Mitigating Impacts of Projects on Biodiversity Conservation in UgandaFred R Muwanika*, Mwaura F, Ogwal F, Masiga M, Akullo M and Okurut TO
National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) House, P.O Box 22255, Kampala, Uganda
- *Corresponding Author:
- Fred R Muwanika
National Environmental Management Authority
Tel: +256 779 604 453
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: May 31, 2017; Accepted date: June 13, 2017; Published date: June 20, 2017
Citation: Muwanika FR, Mwaura F, Ogwal F, Masiga M, Akullo M, et al. (2017) Mitigating Impacts of Projects on Biodiversity Conservation in Uganda. J Ecosyst Ecography 7: 232. doi: 10.4172/2157-7625.1000232
Copyright: © 2017 Muwanika FR, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Introduction: This study provides light on the impact of implemented projects on biodiversity in Uganda in terms of harmful and enhancing projects. Biodiversity harmful projects are defined as the types of projects that destroy or led to biodiversity loss during their implementation. While biodiversity enhancing are projects that lead to biological diversity during their implementation.
Objective: The objective of the study was to assess the impact of implemented projects in the communities on biodiversity conservation and management in Uganda.
Methods: The data used in this analysis was obtained from Uganda Bureau of statistics (UBOS) previously collected during the National Service Delivery Survey. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was used to derive the different impact dimensions of projects on biodiversity among the communities in Uganda.
Results: Implemented projects in the communities impact on biodiversity both positively and negatively. Findings revealed that livestock improvement/restocking/breeding contribute about 30% on the biodiversity positive impacts while introduction of improved crop variety at about 20% and agricultural technology at about 11.4%. Furthermore, construction of new road/bridges are the leading projects in destroying biodiversity accounting for about 13.5% of the variation in negative impacts while construction of toilet/latrines and health units accounts for 11.8% and 9.4%, respectively of the variation in biodiversity loss.
Conclusions and recommendations: Construction related projects impact negatively on biodiversity in their implementation while agricultural related projects are the leading agro-biodiversity enhancing projects in Uganda. This implies that works sector must play an important role in biodiversity conservation in Uganda. Secondly, construction and agriculture related projects should endeavour to allocate a percentage of the project budget equivalent to expected impact on biodiversity towards its management and restoration.