Chapter I. Introduction

Box 1. The Origins of the One Degree South Uganda-Tanzania Boundary

The boundaries between Uganda and Tanzania and between Uganda and Rwanda show different approaches to boundary setting. The Uganda-Rwanda border is defined by physical features, and therefore is a “natural” boundary. The boundary between Uganda and Tanzania, by contrast, originated with Britain and Germany delimiting their sphere of influence in Eastern Africa by a line extending from the western to the eastern shore of Lake Victoria. On the Uganda border, in the absence of any local agreements, and with no detailed local knowledge, the “hinterland boundary” (on the far side of Lake Victoria) was agreed to in 1890. The agreed border was described as follows:

“…the point on the eastern side of Lake Victoria on the 1^st parallel south, thence crossing the lake on that parallel, it follows the parallel to the frontier of the Congo Free State.”

The benefit to be had by drawing this artificial boundary was clear—there was a need for physical demarcation as German influence was trying to extend to Kakuto in Uganda—in claiming that this was in Deutsch Ost-Afrika (German East Africa, or DOA). So from 1902 to 1904 a boundary commission erected 42 pillars and surveyed a 15 km.-wide strip on both sides of the boundary. Two areas of difficulty were found: in the west around what was Mt Mufumbiro, and on land north and south of the Kagera River, which crossed the 1 degree parallel three times. After the First World War, in 1919, Germany renounced its rights over overseas possessions. In 1922 the League of Nations divided DOA into two parts—Ruanda-Urundi went to the Belgians and the Tanganyika Territory (TT) to the British. There was debate about the Ruanda-Urundi border with Tanganyika, but eventually the Kagera River was used. If one argues that a sensible decision was made to use a major river in that case, the question arises as to why the latitude parallel instead of the same Kagera River to demarcate the Uganda-TT border all the way to Lake Victoria.

Germany in 1890 agreed that Uganda was under British influence, but that the British had no claim or role closer to the Congo. The Germans would not allow this British influence to go more than 1 degree south. Explorer Stanley argued that the Kagera made a more normal boundary and separated the TT Kingdoms of Karagwe and Buziba from those of Uganda. Some observers believe that Germany would have accepted this suggestion but the British Government did not pursue it. After the 1902–04 boundary commission completed its work, the British Commissioner, Lt. Col. Delme-Radcliffe argued that the parallel be replaced by a natural boundary. He suggested the Kagera River, from its entry into Lake Victoria upstream to its confluence with the Kakitumba River, as the border. Then it would follow a natural and agreed border to Rwanda. This suggestion would affect two pieces of land:

• The Kagera Salient: land north of the Kagera but south of the parallel, which therefore was owned by Germany even though the people had allegiances in Uganda. This is a 1,200 sq. km. area, comprising “a pitiless swamp, virgin forest and tsetse fly inhabited jungle.”
• The Kagera Triangle: land south of the Kagera, but north of the parallel, which therefore was owned by Uganda even though the people had allegiances in TT.² This is some 40 sq. km., with islands.

Delme-Radcliffe proposed that Britain should give the triangle to Germany, and Germany would give the salient to Britain. A port in the triangle area would compensate the difference in size. It was stated that administration would be much easier as neither side would have to cross the difficult Kagera River. It is interesting that by 1914 district administrators in both German Bukoba and British Masaka had asked for the boundary to be changed to follow the river. The substance of these arguments is an easily administered boundary. People were not considered in these arguments, although Delme-Radcliffe stated the people of the Salient were “of no particular value to either administration, but they belong by rights to the Ugandan Ankole (pastoralist) and Buddu (Buganda) groups.” The Delme-Radcliffe recommendations were not accepted, however. The boundary still follows the 1^st degree south parallel and the Minziro-Sango Bay Forest is still bisected. The salient issue returned to haunt later governments with Idi Amin’s invasion of Tanzania in the 1970s—see Box 6. Box 1 is based on the book by McEwan (1971).

Box 2. The GEF Cross-Borders Biodiversity Project (CBBP)

The MSBF site is one of four pairs of cross-border sites in this five-year Global Environment Facility project. The project has activities from the village level, to district (e.g., Bukoba, Rakai), national, and regional levels. CBBP has two immediate objectives under the broad goal of “reducing the rate of loss of forest and wetland biodiversity in specific cross-border sites of national and global significance.”

(a) “To establish an environment around the cross-border sites where local agencies and communities can promote sustainable use of biodiversity”; and

(b) “To bring into balance the demand and supply of natural resource products including biodiversity at the cross-border sites.”

These objectives are outlined in greater detail in the Annex.

