and potentially hindering tourism.
Conflict, Civil Unrest & Security Activities
(Insurgency, civil strife and security issues)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
The park is located in a volatile area, with insurgency activity erupting from time to time and causing severe disruption across the border in eastern DRC (UN News, 2022). Although the park is now secure and tourism and management activities are progressing normally, the possibility of renewed violence is very real. However to combat these threats, security force detachments secure the park along the border and a contingent of the national army work with UWA in the park to ensure safety in and around the park. The international border has also been recently marked under the initiative of Greater Virunga Transboundary Collaboration in order to curb incursions from DRC (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
Roads, Trails & Railroads
(New road construction)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
There are currently a number of proposals for road construction which have the potential to threaten many of the forest ecosystem values of the site, including key gorilla habitat. An old road used to run through the western edge of the park, close to the DRC border where gorilla tourism is now centred, south of Buhoma. There is strong interest in re-establishing this road, but doing so would be highly disruptive to gorilla movements and tourism in the area, and create an ecological barrier across a critical part of the forest (which links to Sarambwe, a small contiguous protected forest on the Congolese side of the border). In addition, there is the risk that with the construction of new roads there might be an increase in illegal activities, such as hunting and harvesting, as park accessibility has been shown to be one of the main drivers of illegal activities (Bitariho et al., 2021). There are also plans by the Uganda Government to upgrade an old road that has existed since the 1950s to a tarmac road for improved tourism access and infrastructure (Barr et al 2015). The improvement of the road would affect about 3.5% of the park's area, with secondary effects likely to span outside the immediate area of construction. If mitigation measures are not well planned, there is a high potential threat to the gorilla habitat and wider forest ecosystem.
Water-borne & other effluent Pollution
(Use of pesticides surrounding the park)
Outside site
An increased use of pesticides (such as OCPs and cypermethrin) in the areas surrounding the Park has been detected (Amusa et al., 2021). This could cause an increased exposure of these gorillas to pesticides as they feed on the vegetation in farmlands around the edges of the park. Calculated hazard indices suggest potential health risks to the mountain gorillas.
Involvement of stakeholders and rightsholders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, in decision-making processes
While there is evidence that local communities are involved in decision-making processes, engagement could be further improved. In a recent study 90.8% of respondents confirmed active participation in decision-making. However, only 13.8% reported engaging solely in tourism and gorilla conservation-related livelihood activities, indicating broader community roles beyond these spheres (EGI, 2024). Prior to the change of status from forest reserve to national park in 1991, local people had unrestricted access to ‘non-timber forest produce’ for their own personal domestic use, and many people were employed in ‘sustainable timber harvesting’ using traditional pit-sawing methods under Forestry Department supervision. The granting of national park status was accompanied by an initial ban on all consumptive use of resources, followed by a gradual relaxation of this ban to restore access rights for specialist resource users within the local community to three non-timber forest resources (honey, medicinal plants and basketry materials) within designated zones (collaborative management zones) under the terms of agreements that are formally negotiated with the specific forest-edge communities (MWE & UWA, 2023). Community relations have improved in recent years, but there are still significant challenges. Factors identified as contributing to resentment of the protected area management include lack of support to address crop raiding and inequity in the distribution of benefits from revenue sharing (Baker et al., 2014). Considerable efforts have been made in recent years to foster better community relations, including provision of financial support to community projects. Under UWA’s revenue-sharing scheme 20% of gate entry fees and a portion of the revenue from gorilla trekking permits are used on community projects ($1,181,323 in 2018/19 (IUCN Consultation, 2020) as well as income from the Bwindi Mgahinga Conservation Trust. However, research has suggested that the community benefits from tourism could be further increased, with projects that also improve human and social capital in equitable approaches bringing additional benefits and improving the engagement of local communities in conservation (Franks and Twinamatsiko, 2017; Tolbert et al., 2019). There is also the need to strengthen incentive mechanisms to reward those who report illegal activities and diversify community livelihood projects mainly dependent on tourism revenue. Indeed the Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the need for alternative livelihoods and diversification of community livelihood projects. The temporary closure of the park during the outbreak resulted in a loss of tourism revenue, which exacerbated poverty in the already vulnerable and marginalized neighbouring communities.
In 2020, the Government of Uganda launched the "Investing in Forests and Protected Areas for Climate-Smart Development" Project to improve forest management and increase local benefits (MWE, 2020). A Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups Plan (2020-2026) was also created for the Batwa people, addressing their marginalization and aiming to enhance their participation in park management (MWE & UWA, 2023). Key challenges include unequal benefit distribution, land access, livelihoods, and their limited participation in management groups. The plan outlines actions to minimize negative social and economic impacts on the Batwa, ensuring they benefit from the project. It includes a management plan with clear responsibilities and timelines for monitoring implementation. This plan supplements the 2014-2024 BINP General Management Plan, which already recognized the need for Batwa involvement in park management.
Overall, although the benefits sharing scheme has brought tangible benefits towards community relations and conservation goals for Bwindi, there are further improvements that could be made, particularly in addressing challenges related to equitable distribution of resources, land access and alternative livelihoods.
In 2020, the Government of Uganda launched the "Investing in Forests and Protected Areas for Climate-Smart Development" Project to improve forest management and increase local benefits (MWE, 2020). A Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups Plan (2020-2026) was also created for the Batwa people, addressing their marginalization and aiming to enhance their participation in park management (MWE & UWA, 2023). Key challenges include unequal benefit distribution, land access, livelihoods, and their limited participation in management groups. The plan outlines actions to minimize negative social and economic impacts on the Batwa, ensuring they benefit from the project. It includes a management plan with clear responsibilities and timelines for monitoring implementation. This plan supplements the 2014-2024 BINP General Management Plan, which already recognized the need for Batwa involvement in park management.
Overall, although the benefits sharing scheme has brought tangible benefits towards community relations and conservation goals for Bwindi, there are further improvements that could be made, particularly in addressing challenges related to equitable distribution of resources, land access and alternative livelihoods.
Legal framework
The legal framework is strong. Originally protected as a Forest Reserve in 1932, Bwindi became a National Park under Statutory Instrument No. 26 of 1991. Bwindi is protected under the provisions of various national laws including the Constitution (1995), Uganda Wildlife Act Cap 200 of 2000, National Environment Act (2000), Local Government Act (1997), the Land Act (1998), the Forest and Tree Planting Act 2003 and the Uganda Wildlife Policy (1999). No cultivation or settlement is permitted within the park, but peripheral communities can access some resources from the park through a multiple use program.
