Bonaventure Munyangoga

THE FIGHT AGAINST WILDLIFE CRIME IN UGANDA: EXPERIENCES, HOPES AND IDEAS By Bonaventure Munyangoga* Lawyer Email:- Abstract Commonly referred to as the Pearl of Africa, with as many as 18,783 species of fauna and flora, Uganda is among the top ten most bio-diverse countries in the world.1 Uganda is a home to a spectacularly diverse array of wildlife, housing more than half of the world’s remaining mountain gorillas, 50% of Africa’s bird species, 40% of Africa’s mammal species, 19% of Africa’s amphibian species and other terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna.2 Bwindi Impenetrable Forest in South Western Uganda which is one of the last redoubts of the mountain gorilla was ranked as the most beautiful place in the world for the year 2019.3 Uganda also scooped the 2nd best stand award at the 2017 Annual British Bird-watching Fair at Rutland - United Kingdom. Four of the seven major centres of plant endemism in tropical Africa occur within Uganda’s borders.4 Terrestrial life is scattered all over the country with very high concentrations in well-established forest reserves, national parks, Wildlife Reserves (WR) and community wildlife areas (CWA). Aquatic life on the other hand, composed of a large variety of resources, inhabits such ecosystems as lakes, rivers, streams as well as wetlands. This biodiversity is particularly the backbone of the country’s tourism industry and the economy generally. However, Wildlife in Uganda is under serious threats of continued poaching, trade in endangered species, and encroachment of wildlife conservation areas. Each year, while countless species are driven closer to extinction, criminals make billions from the sale of protected wildlife products. * Bonaventure Munyangoga is a lawyer and a volunteer research assistant to Professor Emmanuel Kasimbazi: a Professor of Law and Chair, Environmental Law Centre at the School of Law, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. Bonaventure also holds a Post Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from the Law Development Centre, Kampala and has a Bachelor of Laws Degree (LLB) from Makerere University, Kampala. 1 Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities, ‘Uganda Wildlife Policy’ (2014) 2 Emmanuel Kasimbazi and Kibandama Alexander, ‘Environmental Law in Uganda 2nd Edition’ (2018) p 141 3 Cable News Network (CNN), ‘25 of the most beautiful places around the world’ (2019)’ accessed 15 May 2019 4 cf Kasimbazi (footnote 1) 496 Some actions have been taken, but a lot more has to be done because these threats have to be urgently and firmly addressed. Key words: Wildlife Crime, Rule of Law, youth, Uganda, conservation. 1. Introduction Uganda is a land-locked country located in the Eastern region of Africa lying between latitudes 1° 30′ South and 4° North and longitude 29° 30′ East and 35° East, and occupying an area of about 241, 550.7 square kilometres of which 15.3% is open water, 3.0% permanent wetlands, 9.4% seasonal wetlands, 6.5% game reserves and national parks and 6.3% forest reserves. As of 17th May 2019, the population of Uganda was estimated to be 40,149,730 people.5 Uganda is bordered by the Republic of Kenya in the East, Tanzania and Rwanda in the South, the Democratic Republic of Congo (former Zaire) in the West, and South Sudan in the North. It is the source of the River Nile: the longest river in the world. The country’s tropical climate is generally rainy with two dry and wet seasons. Ten percent of Uganda’s 241,551 square kilometres of land and water is gazetted as wildlife conservation areas, including ten National Parks, 12 Wildlife Reserves, ten wildlife sanctuaries, five community wildlife areas, 506 central forest reserves and 191 local forest reserves. Wildlife Crime may be defined as acts or omissions contrary to national and international laws intended to protect and administer the management and sustainable use of Wildlife resources.6 There is an increase in wildlife crimes in Uganda due to the participation of organised criminal syndicates which have links to other crimes. The causes of wildlife crime depend on the type of crime, resources or commodities involved. The perpetrators are majorly people who live close to the protected as well as wildlife traders. There is an existing legal and institutional framework for wildlife conservation and the fight against wildlife crimes in Uganda. The interventions against wildlife crime are law enforcement, regulated resource access, revenue sharing, Reformed Poachers Associations and conservation education and sensitisation. However, the above interventions are undermined by corruption and other challenges. The fight against wildlife crimes and the promotion of the rule of law demand that youth should reduce demand for illegal wildlife products, 5 6 Uganda Bureau of Statistics, ‘Population Clock’ (2019) accessed 17 May 2019 The International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime, ‘Wildlife Crime’ (2019) accessed 17 May 2019 embezzlement in the sharing of revenue benefits should be eliminated, longterm working relationships between the youth and conservation agencies should be developed, law enforcement should be improved and local youth should be engaged in gainful employment, positive incentives should be given to the youth, regulated resource access programmes should be improved, youth should increase their participation in decisions and activities regarding the utilization and conservation of wildlife resources and finally, youth should undergo public awareness, sensitisation, education and training about the negative impacts of wildlife crime. The global problem of wildlife crime is tied to the more domestic issues of education, good governance and the rule of law. This paper is about experiences, hopes and ideas in the fight against wildlife crime in Uganda. The paper consists of eight chapters. The first chapter is the introduction. Chapter two presents the current situation of Wildlife Crime in Uganda. The third chapter analyses the causes and perpetrators of Wildlife Crime in Uganda. The next chapter examines the impact of Wildlife Crime on the rule of law. The policy and institutional framework for wildlife conservation and wildlife crime in Uganda comes next. Chapter six examines the interventions undertaken against Wildlife Crime in Uganda. The next chapter analyses the key challenges in the fight against Wildlife Crime. The last chapter gives the conclusion and actionable recommendations for the reduction of wildlife crime and promotion of the rule of law. 2. The current situation of Wildlife Crime in Uganda The current situation of Wildlife Crime in Uganda is an issue of growing and substantial national and international concern. A growing awareness of the links between wildlife crime, organised criminal syndicates and the deterioration of the rule of law has contributed significantly to this concern, particularly given the diversified links within the organised criminal network to human migrant exploitation, money laundering, drugs and arms trafficking and alleged links to terrorism. Wildlife crime is now thought to be the fourth most lucrative transnational crime after trafficking in people, arms and drugs.7 Poaching for bush meat, firewood collection and timber harvesting are the most widespread wildlife crimes in Uganda,8 with growing levels of trade in endangered species and trafficking cases being reported on flora and fauna including elephant tusks, pangolins, tortoises and sandalwood. Uganda is 7 Jeremy Haken, ‘Transnational Crime in the Developing World’ (2011) accessed 04 June 2019 8 Executive Summary IIED report April 2015, ‘Wildlife crime: a review of the evidence on drivers and impacts in Uganda’ also increasingly being seen as a significant