The first objective is largely aimed at building capacity within the whole environment in which biodiversity conservation takes place (including capacity to address TBNRM). Four outputs address this capacity. Two are resource management agencies within government and within local communities. A third is aimed at the small institutions of policy and law within the overall-enabling environment that is “created with compatible and effective policy and legislative frameworks.” The fourth output deals with developing transboundary processes at both national and local levels.

The second objective deals with managing supply and demand within three outputs. The first creates management plan processes for the target forest reserves in a participatory and holistic manner, which would include cross-border issues. The second and third outputs develop alternative resource use technologies and alternative income strategies, respectively.

CBBP is thus an Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP) working with both conservation issues within the forest reserves and the development of sustainable livelihood issues with adjacent communities. Both components have a transboundary approach. CBBP has separate national components, funded through government environmental institutions, which follow national execution modalities. In addition there is a regional component that supports regional studies and fosters regional linkages. The project works through partnerships with agencies (e.g., Uganda Forest Department), districts, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and regional partners such as the Africa Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN).

In 1999, CBBP initiated detailed site planning processes, with considerable levels of community participation. Steps included situation analyses, stakeholder analysis, threat/opportunity analyses, setting strategic interventions, and Monitoring and Evaluation frameworks. The site planning process raised a great deal of awareness and ownership of conservation issues at both local community and district levels. This basis for participation is being used in the preparation of forest management plans at both project sites. CBBP pioneered a dialogue between Rakai and Mbarara districts from Uganda and Bukoba from Tanzania on cross-border biodiversity management. The regional component of CBBP initiated a series of studies into the broader policy and economic policy environment that affects the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity values in the cross-border sites. This analysis is at local, national, and regional levels. The initial reports (by ACTS on policy, and by IUCN on economics, both in 1999) have fed into this case study—see Chapter V.

Box 3. TBNRM Sites across the Tanzania-Uganda Border

Kagera River. The Kagera River rises in Rwanda and Burundi and forms the boundary between Tanzania and Rwanda before turning eastward to flow into Lake Victoria within the MSBF complex. The Kagera River is the principal river-flow into the Lake, and has implications for Nile River waters (see Box 11 on the Nile River basin initiative in the Regional Overview in this volume). Much of the Kagera is slow-flowing, extensive papyrus-filled lagoons with broad floodplain grasslands. The meandering river is in some cases a “no man’s land” where it forms the border, and allowing unchecked cultivation along the banks in those areas is causing rapid siltation, and consequently pollution for Lake Victoria. The Kagera River floods frequently and the flat terrain near Lake Victoria and MSBF can be under 50 cm. of water for several months. This flooding allows the continuation of the swamp-forest as local rainfall (c. 750 mm. pa) is too low for wet forest. The Kagera River is not yet used for irrigation. Fishing is at a subsistence level. The river achieved notoriety in the 1990s as the source of water hyacinth into Lake Victoria (see the Regional Overview in this volume) and for carrying several hundred human bodies following the 1994–95 genocide in Rwanda.

The Dry Grasslands of Karagwe-Mbarara (and Northeast Rwanda). These areas accommodate the Bahima pastoralists who move seasonally from the drier grasslands to the swamps around MSBF in the dry season. Water and fires are key aspects of their ecology. The area is a potential UNEP-UNDP GEF project site, focusing on maintaining landscape and community biodiversity. In the process of searching for pasture and water the pastoralists are blamed for starting fires, charcoal production, banditry, and so on. Conflicts abound between pastoralists and cultivators, although there also is synergy through cultivators’ use of pastoralists’ dung manure and pastoralists’ cows grazing on fallow fields.

Wildlife Protected Areas. The Ibanda Arena Game Reserve (of 500 sq. km.) is the apex of the borders among Uganda, Rwanda, and Tanzania. Home to beautiful scenery, the area was used for hunting professionally in the 1960s and 1970s (by Uganda Wildlife Safaris—interestingly in an early case of TBNRM utilization.). Lack of protection and massive poaching has greatly reduced populations. The Rumanyika Game Reserve (named after a past Haya paramount chief) is a more hilly forested area. Renowned at one time for extraordinarily high rhinoceros densities (now hunted to the brink of completely being wiped out), the area has more recently gained attention for bird populations (Marc Baker, pers. comm.). Both game reserves are managed as a national wildlife project, with some funding via the European Union (EU). Lake Mburo National Park (gazetted in 1983 as 200 sq. km.) in the Mbarara District is some 40 km. from the Tanzanian border. The scale of land and grazing pressure makes the future of this little-visited park uncertain. Recurrent droughts in the area (rainfall averaging 600–700 mm. pa) lead to enormous pastoralist pressures.

While these protected areas (Pas) are close to (e.g., Mburo) or on (e.g., Ibanda) national boundaries, none of the PAs have strong potential as full TBNRMAs, although sympathetic land use in boundary areas could enhance conservation efforts. As border areas are largely pastoralist, this is feasible.