Governance arrangements
The park is managed by the semi-autonomous Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), established under the Uganda Wildlife Statute 1996 and the Wildlife Act 2019, with its own Board of Trustees. The peripheral local communities are allowed access to some resources from the park through a multiple-use program. Within the program collaborative management agreements with local communities were signed, defining resources to be used, the resource user community for each agreement and the agreed resource-use area for that community, together with the agreed control and monitoring mechanisms (MWE & UWA, 2023). However, there is demand to involve more communities in this arrangement. In a recent study on community attitudes and perceptions in the park 76.6% of respondents acknowledged benefiting from park services or products resulting from gorilla conservation, 23.4% expressed dissent. Diving deeper, various forms of benefit emerged: 0.5% reported employment with conservation agencies, 7.8% noted tourists purchasing local crafts, 13.3% cited livelihood support from revenue products, and 14.7% found solace in mere tourist presence. Moreover, 23.4% sourced raw materials for building, 22.5% appreciated token monetary gifts from tourists, and 14.2% obtained crafting materials, though 3.7% reported no tangible gains (EGI, 2024).
Integration into local, regional and national planning systems (including sea/landscape connectivity)
The park is managed alongside Mgahinga Gorilla National Park as the Bwindi Mgahinga Conservation Area within UWA’s regional management structure. Its management is in accordance with national wildlife policies and planning procedures. Coordination of management for all the parks that support mountain gorillas (in Uganda, Rwanda and DRC) is achieved through the International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP). Additionally, formal structures exist for collaborative management of trans boundary protected areas along defined boundary areas of Uganda, Rwanda and DRC, under the Greator Virunga Trans boundary Collaboration(GVTC). The site is part of this arrangement.
Boundaries
The park is an ‘ecological island’ of forest habitat in an intensively cultivated landscape. Its boundaries are well marked with concrete beacons and lines of planted trees, creating a ‘hard’ boundary, the intact forest of the park contrasting starkly with the adjacent cleared agricultural land. There are no significant boundary incursions. Other than a 4.2km squared strip of land in the southern part of the park, legally acquired from the community in 2004 to buffer the park from community land , there is no formally-recognised buffer zone, but forest-edge communities have been supported to plant trees and encouraged to grow crops that are not susceptible to damage by wildlife. The World Heritage site comprises two tracts of forest linked by a narrow ‘neck’ (which has a public road, of about 4 km, running through it), with a correspondingly high boundary:area ratio. This means that most of the forest is within easy walking distance (an hour or two) of the forest boundary and at risk from ‘edge effects’. The narrow neck seems to have (so far) prevented mountain gorillas from using the smaller northern tract of forest, which appears to offer suitable habitat.
Overlapping international designations
No overlaps with other international designations
Implementation of World Heritage Committee decisions and recommendations
At its 23rd session (1999) the Committee expressed concern about the deteriorating security situation at the property (after 8 visitors and a warden were killed by Rwandan rebels) and requested information on measures taken to improve it (Committee Decision, 1999). This request was addressed promptly by the State Party and there have been no significant security incidents in subsequent years.
Climate action
While the effects of climate change still remain poorly understood, there is a general consensus that climate change may cause far-reaching ecological changes with direct impacts of the forest ecosystems and well as more indirect human-mediated impacts as a result of changing livelihood scenarios surrounding the site. National and local projects have been therefore launched to address the problem. As part of the national "Investing in Forests and Protected Areas for Climate Smart Development Project" (IFPA-CD), funded by the World Bank and the Government of Uganda, a Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups Plan was developed for the Batwa people living around Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park (MWE & UWA, 2023). The plan aims to enhance the climate resilience of forest-dependent communities by strengthening coping strategies, diversifying forest management-related livelihoods and employment opportunities, and improving adaptive planning and management.
Management plan and overall management system
The park has been under planned management for more than half a century, the first management plans being produced by the Uganda Forestry Department. Park management is structured around actions dealing with (1) resource conservation and management, (2) tourism development, (3) community conservation, (4) park operations, (5) monitoring and research, and (6) regional collaboration, (7) climate change (GMP, 2014). Management is implemented by UWA, with support for community-level interventions outside the park provided by the Bwindi and Mgahinga Conservation Trust and other players eg IGCP , and research and monitoring led by Mbarara University’s Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation. The park has a General Management Plan (2014-2024) (UWA, 2015) and an Annual Operating Plan in place, supported by a strategic plan (2015-2020) (IUCN Consultation, 2017).
Law enforcement
The law enforcement was and is currently the most highly funded park program of the Bwindi. Sixty two percent (62%) of the Bwindi Impenetrable National Park work force has been assigned to law enforcement in comparison to only 4% and 1% for community conservation and research respectively (UWA, 2020). The Bwindi park management spends about US$163.500 annually in allowances, rations and equipment (excluding salaries) for patrolling the entire Bwindi Park (UWA, 2013). By 2020, there were 76 law enforcement rangers, and the total number of the ranger force is 190 to patrol the entire 321 Km2 area of the park. Presently, the Bwindi Impenetrable National Park ranger force stands at 140 personnel (although one source states there are 247 rangers (International Gorilla Conservation Programme, 2021) and is augmented in numbers by military and police personnel to patrol the forest (IUCN Consultation, 2020). While no updated information was available, the law enforcement seem to remain the greatest focus of the park management strategy and seem to be mostly effective accordingly, despite a few shortcomings.
Sustainable finance
The park benefits from two main sources of sustainable finance – an endowment fund, and the proceeds of gorilla-based tourism. The Bwindi Mgahinga Conservation Trust (BMCT) was established with approximately US$ 8 million of donor investment from the GEF, Netherlands and USAID in the 1990s (UNEP-WCMC, 2012). It provides support to local communities around the parks, as well as some research and monitoring activities. Gorilla-based tourism has grown rapidly in recent decades and has grown from generating US$ 1.2 million in park ‘gorilla tracking’ fees in 2007 (EoH, 2007) to the most recent figure of US$ 32.2 million in 2018/19, with higher fees and new groups of gorillas habituated. Revenues generated at Bwindi are used to cross-subsidize UWA operations across the Uganda national parks system, and were contributing 52% of UWA’s gross income as of 2018/19 (UWA Financial Budget, 2018/19). Based on this, the sustainable finance of the site is assessed was previously assessed as highly effective, however the impacts of travel restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020 have severely curtailed this important source of income and is of some concern, demonstrating the high reliance on tourism-related income. The temporary closure of the park during the outbreak resulted in a significant loss of tourism revenue, which strongly affected park operational activities such as patrolling, and exacerbated poverty in the already vulnerable and marginalized neighbouring communities (Bitariho et al., 2021; UWA, 2023), indicating a need to diversify sustainable finance resources for the overall park management. Nevertheless, in 2023 around 39,000 tourists visited the site, which would lead to an estimated $31.2 million in tourism-generated income purely from the cost of an hour-long visit per tourist of $800 (Cairns and Thin, 2025). Overall, the over reliance of the site (and indeed the national wildlife conservation efforts) on tourism revenue for financing is very precarious due to the fragility of tourism.