transit country for wildlife products and specimens. There are several types of wildlife crimes occurring in Uganda. Bush meat hunting is the most widespread type of wildlife crime in Uganda, Plant or land related crimes follow, and these include land encroachment (particularly for grazing), firewood collection, timber harvesting, building poles and charcoal. Between September 2009 and February 2010, nine elephants were found dead with bullet wounds along Ishasha River on the Uganda-DRC border. Recently, elephants were poisoned by residents using water melons and pineapples laced with acid in Queen Elizabeth National Park.9 Pangolins are one of the most trafficked mammals in Uganda. They have traditionally been hunted for meat and use in traditional medicine in Uganda, but at the international level are increasingly being exported for meat, medicine and to turn scales into jewellery.10 The sharp increase in wildlife crime undermines the rule of law and is a clear sign that organized crime has slipped into the wildlife underworld, because only a well-oiled criminal machine with the help of corrupt officials could move hundreds of pounds of flora and fauna and their products from Uganda to foreign markets that are thousands of miles across the globe. 3. Causes and perpetrators of Wildlife Crimes in Uganda 3.1. Causes of Wildlife Crimes The causes of Wildlife crime vary according to the type of crime and the type of resources or commodities involved. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the causes of wildlife crime may be addressed under five categories.11 3.1.1. Subsistence: the struggle to meet basic needs The lack of alternative sources of food and income, and in a broader sense, the lack of rural and economic development force vulnerable groups to rely on wildlife resources for their existence. Poverty levels are increasing in Uganda, and 21.4 per cent of the population still remain below the national poverty line.12 In rural areas surrounding protected areas, poverty levels are often higher than the national average. Approximately one million people live in the Karamoja sub- region of Uganda which surrounds Kidepo Valley 9 See accessed 04 June 2019 10 Challender D W S and Hywood L, ‘African pangolins: Under increased pressure from poaching and intercontinental trade’ (2012) TRAFFIC Bulletin, 24(2), pp.53–55 11 UNODC, ‘Wildlife Crime Analytic Toolkit, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna’ (2012) accessed 13 June 2019 12 Uganda Bureau of Statistics, ‘Statistical Abstract’ (2018) accessed 13 June 2019 National Park, and 80% of them are living below the poverty line and therefore food insecure. Giraffes are an attractive target for poaching due to the amount of meat that can be gained from a single bullet - providing food for the entire family as well as meat leftover to be sold for profit.13 Land is another wildlife resource that people require from protected areas, especially when the population density is particularly high. Protected areas are encroached for livestock grazing, agriculture and settlement. Therefore, the karimojong, just like many other Ugandans living around protected areas are lacking the resources they need, and the money with which to buy them, so they may have little or no option but to resort to illegal harvesting of resources from protected areas. These resources can either be used directly to meet household needs, or be sold to generate income with which to pay for resources or services 3.1.2. Commercial use: the generation of income above and beyond basic needs. Wildlife crime is largely driven by the desire to quickly attain wealth above and beyond basic necessities.14 Not everyone who wishes to attain this level of wealth gets involved in wildlife crime though; some may turn to wildlife crime because they feel unable to access legitimate or high-paying employment. Although, elephant poaching is the most profitable wildlife crime in Uganda at the moment, locally hired poachers receive only a very small proportion of that money despite taking most of the risk and so they have to do more poaching so as to get enough money. The prices of raw ivory are very captivating. At its peak in 2014, wholesale prices for raw ivory stood at $2,100 (1,900 euros) per kilogramme in Asian markets, and although by 2017 the price had fallen to $730 per kilogramme.15 The average monthly nominal income of a household in Uganda is Shs 453,000 ($120);16 this means that just two kilogramme of raw ivory are equivalent to the annual income of an entire household. The gains made through participation in wildlife crimes do not only serve as a regular source of income, but also provide occasional sources of income or safety nets in times of hardship. 3.1.3. Response to perceived injustice In situations when the local people perceive themselves to be unjustly treated by wildlife authorities, they usually respond to this perceived injustice 13 Care4Karamoja, ‘Giraffes’ (2015) accessed 13 June 2019 The Holy Bible in 1 Timothy 6:10 states that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evils. And that some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. 15 See accessed 13 June 2019 16 See accessed 13 June 2019 14 through targeting retaliation at individual animals or species, and general disregard for protected area rules and regulations.17 Although crop and livestock raiding by wild animals in community land around protected areas is a long standing problem in Uganda, the Uganda Wildlife Authority has a principle of not giving financial compensation for crop damage. Farmers around Budongo Forest Reserve place snares and illegal man-traps in their fields officially aimed at vermin species but probably also intended for chimpanzees.18 At Ajai Wildlife Reserve, local people poison hippos to try to stop them raiding their crops.19 In response to cattle loss at Queen Elizabeth National Park in South Western Uganda, herders poison their remaining carcasses, aiming to kill the guilty predator. On 10th April, 2018, eleven climbing lions were found dead from suspected poisoning in Queen Elizabeth National Park.20 Quite often, the poison ends up killing scavengers such as hyenas and vultures in the process.21 The anger arising from crop raiding by wild animals and the injustice or perceived injustice of wild animals being allowed to encroach on local people’s gardens while people are punished for entering the protected area leads people not only to kill raiding animals but also conduct other illegal activities in the parks. 3.1.4. Traditional uses People who live near protected areas have traditional uses for the resources found there, some of which can never be found outside the protected areas. The people living around Mgahinga National Park have historically used bamboo for crafts, fuel and construction material.22 Around Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, the Batwa eat wild yams in times of famine, yet these only grow within the protected area.23 Medicinal plants have historically been used for treatment across Uganda, and many people believe that they are more effective than modern medicines, yet many of these medicinal plants only grow in protected areas. Traditionally, several tribes across Uganda engage in a culture of hunting and eating bush meat as a sign of bravery and 17 Arthur R Mugisha and Susan K Jacobson, ‘Threat reduction assessment of conventional and communitybased conservation approaches to managing protected areas in Uganda’ (2004) Environmental Conservation Vol. 31, No. 3, pp- Tumusiime D M et al, ‘Wildlife Snaring in Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda’ (2010) Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 15(2), pp- Kepo R, ‘Conflicts between local communities and Uganda Wildlife Authority in Ajai Wildlife Reserve’ (2011) Msc. Thesis, Makerere University 20 See accessed 13 June 2019 21 Oboya E O, ‘The effects of livestock grazing on biodviersity conservation within Queen Elizabeth National Park with reference to large mammals and birds’ (2009) Msc. Thesis, Makerere University 22 Sheil D et al, ‘Bamboo for people, Mountain gorillas, and golden monkeys: Evaluating harvest and conservation trade-offs and synergies in the Virunga Volcanoes’ (2012) Forest Ecology and Management, 267, pp- Byarugaba D, Ndemere P and Midgley J, ‘The vulnerability and resilience of Dioscorea species in utilized and nonutilized zones of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park’ (2006) African Journal of Ecology, 45, pp.258–264 a transition from puberty to adulthood. Some wild fauna and flora parts are used in witchcraft while the skins of lions and leopards are given to traditional kings to wear as a symbol of status. Many of the flora and fauna which is important for traditional use only exist inside protected areas. 