**3. Results**

#### *3.1. Main Perceptions Found With SenseMaker* ®

The findings of the SenseMaker ® analysis created an integrated view of the stakeholder's perceptions about inclusive decision-making in landscape governance. This section will explore key dimensions of inclusive decision-making and establish how people perceived the governance of their landscape, with a focus on the roles of key institutions, participation in decision-making, and the fairness of decisions. Although the results of both landscapes are presented together, we are not comparing the landscapes to each other, but reporting on the perspectives found in each.

#### 3.1.1. Inclusivity of the Governance at a Landscape Level

In both landscapes, the governmen<sup>t</sup> was recognised as the most influential actor across land types (e.g., communal lands, CFRs, LFRs, National Parks, or Wildlife Reserve). Respondents from AAL; however, felt that the communities played a relatively important role in managing the forest reserves (both CFRs and LFRs). The importance of roles of the traditional and cultural institutions was also recognised in both landscapes. This type of governance continued to play an important role in many communities, particularly in defining and regulating the access and managemen<sup>t</sup> of natural resources. In this regard, 40 per cent of the respondents from MEL and 45 per cent from AAL considered that traditional and cultural practices were very influential in the situation described in their story, while 30 per cent in MEL and 34 per cent in AAL thought that traditions had no influence at all (with 30 per cent of MEL and 21 per cent of AAL respondents falling between these two categories).

#### 3.1.2. Community Participation in Decision-Making

(g

 )

In AAL, a slight majority (54 per cent) of the respondents perceived that the necessary mechanisms to support the participation of their communities in the decision-making processes were developed while only 39 per cent of the respondents from MEL felt the same. This di fference of opinion between the respondents of the two landscapes was even greater regarding the extent to which they felt the voice of their communities was taken into account in decision-making. In this regard, 44 per cent of the respondents from AAL judged that their voice was heard while only 28 per cent in MEL felt the same (Figure 5).

**Figure 5.** How the voice of the communities is taken into account in both landscapes.

These differences in perception could be important as they may have an impact on how local users and communities evaluate existing conservation initiatives and managemen<sup>t</sup> practices, and thus ultimately influence their willingness to contribute to conservation efforts. There was a clear difference in how people perceived the effectiveness of the managemen<sup>t</sup> systems in place in the two landscapes, as 48 per cent of the respondents from AAL considered that the CFRs were well managed while only 21 per cent of the respondents from MEL believed this was the case about the National Park (Figure 6).

**Figure 6.** People's perceptions about the way the protected area is managed.

There also seemed to be a relation between the perceived effectiveness of the current managemen<sup>t</sup> practices and the inclusivity of the communities in the decision-making process (Figure 7). Figure 7 overlays the clustering of stories across the axes of "management working well" or not well versus if "decisions took into account the voice of the community" or not, to find correlations. There was an important concentration of stories in AAL, where the voice of the communities was heard and the managemen<sup>t</sup> practice was perceived as effective. In contrast, there was a similar concentration of stories where the voice of the communities was neglected and the managemen<sup>t</sup> was perceived as ineffective in MEL.

**Figure 7.** Relationship between landscape managemen<sup>t</sup> and taking into account the communities' voice. Green points locate micronarratives across the two axes and dark red shading identifies clusters of stories.

Finally, these observations were also reinforced by the perception that more people felt hopeful in AAL (49 per cent) than in MEL (24 per cent) with regard to the future of the PAs present in their landscape.

#### 3.1.3. Fairness in Decision-Making Processes

To illustrate how the respondents from MEL and AAL felt about the fairness in decision-making processes, we considered the extent that decisions made by the managemen<sup>t</sup> authorities were perceived as fair or unfair. As already observed in some of the previous sections, it appears that more people in AAL considered the decisions made as fair (62 per cent) than in MEL (24 per cent).

#### *3.2. Presenting Perceptions Back to the Communities*

The participatory community feedback led to the identification of several actions to address governance issues. Here, we specifically focus on those actions related to inclusive decision-making.