Staff capacity, training and development
The staffing at UWA is still very low compared to the mandate and the wide areas to be managed by the Authority (UWA, 2023). Additionally, the poor state of accommodation for the existing staff due to lack of adequate housing facilities affects the motivation and morale of staff to effectively execute their roles (UWA, 2023; BINP, 2020). Staff training of park management has been more focused on law enforcement department to the detriment of other departments such as research and monitoring and community conservation. However, currently Bwindi park management has adopted the Spatial Management and Reporting Tool (SMART) with technical training and financial support from Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), which has allowed more complex and useful analyses of the data collected by the rangers. Park management are currently exploring SMART Connect to ease data transmission, analyses and dissemination of results (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
Education and interpretation programmes
A community education and development plan aimed at strengthening awareness of park values amongst local communities is described in the GMP (UWA, 2013). This builds on earlier community education work involving video recording and local drama group productions, supported by CARE’s Development Through Conservation (DTC) project during the 90s (GMP, 2001). However, the remote location of the park and difficulty of access means that education programmes tend to be limited to the immediate vicinity of the park and target a relatively small number of beneficiaries. Due to the historical lack of funding to the community conservation department by UWA, there have been very little efforts put in place by park management in community education and making of conservation interpretative materials. However, UWA has developed an education and awareness strategy to guide sensitisation and education programmes in PAs. It is understood that BINP will use this strategy which is value based and optimize several dissemination channels, including the new visitor interpretation centre, which was constructed in 2019 (IUCN Consultation, 2020), however no further updated information is available.
Tourism and visitation management
Bwindi attracts relatively low numbers of ‘high-value’ visitors, prepared to pay the substantial amounts charged for gorilla tracking (US$ 700 per person as of July 2020). Although it is hoped to diversify the range of activities on offer at Bwindi, most visitors come to make the one-day trek to spend an hour with a habituated group of mountain gorillas. The number of visitors has grown consistently year on year since the park was designated as a National Park with subsequent World Heritage status, reaching 36,341 in 2019 (IUCN Consultation, 2020). A new visitor information centre was constructed in 2019, with an interpretive centre and briefing area, equipped with audio/visual facilities and a restaurant. In addition, tourist guides are trained to inform visitors about wildlife, aspects of park ecology and human use of forest products. Outside of the park boundaries in neighboring areas, tourism infrastructures are increasing. The allure of the park is also attracting other activities, increasing pressure on the resources in the area. Given the isolation of the site, these developments outside of the property could become a concern if not managed in a sustainable manner. In recent years, conservation partners have raised concerns about mountain gorilla visitation management at the site, with evidence presented to management on multiple occasions related to over-capacity trekking (number of visitations per gorilla group per day, as well as number of people per visitation) and overall lack of rule-adherence during gorilla visits (minimum >7m distance from gorillas at all times) suggesting that the issue was widespread and required management intervention (Weber et al., 2020).
Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic the risk of transmitting human-borne diseases to gorilla became evident. In this respect, UWA closed the park in March 2020 to prevent infection and transmission. However, the loss of tourism revenue affected both the park and the local community wellbeing. The park was therefore re-opened in September 2020 largely to promote domestic tourism taking mitigations measures to reduce the threat of disease transmission and poaching (Wanyera, 2021; Kalema-Zikusoka et al., 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted therefore a clear need for caution in managing visitation in such a way that the potential for human-gorilla transmission of viruses is not realised as this may have dire consequences for the Bwindi population.
Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic the risk of transmitting human-borne diseases to gorilla became evident. In this respect, UWA closed the park in March 2020 to prevent infection and transmission. However, the loss of tourism revenue affected both the park and the local community wellbeing. The park was therefore re-opened in September 2020 largely to promote domestic tourism taking mitigations measures to reduce the threat of disease transmission and poaching (Wanyera, 2021; Kalema-Zikusoka et al., 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted therefore a clear need for caution in managing visitation in such a way that the potential for human-gorilla transmission of viruses is not realised as this may have dire consequences for the Bwindi population.
Sustainable use
There are currently 9 Memoranda of Understanding through which communities adjacent to the park can harvest medicinal plants, basketry materials and place beehives in designated zones (which collectively account for 18% of the park’s total area) (UWA & MWE, 2023). Recent focus is now geared towards supporting a large community project from Revenue Sharing Funds to provide local livelihood support (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Resource availability and off-take are monitored by park rangers and community members to ensure sustainable use. A wealth of past research has shown that the plant harvesting in Bwindi is sustainable and not detrimental to the site conservation (Bitariho et al 2006; Ndangalasi et al 2007; Stas et al 2016; Bitariho et al 2016) and there is no evidence to suggest this has changed.
Monitoring
Bwindi operates a Ranger-Based Monitoring (RBM) programme (Gray et al., 2005), through which rangers collect relevant data as part of their daily routine, which is used to detect broad trends within the ecosystem and inform management decision-making. The SMART system is now adopted and being used in coordination and with support from WCS and other partners like WWF and the International Gorilla Conservation Programme. To strengthen this programme, there is a need to standardize data collections tools, identify and incorporate robust parameters, develop electronic data transmission mechanisms and train staff to maximize uptake and wide application in UWA operations. The park management are exploring SMART Connect (SMART, 2020) to achieve these goals.
Research
Mbarara University’s Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation (ITFC) is an internationally-supported research institute located within the park at Ruhija. It provides management-orientated research services to the park, coordinating gorilla censuses, training university students, carrying out biodiversity inventories and hosting international scientific studies. Despite the existence of ITFC, however, not all the research results from the various studies carried form the basis for management decisions (GMP, 2001), and there is scope to strengthen the working relationships between UWA and ITFC. At a joint workshop during the preparation of the GMP (UWA 2013), priority research topics were identified, as well as other additional needs for management-orientated research. UWA currently does not prioritise its research and monitoring department like it does for other departments such as law enforcement.
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats outside the site
The site has a relatively long boundary and is surrounded by some of the most densely-populated agricultural land in Africa, so human-wildlife conflicts around the forest edge are widespread, and there is lingering resentment over the loss of resource access rights that accompanied the area’s designation as a national park, as well as limited livelihood opportunities available to the local community members. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the fragility of local livelihoods, as many community members relied on tourism for income. This disruption worsened poverty and temporarily increased illegal activities, including poaching. The challenge at Bwindi is to better link conservation and poverty alleviation– this requires understanding the role of poverty reduction activities in reducing biodiversity loss and the contribution that national park conservation can make towards this goal. Whilst schemes have brought tangible benefits, concerns remain over their efficiency and equity, particularly in dealing with complex issues such as human wildlife conflict.
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats inside the site
Management has been strongly supported by donors since the area became a national park. This has helped Bwindi become a regional ‘model of best practice’ in park management, developing a well-balanced strategy that includes strong initiatives for sustainable finance, community integration, park protection and management-orientated research and monitoring. A 2019 management effectiveness assessment carried out rated the National Park as 72% effective overall based on a number indicators such as legal framework, management objectives, park integrity, management plans, resource inventory, management systems, research, human and logistical capacity, benefits to communities, tourism among others. However, the COVID 19 pandemic evidenced the high dependence of park management and operational activities on tourism revenues, highlighting a clear need of financial resource diversification (Wanyera, 2021; Kalema-Zikusoka et al., 2021).