3.1.5. Political influence Politicians have for a long time promoted wildlife crime in Uganda. During his reign, between 1971 and 1979, President Field Marshall Idi Amin Dada, announced that he would give back to the people the forest the former Milton Obote government had captured from them, causing deforestation and settlement in Mount Elgon National Park. Many times, local politicians trying to gain votes tell the local people that protected areas are rightfully theirs and this leads to encroachment on wildlife areas. Politicians also intervene to ensure that suspected poachers who are arrested are tried in courts within their home areas where the judicial officers can be compromised. It is very rare to find local politicians condemning poaching. Instead, they condemn Uganda Wildlife Authority staff for being ruthless and anti-people. Unless this political will is cultivated within the local politicians including some Members of Parliament, it will always be a big hurdle to address wildlife crime. 3.1. Perpetrators of Wildlife Crimes The first perpetrators of wildlife crimes are people who live close to the protected areas. Most of them suffer from crop raiding, have less education and are over populated. They encroach on protected areas so as to carry out subsistence agriculture. They also hunt down animals for bush-meat. The second group is of Ivory traders who engage in wildlife trade for commercial purposes. They tend to be wealthy Ugandans or foreigners. However, these may sometimes use the local people living near protected areas to engage in the crimes for a small fee. This second group of perpetrators is also likely to be involved in other types of wildlife crime. This group may also include military units, rebel gangs and organised criminals. The third group is of firewood collectors who tend to be very poor and live close to the protected areas. The last group is of timber dealers. They include people who are very poor and pitsaw to sell timber to meet basic needs and also less poor members of the local elite. 4. The impact of Wildlife Crime on the rule of law in Uganda Wildlife crimes have a net positive short-term impact on individuals and a net negative long-term impact on the rule of law, communities, Uganda and the world as a whole. 4.1. Wildlife crimes weaken national and international security. The growing sophistication and militarization of organized wildlife crime undermines the safety of people as well as animals. Present-day poaching and trafficking often involves high-power weaponry, with deadly consequences for humans as well as animals. Game park rangers tasked with protecting animals in Uganda have come into the crosshairs of poaching operations as poachers gain access to stronger weaponry to achieve their goals. Rangers also face intimidation, injury and even death from offenders they have reported or the communities they come from. In 2012, a Ugandan soldier and a wildlife ranger were killed in a fierce fight with South Sudanese poachers, crossing the border into northern Uganda.24 In the period following gazettement of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, local chiefs attacked rangers to free offenders of commercial (but not subsistence) crimes.25 It should be noted that insecurity in one country has spill over effects to neighbouring countries. This lack of security then undermines the effectiveness of law enforcement in Uganda, contributing to a cycle of weakening the rule of law and then taking advantage of its weak state to commit more crimes. 4.2. Wildlife crimes undermine the rule of law Although, often seen as an environmental issue because of its degradation of species populations, wildlife crimes such as poaching and trafficking have ramifications on the rule of law and national security. At the 2012 meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, wildlife crimes were recognized for the first time as serious threats to the rule of law around the world.26 Criminals involved in commercial wildlife crime are often engaged in other crimes too, such as harassment and intimidation, causing local insecurity or fear, and colluding with or frustrating the efforts of public officers engaged in wildlife conservation. Weak rule of law makes Uganda prone to corruption and ineffectual legal systems, which makes the country a prime-site for the acquisition, transport, and or sale of illegal wildlife products. 4.3. Environmental degradation and Loss of biodiversity Wildlife crimes lead to loss of biodiversity and environmental degradation in the long term. This is a big problem in Uganda because up to 7.9 per cent of 24 Vira V and Ewing T, ‘Ivory’s Curse: The militarization and professionalization of poaching in Africa’ (2014) Baker J, Milner-Gulland, E J and Leader-Williams, ‘Park gazettement and integrated conservation and development as factors in community conflict at Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda’ (2011) Conservation Biology, 26(1), pp- See accessed 13 June 2019 25 GDP is currently earned from tourism. 27 A decline in the fauna and flora or quality of the environment may deter tourists from visiting and significantly reduce national income and development. Environmental degradation leads to loss of ecosystem services while loss of biodiversity leads to reduction in tourist numbers and revenue. Low levels of revenue leave very little resources available to be allocated to the conservation of wildlife in the national budget, which in turn weakens conservation efforts, and creates a fertile ground for wildlife crimes to continue taking place. 4.4. Youth of school going age drop out of school to engage in wildlife crime The livelihoods of some families around protected areas depend heavily on wildlife resources for subsistence as well as income generation. Once families find it easy to survive on wildlife resources, youth especially males are recruited to increase the labour force and help their families to earn a living through engaging in wildlife crimes. These youth of school going age earn quick money through the selling of wildlife products and through tokens of appreciation from their elders engaged in wildlife crime and the youth become addicted to committing wildlife crimes for quick money. Without a good education and a clear vision and plan for their future, these school dropouts live their entire lives engaging in wildlife crimes and other crimes and this undermines the rule of law. 5. The policy and institutional framework for wildlife conservation and wildlife crimes in Uganda 5.1. International treaties and conventions applicable to wildlife conservation and wildlife crimes in Uganda 5.1.1. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES), 1973 The main objective of CITES is to control and regulate international trade in wildlife species through species classification and the use of permits. It imposes an obligation on the government of Uganda to ensure that trade in wildlife does not negatively impact on the status of wildlife in the country. 5.1.2. The Ramsar Convention, 1971 The Ramsar Convention provides for the protection of biological diversity in wetlands. Wetlands, under the Convention, have a wide coverage and cater for all watercourses and lakes in Uganda. 5.1.3. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992 27 Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities, Wildlife poaching and trafficking: Challenges and strategies for Uganda’ The CBD requires each nation, among other duties, to promote sustainable use of natural resources and both in situ and ex situ conservation, using economically and socially sound incentives. 5.1.4. African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1968 This Convention is the primary Pan-African legal instrument for the conservation of the environment in general and biological diversity in particular. Parties to the Convention undertake to establish and manage protected areas, and to protect certain species. The Convention obligates the parties to prohibit and regulate trade in specimens and trophies of protected species. 5.1.5. East African Community Protocol on Environment and Natural Resources This protocol obligates Uganda to sustainably conserve wildlife resources in partnership with the local communities. The protocol requires Uganda to cooperate in management of trans-boundary wildlife resources, promoting of social and economic incentives for conservation and to conclude agreements aimed at conserving trans-boundary wildlife resources. 5.2. National laws and policies for wildlife conservation and wildlife crimes in Uganda 5.2.1. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 The Constitution is the supreme law of Uganda and has binding force on all authorities and persons throughout Uganda.28 In accordance with Article 39 of the Constitution, every citizen of Uganda has, apart from other rights, the right to a clean and healthy environment. The incorporation in the Constitution of this right confirms the increasing awareness of environmental problems and provides a permanent constitutional guarantee. The Constitution also provides for the Public Trust Doctrine under which the central government or a local government is required to hold in trust for the people and to protect natural lakes, rivers, wetlands, forest reserves, game reserves, national parks, and any land for ecological and tourist purposes for the common good of all citizens.29 5.2.2. The National Environment Act, 2019 The act provides for wildlife protection and contains provisions which can be applied to the protection and sustainable use of wildlife. It includes provisions 28 29 Article 2 (1) Article 237(2)(b) for the conservation of biological resources in situ, and the selection and management of protected and buffer areas. The act also provides a basis for environmental impact assessment. 5.2.3. The Uganda Wildlife Act, Cap 200 of 2000 This Act provides for conservation and management of Wildlife and wildlife protected areas in Uganda. It creates the Uganda Wildlife Authority and charges it with management of wildlife in and outside protected areas. The Act under S.4 (3) puts the Uganda Wildlife Authority under overall supervision of the ministry responsible for wildlife. Part IV of the Wildlife Act provides for the wildlife use rights such as hunting: class A wildlife use right, farming: Class B wildlife use right, ranching: Class C wildlife use right, trading in wildlife and wildlife products: Class D wildlife use right, using wildlife for educational or scientific purposes including medical experiments and developments: Class E wildlife use right, and general extraction: Class F wildlife use right. Section 45 provides for the issuing of licences to professional hunters and trappers and makes it an offence to hunt or trap wildlife without a licence. Section 49 of the Wildlife Act prohibits acts that kill, capture or wound any protected species. With regard to International Trade in Species and Specimens, the Executive Director of UWA may issue to any person a permit to import, export or reexport any specimen under section 65 of the Wildlife Act. Any person who imports, exports, or re-exports or attempts to import, export, or re-export any specimen except through a customs post or port or without producing to a customs officer a valid permit to import, export, or re-export the specimen commits an offence under section 66 of the Wildlife Act. 5.2.4. The Uganda Tourism Act, 2 of 2008 The Act aims at streamlining the law relating to tourism; providing for licensing, regulating, and controlling of the tourism sector; giving effect to the implementation of the tourism policy of Government; to reconstituting the Uganda Tourist Board to make it private sector driven; establishing a tourism development levy; to provide for the establishment and management of a tourism development fund. 5.2.5. The Forestry and Tree Planting Act, 2003 The Act provides for the protection of forests through the creation of forest reserves in which human activity is strictly controlled. It seeks to control commercial harvesting of forest products through the use of licenses and promotes afforestation. 5.2.6. The Fish Act, Cap 197 of 2000 This law regulates the fisheries sector. It imposes restrictions on fishing gears, waters among others. This law is very useful in regulating activities in waters especially that fall under wildlife protected areas. 5.2.7. The Uganda Wildlife Policy, 2016 The Policy provides a framework within which all Government institutions, private sector, development partners, civil society and all other stakeholders in the wildlife conservation industry must operate in order to sustainably conserve and develop the wildlife resource base for national socio-economic transformation. The Policy also outlines Government commitment to mitigating humanwildlife conflicts, eliminating illegal wildlife trade and trafficking, ensuring that oil and gas sustainably coexist with conservation, promoting of research and conservation education, enhancing community benefits from conservation and promoting private sector enterprises in wildlife conservation. However, it has two major weaknesses; it does not reflect the cross-sectoral linkages in the management of wildlife, and it has limited technical and managerial capacity at decentralized government institutions to implement the policy. 5.2.8. Tourism Policy 2003 The objective of the national tourism policy is to ensure that tourism becomes a vehicle for poverty reduction to the extent possible within the resource base and market limitations. To achieve that objective, it requires that tourism development be planned so as to ensure that conservation programmes between different Government agencies are well-coordinated. 5.2.9. Wildlife Protected Area System Plan for Uganda, 1999 The plan provides for revenue sharing so as to ensure that local communities, living adjacent to PA obtain benefits from the existence of these areas, improve their welfare, and ultimately strengthen the partnerships between UWA, local communities, local governments for sustainable management of resources in and around PA. The specific objectives of revenue sharing include providing an enabling environment for establishing good relations between the PA and their neighbouring communities, demonstrating the economic value of PA and conservation in general to local communities neighbouring PA and soliciting support and acceptance of PA and conservation from local communities living adjacent to these areas. 