assist in reducing the costs incurred in loss of sugar to animals and payments to patrol
guards.
A meeting was held at KSW on 20 September 2000 between BFP and KSW. We
agreed on the principle of a buffer zone and discussed how long and how wide it should
be, and what it should consist of. Serious damage to cane from animals extends some
25 m into fields, so the width should be 25 m. An initial buffer zone could be 1 km long.
It was suggested that the buffer zone might be planted with sugar cane. A thorn hedge
could be planted between the buffer zone and the adjacent production zone. Animals
proceeding beyond the thorn hedge would be subject to patrol guards. But in the buffer
zone they would be free to feed on the sugar cane.
At present the area of the buffer zone is privately owned. Compensation to farmers
whose land would be confiscated was discussed. The question arose at the meeting at
KSW of who would manage the buffer zone? It would need to be carefully managed
because sugar would have to be planted and weeded, and replaced after each three-year
period because of disease. In addition, patrol guards would be needed to deter local
hunters from placing snares and traps in the buffer zone to provide meat. KSW would
probably not be interested in managing the buffer zone because its remit is to produce
sugar. Some cost savings to KSW would arise from the buffer zone and these might
form the basis for a financial contribution by KSW to the management of the zone. BFP
is not in a position to manage the buffer zone. It therefore needs to be explored who
would manage it. It was suggested that local people should be made responsible for this.
An alternative might be NFA.
Money would be needed for a number of purposes, e.g. purchase of buffer zone land,
compensation to landowners for loss of income, planting of sugar or other crops on
buffer zone land, managing the crop, guarding the buffer zone against human activities,
and planting and maintaining the thorn hedge. For these purposes a conservation fund is
needed. An initial suggestion was ECOTRUST, the Environmental Conservation Trust
of Uganda. This organization may be able to acquire land and offer environmental
easements in areas requiring conservation, and hold such land in trust for suitable
management purposes.
On 23 September 2000 F. Babweteera and I met with officials from ECOTRUST in
Kampala and had a discussion of the possibilities. To date nothing further has been
heard of this initiative. We remain hopeful that some progress will be made with a view
to reducing the incidence of chimpanzee deaths and injuries resulting from the fact that
sugar cane is planted too close to the forest edge at the present time. At least this idea is
worthy of further exploration.
A small step forward was made in 2003 after the death of Jambo, described in
Chapter 9. After this tragedy, senior members of BFP met with senior representatives of
KSW. The staff of the Sugar Works were very concerned that one of our fine males had
been speared to death by one of the field guards and noted that this was directly related
to the fact that outgrowers were planting fields of cane right up to the forest edge.
They agreed to harvest the sugar cane crop early (it would have normally been harvested
three months later), to plough the field and the one next to it, and later to burn it over.
Buffer zones 237