Protection and management of the area has been considerably strengthened since it became a national park in 1991 from the perspective of conserving the intact ecosystems contained within the park, including the gorilla population. About half of the park is now maintained as a wilderness zone, largely free of human activity, with a quarter designated for gorilla-based tourism and 20% managed for sustainable use of non-timber forest products by local communities. Despite the challenges of its situation as an ecological island, the park has developed a strong integrated management programme, which has been strengthened in recent years through SMART monitoring. The site has experienced ever-increasing revenue from gorilla tourism over the past decade, but this revenue source isn't sustainable as it depends on a single and yet very fragile industry. The impacts of COVID-19 on this important revenue stream affected both the park and local community well-being, and highlighted a clear need for caution given the potential for human-gorilla transmission of the virus. Plans addressing the significant challenges in the equity of benefits sharing exist, aiming to strengthen coping strategies, diversify forest management-related livelihoods and employment opportunities, and improve adaptive planning and management. Their implementation is crucial to improving park-community relations, and to diversify local community livelihood.
Good practice examples
The site has often been used as an example and pilot of new park management best practices. Most parks in Uganda learn from the Bwindi park. For example park management practices such as integrated resource use, revenue sharing, community protected area institutions, tourism development etc were first piloted in Bwindi and because of their success were adopted by other national parks in Uganda.
Mountain Gorillas and other threatened mammals
Good
Trend
Improving
Census data for mountain gorillas over the past 20 years indicate continued increase in population at Bwindi, with 400 individuals in 2011 (Robbins et al., 2009; IGCP, 2012) having increased to 459 in 2018 (Hickey et al., 2019). The next comprehensive survey will be undertaken towards the end of 2024 with results expected in 2025. The 2018 survey also collected data on selected mammal species in the greater the Bwindi-Sarambwe ecosystem and indicated almost unanimous increases in detection rate of eleven species, as well as detection of sitatunga and jackal, which were not previously identified in the 2011 survey (Hickey et al., 2019). While there are no more recent population censuses, the available data and the overall positive population trend for 2010-2020 (Wanjera et al., 2022) suggest that this value is in good condition and improving.
Rich montane flora and fauna.
Good
Trend
Improving
Positive ecological restoration trends (2010-2020), i.e. for African loxodanta (+73%), Gorilla beringei (+25.5%), Cercopirhicus lhoesti (+72%), Cercopithecus mitis (+85%) (Wanjera et al., 2022), indicate that some fauna and flora species in the park were restored. The 2018 Bwindi-Sarambwe surveys indicated modest increases in detection of selected mammal species in the greater the Bwindi-Sarambwe including newly detected species to the site, such as the Central African oyan (Poiana richardsonii) (Hickey et al., 2019). Therefore, despite not representing the entire suite of montane flora and fauna occurring in the site, the available data suggests that this value is in good condition and improving.
Rare and endemic birds
Good
Trend
Stable
There are no comprehensive data on trends in rare and endemic bird populations, but the property is well protected and the general state of conservation is good (EoH, 2007), so the status of the park’s birds is expected to be stable. Ornithological surveys carried out in collaboration with the US-based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) added several new records previously, as well as increased our understanding of the basic distribution and habitat requirements of the little-known Albertine Rift endemic bird species (EoH, 2007; see also www.albertinerift.org)
Occurrence of Albertine Rift endemic species
Good
Trend
Stable
There are no data on trends in the occurrence of endemic species, but the property is well protected and the general state of conservation is good (EoH, 2007), so this is expected to be stable
Diversity of co-evolving habitats
Good
Trend
Improving
Given that the property is well protected and the general state of conservation is now better than it was prior to the establishment of the national park in 1991 (EoH, 2007), habitats have been recovering from previous cutting of timber and returning to a more pristine condition. Periodic measurements of trees in permanent sampling plots by scientists at ITFC indicate a general accumulation of woody biomass. Furthermore, studies such as the Bwindi-Sarambwe 2018 Surveys (Hickey et al., 2019) and evaluation of restoration ecology trends (Wanyera et al., 2022) which show increasing trends for a range of indicator species would suggest that the site as a co-evolving habitat for endemic and endangered species typical of a range of ecosystems in the Albertine Rift is in good condition and improving.
Assessment of the current state and trend of World Heritage values
Improving
Since the change in management status in 1991 (from forest reserve to national park), timber harvesting and other forms of consumptive resource use have reduced in most areas, and increased protection has resulted in the recovery of more natural pristine habitats. Ecological restoration strategies in Bwindi were adopted and led to recovery of a several fauna and flora species. Although there are few supporting data of wider ecological status and trends other than information derived from key indicator species, it appears that these values of the property are at least stable, and may be improving in some respects. Mountain gorilla census data from 1997 to 2018 indicate an increasing population of these highly endangered primates with 459 individuals in 2018, an increase of 59 from 400 individuals identified in 2011. The same study also showed increasing detection rate of other selected mammal species, including endangered and vulnerable species such as chimpanzee and L’Hoest’s monkey to suggest that wider ecological health is also improving in general. Updated survey data is expected in 2025.
Assessment of the current state and trend of other important values
High Concern
Improving
The current state of the Batwa cultural heritage is assessed as of high concern, but improving. As a result of discrimination, marginalization, lack of land, and inadequate access to social, economic, and political opportunities and services, most Batwa around BINP live a destitute life (UWA & MWE, 2023). Poor health, poor living conditions and discrimination against the Batwa have been reported. Their native language, Orutwa, is at risk of getting extinct, as the language is not written and not promoted. The formal recognition of the cultural heritage of Batwa and the adoption of strategies and actions of the General Management Plan (2014-2024) and of the Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups are expected to have a positive impact on Batwa’s participation in and equitable benefit sharing from the park management.
Additional information
Collection of wild plants and mushrooms
There is an available Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between park management and the former forest dwellers (Batwa) that allows a selected Batwa group to collect wild yams from Bwindi. The wild yam harvest and collection by the Batwa are however limited to twice a year with limited offtake quotas. The Batwa are also not allowed to go to the forest alone. They are escorted by park rangers and this can lead to resentment (Bitariho et al 2006).
The park management are worried that the harvest and collection of yams by the Batwa (root tubers) could lead to overexploitation if not controlled. Therefore park management controls how the wild yams are collected. Currently there is no data available showing evidence of wild yam overexploitation.
Access to drinking water
The site has many rivers and other water sources that local communities use outside of the site boundaries. Three gravity flow schemes have been constructed to supply domestic use water to over 40,000 people. These include that of Rubuguri (south of the site), Banyara (central of site) and Buhoma (west). Some of these schemes are supplying water to neighbouring towns like those of Butogota and Rubugiri. Ruhija water scheme has now also been developed by the park to supply tourism and park facilities. This will also be provided to the nearby communities (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
Some of the water sources are getting polluted from agricultural practises and tourism activities within and around the site. It has been noted that the river Banyara and other water sources are getting acidic (Kasangaki et al 2006). Soil erosion as a result of poor agricultural practises has resulted in the siltation and poor water quality of some of the rivers used for supply of water to the local people (Kasangaki et al 2006). With increasing demand for water by the growing human population, there is a risk of over exploitation of the water sources.