5.3. Institutional framework for wildlife conservation and wildlife crimes in Uganda In performing their respective roles, institutions under the wildlife sector maintain good working relationships and consult each other to avoid conflicts and duplication of functions. The institutional framework for conservation and wildlife crimes in Uganda is stipulated by the Uganda Wildlife Policy,-. The Ministry responsible for wildlife The ministry responsible for wildlife provides the overall supervision of the sector. The ministry is directly in charge of policy development, licensing, international conventions, monitoring implementation and evaluation of all wildlife sector policies, overall sector planning, and coordination and interstate Government link for wildlife sector. 5.3.2. Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) UWA is the lead agency for wildlife management in Uganda. UWA is in charge of wildlife protected area management and regulation of management of wildlife outside wildlife protected areas. In order to effectively deliver this mandate, UWA collaborates with other institutions that have related mandates including wetlands and forest management institutions. 5.3.3. Uganda Wildlife Education Centre (UWEC) UWEC is the lead agency for conservation education in Uganda. UWEC is responsible for conservation education and awareness, rescue and rehabilitation of wildlife, captive wildlife breeding and management. 5.3.4. Uganda Wildlife Research and Training Institute (UWRTI) As the lead agency for wildlife research and training, UWRTI is responsible for wildlife research, training and consultancy services. This is done in partnership with Universities and other higher training and research institutions involved in wildlife research and training. 5.3.5. National Forestry Authority (NFA) NFA is the institution in charge of forestry management in Uganda. NFA is in accordance with the Uganda Wildlife Policy, 2014 and other relevant wildlife laws in charge of management of wildlife that is found in forest reserves under its jurisdiction under technical guidance of Uganda Wildlife Authority. 5.3.6. Ministry responsible for wetlands The Uganda Wildlife Policy, 2014 empowers the government ministry responsible for wetland management, to be in charge of management of wildlife that is found in wetlands under its jurisdiction under technical guidance of Uganda Wildlife Authority. 5.3.7. Local Governments The department of natural resources management at local government level is responsible for management of wildlife that is found in areas outside protected areas under District jurisdiction including private lands. 5.3.8. Ministry responsible for oil and gas development As the lead agency for oil and gas development in Uganda, the Ministry responsible for exploration and development of oil and gas ensures that oil and gas exploration and development activities in wildlife conservation areas are in harmony with conservation of wildlife. 5.3.9. National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) NEMA is the regulator for environment management and compliance in Uganda. NEMA ensures that all development activities in wildlife conservation areas comply with strategic environment assessments and environmental impact assessment requirements. 5.3.10. Other Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies All Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies while implementing their respective mandates in areas of wildlife conservation significance, ensure that their activities are in harmony with conservation of wildlife. 3.2 Private Sector, Civil Society and Academia The Government of Uganda recognises the important role played by the Academia, Media, NGOs and the private sector in the management of wildlife. In order to encourage their participation and involvement in the management of protected areas and wildlife resources and in the establishment of tourism facilities, research and training, conservation education and implementation of the Wildlife Policy in general, the Government provides necessary support, appropriate incentives, guidelines and collaborative initiatives to private sector, civil society and academia to play a meaningful role in wildlife conservation. The Government has also attempted to minimise bureaucratic procedures, and provide an appropriate forum where the academia, the private sector and NGOs can meet with the concerned government institutions to discuss issues of mutual interest or concern. 6. Interventions Undertaken against Wildlife Crime in Uganda The main types of intervention against wildlife crime employed by UWA, other agencies and organisations, are law enforcement, regulated resource access, revenue sharing (and other developmental projects), Reformed Poachers Associations (RPAs) and conservation education and sensitisation. 6.1. Law enforcement Law enforcement is led by UWA’s law enforcement department, with at least one warden and a number of rangers usually based at each national park or wildlife reserve. Forest reserves are under the control of the National Forest Authority (NFA) instead, with their own rangers patrolling the reserves. People arrested on suspicion of involvement in wildlife crime are sometimes given just a warning before being released, or might be charged. If prosecuted, offenders are often given the choice between a fine or imprisonment. CARE has established a mobile alert system, allowing local people to anonymously report illegal activities in forest reserves, in an attempt to increase the proportion of offenders getting apprehended and then prosecuted.30 The alerts are sent to a central database, then, out to the relevant local authorities, including police and National Forest Authority rangers, allowing them to respond immediately. While the presence of law enforcement rangers has improved local security, it has at times also caused more problems in local communities in circumstances where rangers take advantage of their positions of power. Penalties subsequent to law enforcement significantly impact on the livelihoods of people involved in subsistence-driven crimes, while commercially-driven offenders are able to afford to pay the relatively low fines or bribe their way out of being charged or prosecuted. Law enforcement has deterred people who can afford their basic needs, but who cannot afford to pay fines or be imprisoned. However, people who cannot afford their own basic needs or the payment of penalties have no option but to break the law and risk getting caught. Many of those involved in commercial crime can afford to pay the low fines, so are not greatly deterred; at least 29 per cent of convicts in protected areas in Uganda are reportedly habitual offenders.31 At Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, where there is relatively little large scale commercial activity, law enforcement and the associated fear of being fined or imprisoned was ranked by local people as the top deterrent against illegal activity in the park.32 In other locations, increased law 30 Esipisu I, ‘Mobile phone alerts help Uganda nab forest criminals’ (2014) accessed 06 June 2019) 31 Habati M A, ‘2011: Worst year for Uganda’s wildlife’ (2012) accessed 06 June 2019 32 Twinamatsiko M et al, ‘Linking Conservation, Equity and Poverty Alleviation: Understanding profiles and motivations of resource users and local perceptions of governance at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda, IIED London’ (2014) enforcement has been reported to reduce threats and conflicts.33 Therefore, law enforcement is the major effort against wildlife crime in Uganda. 