In MEL: The key positive aspects that informed the stories included (a) the presence of the revenue sharing program that strengthens collaboration between the communities and management, (b) the forest restoration projects that support park boundary managemen<sup>t</sup> and improve the relationship between park adjacent communities and UWA, (c) the resource-use program that promotes a good working relationship between UWA, district leadership, local leadership, and park adjacent communities; (d) promotion of alternative income-generating activities that leads to improved livelihoods among park adjacent communities; (e) the park o ffering employment opportunities to neighbouring communities through ecotourism. The key negative aspects on PA governance included (a) park boundary and park-land conflicts; (b) human-wildlife conflict; (c) lack of alternative sources of income; (d) corruption; (e) poor Governance of the Revenue Sharing Program (RSP); (f) poor governance of the Multiple-Use Program; (g) misinformation and politicking on PA and natural resources governance issues.

In AAL: The key positive aspects in AAL included the following: (a) Agoro-Agu CFR's perceived potential for tourism as a trans-boundary CFR between South Sudan and Uganda; (b) Perception of CFR benefits associated with instrumental values of the forest; (c) the large number of cultural sites, where sacred trees are respected and help conserve the environment; (d) markets and demand for various wood (*Afzelia africana* and bamboo), and non-wood products existing within and outside the districts; (e) increase in growth and establishment of nearby refugee settlement points towards high demand for forest resources, which in turn, communities see as an opportunity to improve their livelihoods through sustainable forest management; (f) the population has emerged from more than 20 years of armed conflict and is eager to catch up with the rest of Uganda; therefore it embraces any positive conservation and development initiative; (g) awareness raised in the communities and local leadership on the values and potential of the relatively undisturbed natural forests in the AAL during past and current NGO initiatives as well as NFA's CFM approaches; (h) given the scenic Kidepo Valley National Park close to AAL, the communities perceive a potential for tourism linked to the opening of the Great Northern Highway, which will connect touristic areas. The key negative aspects included (a) unclear forest boundaries; (b) cultivation and settlement in CFRs; (c) unregulated forest resource exploitation for timber, bamboo and charcoal; (d) confusing governmen<sup>t</sup> policies/plans relating to land and forestry; (e) poor forest managemen<sup>t</sup> approaches; (f) inadequate funding of the forestry sector; (g) past conflict and insecurity due to war in the sub-region; (h) human-wildlife conflict.

#### *3.3. Identified Actions Emerging From Workshop and Current State of Implementation*

Workshop participants recommended several actions to improve landscape governance.

#### 3.3.1. Improving Governance at the Landscape Level

As a result of the inadequate participation and involvement of the communities and local leaders in PA managemen<sup>t</sup> planning and implementation of programs, it is essential to apply the key principles of good natural resource governance and especially inclusive decision-making (i.e., the recognition and respect for legitimate tenure rights, empowerment, coordination and coherence, sustainability of resources and livelihoods, social and environmental accountability).

#### 3.3.2. Improving Governance at the Protected Area Level

Communities are not entirely empowered to manage the Collaborative Forest Management (CFM) arrangements; therefore, a common understanding of what defines CFM is needed. This involves communities almost entirely managing the resource use program from its initiation, including implementation and monitoring. Equally, it is important to apply the key principles of good natural resource governance.

#### 3.3.3. Improving Governance of CFM Groups

The most e ffective and e fficient CFM groups appear to be those that are organised at small scales (e.g., at village level). Therefore, for CFM to be e fficient and e ffective, CFM groups should be organised and based at the village level. Further, improving CFM agreements requires clearly identifying the di fferent roles, rights, responsibilities, and returns of stakeholders involved. Particularly important is the need for institutional strengthening among the CFM groups.

#### 3.3.4. Improving Community Livelihoods and Reducing Pressure on the PAs Resources

To reduce the pressure on PA resources and diminish conflicts, it is critical to develop in a participatory manner income-generating projects and a flow of resources or revenues for the financial sustainability of the actions required. This would foster the improvement of the communities' livelihoods as well as managemen<sup>t</sup> and conservation of natural resources. These projects should consider results and lessons of previous studies. They should also consider socio-economic and cultural aspects.