Sustainable extraction of materials (e.g. coral, shells, resin, rubber, grass, rattan, etc)
There is an established program for local communities to collect plant resources used for basketry and medicinal purposes and placement of beehives at the park boundary for honey collection. This program has been established through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and has been ongoing for over two decades. Despite the program being in existence for a long time, it has been viewed by the local people as being too restrictive (Bitariho et al 2016).The plant resources that are most preferred by local people are those prohibited by park management. Local people get little income from use of these plant resources and therefore find the program limiting in terms of tangible benefits (Bitariho et al 2016).
All the recent studies carried in Bwindi have indicated that plant resource extraction in Bwindi is not overexploited (Bitariho et al 2006; Ndangalasi et al 2007; Bitariho et al 2016; Stas et al 2016). The current offtake quota of 1% is negligible and has been recommended to be increased to at least 3%.
History and tradition,
Sacred natural sites or landscapes,
Sacred or symbolic plants or animals,
Cultural identity and sense of belonging
The Batwa culture is deeply rooted in the forest (Fauna and Flora, 2013; Mbarara University of Science and Technology, 2020). Indeed, Batwa livelihoods, traditional practices and belief systems are directly linked to forest plants, animals and sites. Many forest myths, taboos, totems and folklore are narrated by Batwa. Batwa also attach considerable cultural importance to forest sites including caves, hot springs, swamps, rivers, hills, big stones and pits. Many of these sites have spiritual values which they believe helped their ancestors live for many years. For instance, burial sites were usually deep in the forests near big trees.
Provision of jobs,
Tourism-related income
UWA’s revenue-sharing scheme 20% of gate entry fees and a portion of the revenue from gorilla trekking permits are used on community projects ($1,181,323 in 2018/19 (IUCN Consultation, 2020)) as well as income from the Bwindi Camp.
Several jobs are created from the site related activities to the local economy, e.g. in lodges, tour guiding, offering porter services for tourists etc.
Revenue sharing: Between 1996 and 2022, UWA has disbursed Uganda shillings 10,354,274,025/- to the local governments surrounding Bwindi National Park as the mandatory 20% entrance fees and the additional $10 per gorilla tracking permit sold, since 2015. These funds have supported various community projects, ranging from Human- Wildlife conflict resolution interventions, livelihood improvement projects and infrastructure projects of community choice. This programme has demonstrated the economic value of the park to the community and contributed to improved attitudes.
Community based tourism and other enterprises: In addition to the many crafts sales outlets, community walks and performing arts groups set to entertain tourists at a fee around Bwindi, who mainly collaborate with the lodges around the park, NGOs working with UWA, set up several community groups to offer services to the tourism industry and benefit from the gorilla tourism operations around the park. Two of such groups are Buhoma Community Development Association in the Northern part of Bwindi and Nkuringo Conservation and Development Foundation in the southern sector. Buhoma community campground was set up in 1993 to provide accommodation (camping) for tourists. By 2015/16 the Buhoma community Development Association had received US $2.14 million from tourism since 1993 (WHS, 2016). Now, the community group is a fully fledged company serving the entire membership of Mukono parish. The company employs about 40 people, all members of the group. The group now operates 2 lodges, a secondary school, a SACCO, amongst other enterprises. They have installed two gravity water schemes for their community members and run a school bursary scheme. They have also started other community tourism enterprises, for example the ‘Buhoma Village Walk ’established with support from BMCT. The Nkuringo Community Development Foundation (NCDF) was started in 2004. The group now owns a 1 million dollar lodge that has been concessioned to a private company to manage. The NCDF has earned 3,945,754,000 from their lodge since it opened in 2006. They have also earned 192,000,000 from the buffer zone over the last 7 years. The group employs 50 locals (M: 35; F: 15). So far, they have built 4 staff houses at their primary schools, gave out 510 sheep, 24 heifers, and 230 pigs to their members for income generation. They have constructed a health unit and a visitor center for the community and a VIP latrine at their government owned Health Centre. They have so far sponsored 50 students in tertiary institutions on their bursary scheme. They have also constructed and established a community secondary school, in addition to capitalization of some community savings and credit associations.
As tourist numbers have increased, so have the number of tourism facilities. In 1993 there was only one tourism centre – the village of Buhoma. Now there are five key tourism centres around the Park. Buhoma in the west, Ruhija in the east, and Nkuringo, Rubuguri and Rushaga in the south, with Rubuguri acting as a hub for the southern sector. The number of lodges/accommodation facilities around Bwindi have increased from 1 in 1993 to 64 in 2022, with a total room capacity of 836. Between them, these lodges/hotels employ 788 (M: 582; F: 226) people, most of whom are from the local community (UBOS, 2021). A study conducted by IIED and Poverty and Conservation Learning group-Uganda chapter (PCLG-U) established that Bwindi lodges employ 76.2% local people, with the protected area’s adjacent communities taking 80% of the lower level jobs, 65% of mid-range jobs and 44% of senior level jobs. Annual income to the frontline village community employees of 40 lodge facilities totalled US $151,651, with US $211,609 for the local administrative parishes (Namara, 2015). So, the park through several opportunities it presents is truly making significant contribution to socioeconomic development of the community.
In Bwindi, in 2015/16, the annual estimates of community unskilled labour related to tourism (in the lodges) provides a direct income to communities, is at UG X648,000,000 (US $216,000). Meanwhile, there are 5 Porters associations around Bwindi. Each group has about 100 members, who are paid USD20 per day. Assuming each porter works twice in a month, that’s 40$ per month, which translates to 20,000USD per month and 240,000USD per year into the local economy (Personal communication by the Chairpersons of the porters groups). Three community groups were further supported through collaboration with partners such as International Gorilla Conservation Programme with seed money to start Accumulated Savings and Community Associations (ASCA) to support their livelihoods. Community groups were provided opportunity to exhibit Cultural performances at the briefing centres which has increased their craft sales by 50% rise in handcraft sales and boosted other tourism related businesses
In collaboration with stakeholders, 26 community projects comprising Irish potato, mushroom and vegetable growing were supported.
Several jobs are created from the site related activities to the local economy, e.g. in lodges, tour guiding, offering porter services for tourists etc.
Revenue sharing: Between 1996 and 2022, UWA has disbursed Uganda shillings 10,354,274,025/- to the local governments surrounding Bwindi National Park as the mandatory 20% entrance fees and the additional $10 per gorilla tracking permit sold, since 2015. These funds have supported various community projects, ranging from Human- Wildlife conflict resolution interventions, livelihood improvement projects and infrastructure projects of community choice. This programme has demonstrated the economic value of the park to the community and contributed to improved attitudes.