6.2. Revenue sharing and development projects According to the revenue sharing guidelines,34 the overall goal of revenue sharing is to ensure strong partnership between protected area management, local communities and local governments leading to sustainable management of resources in and around protected areas by enabling people living adjacent to protected areas to obtain financial benefits derived from the existence of these areas that contribute to improvements in their welfare and help gain their support for protected areas conservation. 20 per cent of park entrance fees paid by tourists to Uganda are shared with communities in parishes (local administration areas within districts) bordering protected areas (known as frontline communities).35 At Bwindi and Mgahinga National parks, an additional $5 from the permit fee people pay to track gorillas is shared with local people in what is known as the ‘gorilla levy’,36 because tourists to the parks are limited to eight people per habituated group of gorillas per day, and the majority of their revenue comes from the permits and not the entrance fees. At Lake Mburo National park and some Wildlife Reserves, revenue from sport hunting is also shared with local people.37 Integrated Conservation and Development (ICD) projects are also implemented across Uganda by very many different organisations. UWA funds such projects through tourism and sport hunting revenue sharing. Not all ICD projects are specifically aimed at directly reducing wildlife crime. However, as successful conservation implies the absence of wildlife crime, ICD projects are included in this section as one type of intervention against wildlife crime, despite often working indirectly. The ICD projects implemented in Uganda, both as part of revenue sharing and otherwise, include provision of schools, health centres and roads; provision of protected water sources; support for livestock rearing; humanwildlife conflict mitigation such as digging elephant trenches; tree planting; income improvement schemes such as tea and coffee growing, agricultural support such as providing potato seedlings, and village savings and loans associations (VSLAs). The Mount Elgon Regional Ecosystem Conservation Programme (MERECP) is suggested to have improved household incomes through the use of a Community Revolving Fund.38 A community development project at Kibale National Park (KSCDP, Kibale and Semliki Conservation and Development Programme) in which local people have been given assistance to 33 New Vision, ‘Illegal timber felling drops, New Vision 24th October 2010’ (2010) accessed 06 June 2019) 34 UWA, ‘Guidelines for revenue sharing between wildlife protected areas and adjacent local governments and communities’(2012) 35 ibid 36 ibid 37 Lamprey R H and Mugisha A, ‘The re-introduction of recreational hunting in Uganda; In B. Dickson, J. Hutton, and W. M. Adams, eds. Recreational hunting, conservation, and rural livelihoods’ (2009) Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp- Anon, ‘East African Community: Latest, Protected Area Agencies and Beneficiary Communities Hail Mt Elgon Conservation Programme’ (2012) build beehives generated good income through the sale of honey. 39 Communities around Bwindi Impenetrable National Park ranked benefits from revenue sharing projects among reasons why they did not engage in illegal activities in the park.40 Therefore, revenue sharing has not only improved the wellbeing but also the attitudes of people towards wildlife conservation, and consequently to reduced wildlife crime in Uganda. 6.3. Regulated resource access Regulated resource access has a variety of different names in Uganda; the Multiple Use Programme (MUP) at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Collaborative Resource Management (CRM) at other parks and Collaborative Forest Management (CFM) at forest reserves. However, they all mean the same thing; locally elected people are given permits allowing them to harvest monitored quantities of certain resources from specified areas of the protected area, sometimes during limited time periods. Local people are permitted to harvest resources according to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with community groups. Some MoUs specify that resources may not be used to generate income, in case demand increases, encouraging illegal and unsustainable use, the MoU is amended. The MoU with Kiyanga resource user committee in Bushenyi District (neighbouring Queen Elizabeth National Park) states that all herbal medicine collected will be for home consumption and not for sale. Failure to comply will lead to suspension of the MoU.41 Another clause of the MoUs is that resource users are responsible for monitoring the illegal harvesting of park resources and other illegal activities within the park, and must report them to the resource user committee and protected area management.42 Access to tree seeds and seedlings at Budongo Forest Reserve provides households with a renewable source of firewood and timber for the future, 43 while allowing firewood collection from Murchison Falls National Park significantly improved the lives of women in particular, who no longer had to travel so far to collect it.44 Permission to collect medicinal plants at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park gives people access to traditional healthcare which they otherwise would not be able to use, as many of the 39 Kabagumya C, ‘Resource utilisation in forest patches around Kibale National Parks and impacts of continued exploitation by rural communities’(2001) MSc thesis, Makerere University 40 Harrison M, ‘Establishing profiles and motivations of resource users at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda’ (2013) MSc thesis, Imperial College London accessed 07 June 2019 41 UWA, ‘Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Uganda Wildlife Authority represented by Queen Elizabeth Protected Area (QEPA) and Katunguru women in L.Katwe S/C and Katunguru S/C in Kasese and Bushenyi districts respectively: Agreement for regulated papyrus use’ (2009) 42 ibid 43 Turyahabwe N et al, ‘Impact of Collaborative Forest Management on Forest Status and Local Perceptions of Contribution to Livelihoods in Uganda’ (2013) Journal of Sustainable Development, 6(10) 44 Anon, ‘Uganda: Murchison Falls Conservation Area Ex post evaluation report (final evaluation)’ (2006) plants do not grow outside the forest, sustaining sociocultural bonds with the forest and traditional knowledge.45 Resource sharing has had a positive impact on local people’s attitudes towards the park and the park-people relationship.46 This is attributed in part to the highly participatory process through which it was developed, which gave people a sense of ownership over the park, but also through allowing people to continue their cultural traditions, harvesting practices and have some input into park management. Therefore, regulated resource access is a great intervention in the fight against wildlife crime in Uganda. 6.4. Reformed Poachers Associations Reformed Poacher’s Associations (RPAs) are groups established by UWA following periods of intensive sensitisation and a poaching equipment amnesty.47 Poachers are often tempted to join the group by the promise or expectation of subsequent benefits such as alternative livelihoods, but these do not always materialise.48 There are groups in Queen Elizabeth, Murchison Falls, Rwenzori Mountains and Bwindi Impenetrable National Parks.49 At Queen Elizabeth National Park, ex-poachers are sometimes employed as casual labourers or patrol guides, which provides income.50 At Rwenzori Mountains National Park, an Arabica coffee enterprise targeted ex-poachers and succeeded in increasing their household incomes.51 More than 1,800 poachers surrendered their hunting equipment at Murchison Falls National Park between 2005 and 2007, in return for $35,000 and training in alternative livelihoods, including goat rearing.52 Ex-poachers act as informants to reduce future poaching, and influence the rest of their families and communities to leave poaching.53 Coffee growing around Rwenzori Mountains National Park was reported to successfully reduced wildlife crime.54 Therefore, Reformed Poacher’s Associations (RPAs) play a big role in convincing poachers to abandon wildlife crime. 