Community based tourism and other enterprises: In addition to the many crafts sales outlets, community walks and performing arts groups set to entertain tourists at a fee around Bwindi, who mainly collaborate with the lodges around the park, NGOs working with UWA, set up several community groups to offer services to the tourism industry and benefit from the gorilla tourism operations around the park. Two of such groups are Buhoma Community Development Association in the Northern part of Bwindi and Nkuringo Conservation and Development Foundation in the southern sector. Buhoma community campground was set up in 1993 to provide accommodation (camping) for tourists. By 2015/16 the Buhoma community Development Association had received US $2.14 million from tourism since 1993 (WHS, 2016). Now, the community group is a fully fledged company serving the entire membership of Mukono parish. The company employs about 40 people, all members of the group. The group now operates 2 lodges, a secondary school, a SACCO, amongst other enterprises. They have installed two gravity water schemes for their community members and run a school bursary scheme. They have also started other community tourism enterprises, for example the ‘Buhoma Village Walk ’established with support from BMCT. The Nkuringo Community Development Foundation (NCDF) was started in 2004. The group now owns a 1 million dollar lodge that has been concessioned to a private company to manage. The NCDF has earned 3,945,754,000 from their lodge since it opened in 2006. They have also earned 192,000,000 from the buffer zone over the last 7 years. The group employs 50 locals (M: 35; F: 15). So far, they have built 4 staff houses at their primary schools, gave out 510 sheep, 24 heifers, and 230 pigs to their members for income generation. They have constructed a health unit and a visitor center for the community and a VIP latrine at their government owned Health Centre. They have so far sponsored 50 students in tertiary institutions on their bursary scheme. They have also constructed and established a community secondary school, in addition to capitalization of some community savings and credit associations.
As tourist numbers have increased, so have the number of tourism facilities. In 1993 there was only one tourism centre – the village of Buhoma. Now there are five key tourism centres around the Park. Buhoma in the west, Ruhija in the east, and Nkuringo, Rubuguri and Rushaga in the south, with Rubuguri acting as a hub for the southern sector. The number of lodges/accommodation facilities around Bwindi have increased from 1 in 1993 to 64 in 2022, with a total room capacity of 836. Between them, these lodges/hotels employ 788 (M: 582; F: 226) people, most of whom are from the local community (UBOS, 2021). A study conducted by IIED and Poverty and Conservation Learning group-Uganda chapter (PCLG-U) established that Bwindi lodges employ 76.2% local people, with the protected area’s adjacent communities taking 80% of the lower level jobs, 65% of mid-range jobs and 44% of senior level jobs. Annual income to the frontline village community employees of 40 lodge facilities totalled US $151,651, with US $211,609 for the local administrative parishes (Namara, 2015). So, the park through several opportunities it presents is truly making significant contribution to socioeconomic development of the community.
In Bwindi, in 2015/16, the annual estimates of community unskilled labour related to tourism (in the lodges) provides a direct income to communities, is at UG X648,000,000 (US $216,000). Meanwhile, there are 5 Porters associations around Bwindi. Each group has about 100 members, who are paid USD20 per day. Assuming each porter works twice in a month, that’s 40$ per month, which translates to 20,000USD per month and 240,000USD per year into the local economy (Personal communication by the Chairpersons of the porters groups). Three community groups were further supported through collaboration with partners such as International Gorilla Conservation Programme with seed money to start Accumulated Savings and Community Associations (ASCA) to support their livelihoods. Community groups were provided opportunity to exhibit Cultural performances at the briefing centres which has increased their craft sales by 50% rise in handcraft sales and boosted other tourism related businesses
In collaboration with stakeholders, 26 community projects comprising Irish potato, mushroom and vegetable growing were supported.
Collection of medicinal resources for local use
Some Batwa still go to the forests for spiritual and medicinal purposes under the arrangement of CRM with UWA. In collaboration with Kisoro and Kanungu DLG the Batwa could also be supported to create Herbariums/botanical gardens to plant and safeguard key medicinal and cultural plants. The botanical gardens will, therefore, be used for transfer of knowledge especially in cultural and herbal medicine. There is already a pilot between Batwa, Ruburi Town council, and MUST where the Batwa are collecting seedlings from BINP to establish an indigenous medicine garden in Kobusiina Forest.
Studies have indicated that plant resource extraction in Bwindi is not overexploited (Bitariho et al 2006; Ndangalasi et al 2007; Bitariho et al 2016; Stas et al 2016). The current offtake quota of 1% is negligible and has been recommended to be increased to at least 3% to allow more local involvement in the program.
Although the park provides significant benefits to local communities including through employment opportunities with conservation agencies, tourists purchasing local crafts, livelihood support from revenue products, sourcing raw materials for building, token monetary gifts from tourists, and obtaining crafting materials, some community members still report a lack of tangible gains. There is a potential for the site to provide more benefits to local people and others than is currently provided through park resources, employment, tourism related benefits etc.
| № | Organization | Brief description of Active Projects | Website |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bwindi Mgahinga Conservation Trust | Range of community-support projects with funding stream from large capital endowment |
https://www.bwindiimpenetrablenationalpark.com/community-tourism/
|
| 2 | International Gorilla Conservation Programme (WWF, FFI & AWF) | Interventions to support conservation of both populations of mountain gorillas (i.e. the trans-boundary population in the Uganda/Rwanda/DRC Virungas volcanoes, and the Bwindi population), Nkuringo buffer zone management, Gorilla FriendlyTM tourism, SMART support, Social Assessment of Protected and Conserved Areas support |
http://www.igcp.org/
|
| 3 | Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Albertine Rift Conservation Programme | Biodiversity inventories and conservation planning on regional basis along the Albertine (western) Rift Valley |
https://conservationcorridor.org/cpb/Plumptre_et_al_2016.pdf
|
| 4 | Gorilla Doctors | Gorilla Doctors is dedicated to saving the mountain and eastern lowland (Grauer’s) gorilla species using veterinary medicine and science with a One Health approach. The international veterinary team provides hands-on medical care to ill and injured mountain and Grauer’s gorillas living in the national parks of Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). |
https://www.gorilladoctors.org/about-us/where-we-work/
|
| 5 | Max Planck Institute for Biological Anthropology - Gorilla Group | The Gorilla Research Group focuses on the behavioral ecology of gorillas, including mountain gorillas in Uganda and western lowland gorillas in Gabon (see Bwindi Gorilla Project and Loango Gorilla Project in the field sites section, below). It focuses on the drivers of behavioral, ecological, and life history variability exhibited within and between gorilla populations and species, with the goal of understanding how these drivers influence the evolution of sociality. The team uses observational methods and census data to study social grouping, feeding ecology, and life history within populations, and comparative approaches to compare across sites (Bwindi and Loango, but also with collaborations of other long-term gorilla sites). The group also strives to conduct research and community projects that assist in the conservation of gorillas. |
https://www.eva.mpg.de/de/primate-behavior-and-evolution/research-groups/gorilla-group/
|
| 6 | Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation | The Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation (ITFC) is a leading Ugandan research institution working primarily for biodiversity conservation and the sustainable management of natural resources in the Albertine Rift ecoregion. They have various projects which can be grouped into 3 categories. Research and Monitoring projects, Income generating projects and Research supervision and support projects. |
http://itfc.must.ac.ug/projects
|
| 7 | Greater Virunga Transboundary Collaboration | Activities of the Greater Virunga Transboundary Collaboration aim at conserving the Greater Virunga Landscape through law enforcement, landscape management, community conservation and tourism development. |
https://greatervirunga.org/
|
| 8 | The Gorilla Organization | From the Gorilla Organization’s field headquarters and training centre in Kisoro, the Regional Programme Manager oversees a range of projects designed to foster sustainable community-based conservation and support the rangers and operations of the Uganda Wildlife Authority. The projects are strategically located in areas adjacent to the gorilla habitats of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park and Mgahinga Gorilla National Park. By improving economic opportunities and standards of well-being in the communities closest to the gorilla habitat, we continue to garner their long-term support for gorilla conservation. The approach successfully diminishes the demand for forest products such as timber, fuelwood, bush meat, honey, medicinal plants, bamboo, mushrooms, and water. This, in turn, helps to protect and preserve vital natural resources and the habitat of Uganda’s 400 mountain gorillas. |
https://gorillas.org/gorilla-conservation-projects/
|
References
| № | References |
|---|---|
| 1 |
Akampurila, E, Bitariho, R & Mugerwa, B. (2015). An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Nkuringo Buffer Zone in Mitigating Crop Raiding Incidences around Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, S.W. Uganda. Unpublished technical report for the International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP), Kabale.