6.5. Conservation education and sensitisation Conservation education, commonly referred to as sensitisation in Uganda, is run by UWA and NGOs both in communities surrounding protected areas and 45 cf Kabagumya (footnote 39) Moreto, W. de J. (2013) To conserve and protect: Examining law enforcement ranger culture and operations in Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda, PhD thesis. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 47 Kato, S.S. and Okumu, J.O. (no date) Making Bush Meat Poachers Willingly Surrender Using Integrated Poachers Awareness Programme: A Case of Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda 48 cf Kabagumya (footnote 39) 49 ibid 50 cf Kabagumya (footnote 39) 51 WCS and MUIENR (2008) Monitoring the impact of PRIME/WEST activities on the environment, with specific reference to biodiversity, Wildlife Conservation Society and Makerere University Institute of Environment and Natural Resources 52 cf Moreto (footnote 46) 53 cf Kabagumya (footnote 39) 54 cf Kabagumya (footnote 39) 46 across the rest of the country. The aim of conservation education and awareness is to raise awareness of the value of conservation and how communities can both participate in and benefit from it. At a national scale, the Uganda Wildlife Education Centre raises awareness of conservation issues among the general public, tourists and school students. In order to facilitate visits by school children and organised groups to some of the parks, low cost accommodation has been created to enable pupils to spend a weekend viewing and learning about wildlife conservation. These facilities currently exist in Lake Mburo Conservation Area, Queen Elizabeth National Park, Murchison Falls Conservation Area and Mt. Elgon National Park. UWA’s Community Conservation rangers run sensitisation projects around protected areas, holding meetings with local communities. Conservation education in this way usually leads to improved relations between authorities and local communities,55 if only because local people perceive the authorities to be acknowledging their presence. Sensitisation was ranked as the second most important reason that people did not engage in wildlife crime at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park by community groups, after law enforcement.56 Therefore, conservation education and sensitisation has reduced the demand for wildlife products and increased support for conservation among consumers and traders. 7. Key challenges in the fight against Wildlife Crimes 7.1. Corruption Corruption is the key bottleneck to the fight against wildlife crime in Uganda. Uganda is the 26th most corrupt country in the world and the 2nd in East Africa, according to the 2018 Corruption Perceptions Index reported by Transparency International. The corruption ranking of Uganda averaged 115.45 from 1996 until 2018, reaching an all-time high of 151 in 2016 and a record low of 43 in 1996.57 Organised crime syndicates are heavily involved in wildlife crime and such illegal networks fuel and are fuelled by corruption particularly in terms of facilitating illegal trade.58 Some game rangers and officers allow wildlife crimes to happen under their noses by taking bribes to allow local people to harvest resources illegally or for people to export species for which they do not have permits. 55 cf Kabagumya (footnote 39) cf Kabagumya (footnote 39) 57 See accessed 14 June 2019 58 Environmental Investigation Agency, ‘Environmental Crime; A threat to our future’ (2008) accessed 14 June 2019 56 7.2. Weak Law enforcement Effective law enforcement is often hindered by lack of adequate funds, meaning that there are very few law enforcement officers, who are often underpaid and lack the equipment they need to do their job, such as vehicles, fuel and arms. Although there are over 28,000 square kilometres of protected areas in Uganda, there are only 1,300 rangers, and this translates into an average of one ranger per 22 square kilometres, which is far below the IUCN recommendation of one for every six square kilometres. 7.3. Political instability Wildlife crimes increase as insecurity and war increase because it is always too dangerous to patrol certain areas, or rangers are preoccupied with fighting.59 Rangers at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park have for a long time provided security against rebels from the Democratic Republic of Congo.60 Wildlife crimes such as ivory poaching are arguably enabled by the availability of weapons, remaining from the civil wars or loaned or stolen from security officials.61 7.4. Inequity in revenue sharing Inequity in revenue sharing worsens economic inequality and resentment. First, there is often a delay in sharing revenue.62 Secondly, protected areas with more visitors and charging higher entrance fees generate more revenue, and therefore communities neighbouring those parks receive more than communities at protected areas off the standard tourist trail. Thirdly, not all communities around protected areas benefit from projects funded by revenue sharing. Some projects, such as agricultural support programme and educational support programmes are considered to be reducing income inequality by specifically benefitting people who have suffered from crop raiding and are therefore poorer.63 However, most revenue sharing projects worsen economic inequality through elite capture, making the poor relatively poorer and the relatively wealthy better off.64 7.5. Inadequate penalties 59 Mugisha A, ‘Evaluation of community-based conservation approaches: management of protected areas in Uganda (2002) PhD thesis. University of Florida 60 Tumusiime D M and Sjaastad E, ‘Conservation and Development: Justice, Inequality, and Attitudes around Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, (2014) Journal of Development Studies, 52(2), pp- New Vision, ‘Brothers held over poaching, Bushenyi. New Vision 4th March 2008’ (2008) accessed 16 June 2019 62 Kaggwa R, Hogan R and Hall B, ‘Enhancing Wildlife’s Contribution to Growth, Employment and Prosperity, Environment and Natural Resources Report Series’ (2009)UNDPUNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative Kampala 63 Tumusiime D M and Sjaastad E, ‘Conservation and Development: Justice, Inequality, and Attitudes around Bwindi Impenetrable National Park’ (2014) Journal of Development Studies, 52(2), pp- ibid Penalties have little or no impact on commercially driven criminal, for whom the profits of wildlife crime are greater than the potential penalties, and who often bribe officials so that they do not get charged at all. Section 74 of the Uganda Wildlife Act provides for a general penalty. A first offender under the Act is sentenced to a fine of not less than UGX 30,000 (approximately USD 18) but not exceeding UGX 3 million (approximately USD 1,800) or imprisonment for a term of not less than three months or both such fine and imprisonment. In the case of a second or subsequent offence, a convict is sentenced to a fine of not less than UGX 300,000 but not exceeding UGX 6 million or imprisonment for a term of not less than six months or both such fine and imprisonment. Any person convicted of an offence relating to protected species is liable to a fine not less than UGX 1 million or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years. In any case, the fine shall not be less than the value of the specimen involved in the commission of the offence. For offences relating to import, export or re-export of specimen