|
| 2 |
Amusa, C., Rothman, J., Odongo, S., Matovu, H., Ssebugere, P., Baranga, D., Sillanpää, M. (2021). The endangered African Great Ape: Pesticide residues in soil and plants consumed by Mountain Gorillas (Gorilla beringei) in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, East Africa. Science of The Total Environment 758, 143692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143692
|
| 3 |
Baker J, Bitariho R, Gordon-Maclean A, Kasoma P, Roe D, Sheil D, Twinamatsiko M, Tumushabe G, van Heist M &Weiland M (2014). Linking Protected Area Conservation with Poverty Alleviation in Uganda: Integrated conservation and Development at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Nova Science Publishers, Inc, New York
|
| 4 |
Barr, R, Burgues, I.A, Asuma, S, Masozera, A.B & Gray, M (2015). Pave the Impenetrable? An Economic Analysis of Potential Ikumba-Ruhija Road Alternatives in and Around Uganda's Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Technical report, www.conservation-strategy.org
|
| 5 |
BirdLife International (2024). Important Bird Area factsheet: Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (Uganda). [online]. Availalbe at: https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/bwindi-impenet… [Accessed 6 December 2024]
|
| 6 |
Bitariho R, McNeilage A, Babaasa D and Barigyira R (2006). Plant harvest impacts and sustainability in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, S.W Uganda. African Journal of Ecology, 44 (1), 14-21,
|
| 7 |
Bitariho, R and Akampurira, E (2019). Harvesting of wild climbers, food security and ecological implications in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, S.W Uganda, BMCT publications, Kabale.
|
| 8 |
Bitariho, R, Akampurira, E, Twinomuhangi, I, (2019). The effectiveness of Problem Animal Mitigation interventions around Karangara and Bujengwe Parishes, Kanungu District, Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, SW Uganda, BMCT publications, Kabale. [online]. Available at: The-effectiveness-of-Problem-Animal-Mitigation-interventions-around-Karangara-and-Bujengwe-Parishes-Kanungu-District-Bwindi-Impenetrable-National-Park-SW-Uganda.pdf
|
| 9 |
Bitariho, R, Sheil D, Eilu G (2016). Tangible Benefits or Token Gestures: Does Bwindi Impenetrable National Park’s long established Multiple Use Programme benefit the poor? Journal of Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 25 (1): 16-32.
|
| 10 |
Bitariho, R, Twinamatsiko, M, Babaasa, D (2019). The influence of Bwindi Mgahinga Conservation Trust programmes on local communities around Bwindi Mgahinga Conservation Area, BMCT publications
|
| 11 |
Bitariho, R., Akampurira, E., Mugerwa, B. (2021). Long-term funding of community projects has contributed to mitigation of illegal activities within a premier African protected area, Bwindi impenetrable National Park, Uganda. Conservation Science and Practice. 2022;4:e12761. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12761
|
| 12 |
Cairns, R. and Thin, S. (2025). Meet the conservationist saving gorillas in Uganda’s ‘impenetrable forest’. Conservation Through Public Health. Published online 27 March 2025. Available at: https://ctph.org/meet-the-conservationist-saving-gorillas-i…
|
| 13 |
Davenport,T. P. Howard & R.Matthews (1996). Biodiversity Report No 19. Uganda Forest Department, Kampala, Uganda. Available at: https://www.wildsolutions.nl/wp-content/uploads/Uganda-Biod…
|
| 14 |
EGI (2024). A research survey report on the local communities' attitudes and perceptions towards the conservation of Mountain Gorilla in Bwindi Impenetrable Park in Western Uganda. Environment Governance Institute Uganda, Kampala, Uganda, pp. 1-40. Available at: https://www.egiuganda.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Final-…
|
| 15 |
EoH (2007). Enhancing Our Heritage. Final Assessment. UNESCO/IUCN.
|
| 16 |
Fauna and Flora (2013). Batwa cultural values in Bwindi Impenetrable and Mgahinga Gorilla National Parks, Uganda. A report of a cultural assessment. [online]. Available at: https://www.iapad.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Batwa-cult… [Accessed on 27 November 2024]
|
| 17 |
Franks, P., & Twinamatsiko, M. (2017). Lessons learnt from 20 years of revenue sharing at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda. London, United Kingdom: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Medard_Twinamatsiko/pu… (Accessed 6 September 2019).
|
| 18 |
GMP (2001). Bwindi/Mgahinga General Management Plan 2001-11. 108pp. Uganda Wildlife Authority
|
| 19 |
Gray, M. & Kalpers, J. (2005). Ranger based monitoring in the Virunga–Bwindi region of East-Central Africa: a simple data collection tool for park management. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14:2723–2741.
|
| 20 |
Hanes, A. C., Kalema-Zikusoka, G., Svensson, M. S., & Hill, C. M. (2018). Assessment of Health Risks Posed by Tourists Visiting Mountain Gorillas in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda. Primate Conservation, 32, pp.123-132.
|
| 21 |
Hickey, J.R., Uzabaho, E., Akantorana, M., Arinaitwe, J., Bakebwa, I., Bitariho, R., Eckardt, W., Gilardi, K.V., Katutu, J., Kayijamahe, C., Kierepka, E.M., Mugabukomeye, B., Musema, A., Mutabaazi, H., Robbins, M.M., Sacks, B.N., and Zikusoka, G.K. (2019). Bwindi-Sarambwe 2018 Surveys: monitoring mountain gorillas, other select mammals, and human activities. GVTC, IGCP & partners, Kampala, Uganda, 40pp.
|
| 22 |
IGCP (2021). IGCP Position on Nteko-Buhoma Road Construction. [online]. Available at: https://igcp.org/updates/igcp-position-on-nteko-buhoma-road… [Accessed on 27 November 2024]
|
| 23 |
IGCP (2024). Conservationists Warned Against the Dangers of Non-Compliance to Gorilla Visitation Rules. [online]. International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP) Available at: https://igcp.org/updates/conservationists-warned-against-th…
|
| 24 |
IGCP (2024b). Human Gorilla Conflict Resolution Teams (HUGOs) Teams Around BMCA Get Field Equipment. [online] International Gorilla Conservation Programme. Available at: https://igcp.org/updates/human-gorilla-conflict-resolution-… [Accessed on 27 November 2024]
|
| 25 |
IUCN (2025). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2025-1. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org
|
| 26 |
IUCN Consultation (2020). IUCN World Heritage Confidential Consultation: Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda.
|
| 27 |
International Gorilla Conservation Programme (2021). Rangers: Going Against all Odds to Protect the Endangered Mountain Gorillas! International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP). Published online 28. July 2021. Accessible at: https://igcp.org/updates/rangers-going-against-all-odds-to-…
|
| 28 |
Kalema-Zikusoka,G. , Rubanga,S.,Ngabirano, A., Zikusoka, L. (2021). Mitigating Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Gorilla Conservation: Lessons From Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda. J Frontiers in Public Health 9, 2296-2565. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.655175
|
| 29 |
Kasangaki, A., Babaasa, D., Efitre, J., McNeilage, A., Bitariho, R. (2006). Links between anthropogenic perturbations and Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in Afromontane forest streams in Uganda. Hydrobiologia 563:231-245
|
| 30 |
Kungu, J., Neumbe, J., Kiganira, D. B., Tino, P., Namayanja, J., Kassuja, R., Nankya, A., Nizeyi, J., B. (2023). Prevalence and predisposing factors of covid-19 in Bwindi -Mgahinga mountain gorilla conservation area landscape, Uganda. PREPRINT (Version 1). Research Square. [online] Available at: [https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3249420/v1]
|
| 31 |
MWE & UWA (2023). Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups Plan (VMGP) for the Batwa around the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park. Ministry of Water and Environment and Uganda Wildlife Authority March 2023. [online]. Available at: https://www.nfa.go.ug/images/Vulnerable_and_Marginalized_Gr… [Accessed on 27 November 2024]
|
| 32 |
MWE (2020) Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups Framework (VMGF) for Uganda. Ministry of Water and Environment March 2020. Available at: https://ugandawildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Vulne… [Accessed on 27 November 2024]
|
| 33 |
Muhereza, R. (2021). UNRA cuts through Bwindi park to build Kisoro-Kanungu road. [online] Daily monitor 17/04/2021. Available at: https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/unra-cuts-th… [Accessed on 27 November 2024]
|
| 34 |
Muhwezi, L., Basoona, N. K., & Acai, J. (2021). An assessment of rural road networks management in Uganda as a driver of economic development: A case study of Kabarole district. International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 10(1), 8-16. doi:10.5923/j.ijcem.20211001.02
|
| 35 |
Ndangalasi, H.J., Bitariho, R and Delali B.K. Dovie (2007). Harvesting of non-timber forest products and implications for conservation in two montane forests of East Africa, Biological Conservation, Vol 134 (2,) 242-250
|
| 36 |
Robbins, M.M., M Gray, E. Kagodo and A.M. Robbins (2009). Population dynamics of the Bwindi mountain gorillas. Biological Conservation 142: 2886-2895
|
| 37 |
Ssentongo, P., Muwanguzi, A.J.B., Eden, U. et al. (2018)Changes in Ugandan Climate Rainfall at the Village and Forest Level. Sci Rep 8, 3551. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21427-5
|
| 38 |
Stas S, Langbroek, E.M, Bitariho, R, Sheil, D, & Zuidema P, (2016). Matrix population models indicate that bark harvest of two medicinal plants in Uganda’s Bwindi Impenetrable National Park is sustainable. African journal of Ecology 0141-6707 – 7
|
| 39 |
Stattersfield et al. (1998). Endemic Bird Areas of the world. Birdlife international, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
|
| 40 |
Tolbert, S., Makambo, W., Asuma, S., Musema, A., & Mugabukomeye, B. (2019). The Perceived Benefits of Protected Areas in the Virunga-bwindi Massif. Environmental Conservation, 46(1), pp.76-83.
|
| 41 |
UN News (2022). Thousands escape to Uganda following violent clashes in DR Congo. [online]. Available at:https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115362 [Accessed on 27 November 2024]
|
| 42 |
UNEP-WCMC (2012) Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda. UNEP-WCMC World Heritage Information Sheets. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC.
|
| 43 |
UWA (2013). Bwindi Impenetrable National Park General Management Plan-2013 – 2023. Unpublished report, Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities (MTWA), Kampala
|
| 44 |
UWA (2015). The Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park, General Management Plan 2014-2023. Uganda Wildlife Authority. [online]. Available at: https://ugandawildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/bwind… [Accessed on 27 November 2024]
|
| 45 |
UWA (2016). Bwindi Impenetrable National Park's Annual Operations Plan for 2016. Unpublished report to UWA headquarters, Kampala
|
| 46 |
UWA (2022-2023). Bwindi Impenetrable National Park. Uganda Wildlife Authority. Website. [online]. Available at: https://ugandawildlife.org/national-parks/bwindi-impenetrab… [Accessed on 27 November 2024]
|
| 47 |
UWA (2024). Guidelines for the Management of Gorilla/Chimpanzee Tracking and other Tourism Products. Uganda Wildlife Authority. [online]. Available at: https://ugandawildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Guide… [Accessed on 27 November 2024]
|
| 48 |
Wanyera Francis, Mutugi Chira Robert, Najma Dharani, Gichuki Nathaniel. Ecological Restoration as a Strategy to Ecosystem Conservation and Community Livelihood: A Case Study of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park. International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy. Vol. 10, No. 4, 2022, pp. 109-117. doi: 10.11648/j.ijepp.20221004.15
|
| 49 |
Weber, A., Kalema-Zikusoka, G., Stevens, N. J. (2020). Lack of Rule-Adherence During Mountain Gorilla Tourism Encounters in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda, Places Gorillas at Risk From Human Disease. Frontiers in Public Health 8, 2020. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00001
|
| 50 |
World Heritage Committee (1999) Decision 23 COM XB.28 Bwindi Impenetrable National Park.
|
| 51 |
World Heritage Committee (2011) Decision 35 COM 8E Bwindi Impenetrable National Park Adoption of retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (Uganda).
|