of protected species, section 76 of the Uganda Wildlife Act provides that a person so convicted shall be liable to a fine of not less than UGX 10 million or to imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years. However, the fine should not be less than the value of the specimen involved in the commission of the offence. According to the Uganda Wildlife Authority, the inadequate penalties related to wildlife crimes are more of a problem enabling people to reoffend than the lack of rangers, equipment or patrols, or corruption within the organisation.65 8. Conclusion and actionable recommendations for the reduction of wildlife crime and promotion of the rule of law 8.1. Conclusion The sharp increase in wildlife crimes in Uganda is a clear sign that organized crime has slipped into the wildlife underworld. There is growing awareness of the links between wildlife crime and organised criminal syndicates and their diversified links to human migrant exploitation, money laundering, drugs and arms trafficking and alleged links to terrorism. The causes of Wildlife crime vary according to the type of crime and the type of resources or commodities involved. The perpetrators of wildlife crimes include people who live close to the protected areas, middlemen and traders who engage in wildlife trade for commercial purposes. The legal framework for wildlife conservation and wildlife crimes in Uganda consists of International treaties and conventions as well as national laws and policies. The institutional framework on the other 65 UWA, ‘Poaching in protected areas not out of control’ (2012) accessed 16 June 2019 hand consists of government ministries, departments, agencies, Local Governments, private sector, NGOs, civil society and Academia. The interventions against wildlife crime are law enforcement, regulated resource access, revenue sharing, Reformed Poachers Associations (RPAs) and conservation education and sensitisation. Corruption is the key bottleneck to the fight against wildlife crime in Uganda. The fight against wildlife crimes and the promotion of the rule of law demand that youth should reduce demand for illegal wildlife products, embezzlement in the sharing of revenue benefits should be eliminated, long-term working relationships between the youth and conservation agencies should be developed, law enforcement should be improved and local youth should be engaged in gainful employment, positive incentives should be given to the youth, regulated resource access programmes should be improved, youth should increase their participation in decisions and activities regarding the utilization and conservation of wildlife resources and finally, youth should undergo public awareness, sensitisation, education and training about the negative impacts of wildlife crime. The global problem of wildlife crime is tied to the more domestic issues of education, good governance and the rule of law. 8.2. Recommendations for the reduction of wildlife crime and promotion of the rule of law The youth should reduce demand for illegal wildlife products through the ‘twin track’ approach. The efforts in reducing demand for illegal wildlife products should adopt a twin track approach. Under the twin track approach, one track involves efforts, activities and communications around implementing a societal behavioural control for example through ensuring that laws are appropriate, perceived to be an adequate deterrent and effectively enforced, and restricting consumer choice that is, by retailers removing products from sale, or manufactures using alternatives. The second track involves those influential with youth as a consumer group and other target audiences, issuing messaging to help inspire and shape individual motivation, through social and behavioural change communications (SBCC), or behavioural change communications (BCC) and associated approaches to advocacy and social mobilisation. Celebrities such as popular musicians, comedians and athletes should be facilitated to make adverts on all media platforms and at youth events and gatherings so as to change consumer behaviour and reduce demand for wildlife products. Figure1: The ‘twin-track’ approach66 Youth who are involved in revenue sharing should shun embezzlement and corruption so as to promote equitable sharing of revenue benefits. If the benefits of revenue sharing are to be shared more equitably with all members of local communities, youth especially males should desist from the habit of using their muscle power, treachery and level of education to reap benefits while women, the elderly, persons living with disabilities, illiterates and other disadvantaged groups miss-out on the incentives and still have the zeal to commit wildlife crimes. These inequities may be addressed by increasing communication with local people and tackling corruption, which leads to the second suggestion; the institutions responsible for revenue sharing need to be strengthened to improve accountability and transparency. The strengthened institutions should involve local people at every stage of decision-making and project implementation, and find new ways to engage marginalised members of society in equitable revenue sharing. The youth living in communities in protected areas should develop long-term working relationships with conservation agencies. 66 TRAFFIC, ‘Reducing demand for illegal wildlife products; Research analysis on strategies to change illegal wildlife product consumer behaviour(2018) Developing long-term working relationships with the youth is the corner stone of successful conservation programmes which bring about sustainable behaviour change. This may be achieved through organising events which the youth are interested in such as games and sports where UWA officials compete against the local people. Sports leagues may even be formed so that people around one protected area play games against others from another protected area. It is at such events, that UWA should wittingly blend in messages of wildlife conservation. Such relationships lead to mutual trust and an understanding of shared goals, as well as to resolve conflicts when they arise. Mutual trust results into popular for wildlife and conservation activities, and this reduces wildlife crime. Although, there may be times when conservation authorities and local people inevitably come into conflict, especially in instances where expectations on either side are not realistic, such conflicts can arise when communities feel that they are not benefiting from the park or from activities implemented by UWA or conservation partners; when they experience high costs as a result of human-wildlife conflict; when individuals are penalised unfairly or disproportionately (as they perceive it) for wildlife crime or for not complying with conservation activities; or when community members are killed or go missing in the park. Failure to resolve such conflicts can damage people-park relationships for the long-term and resolving these conflicts swiftly is critical to avoiding escalating problems. UWA and partners should improve law enforcement through stringent penalties, increasing the capacity of protected area managers and engaging local youth in gainful employment. Effective law enforcement is a prerequisite for reducing commercially-driven wildlife crime. The expected penalties should be increased so as to increase the both the perceived probability of receiving a penalty and the penalty itself given that the current penalties are not a deterrent. There should be a regular review of the Uganda Wildlife Act in order to provide for greater and more stringent penalties. In order to avoid causing disproportionately negative impact on the poor, these penalties should not be applied to subsistence crimes. In addition to stringent penalties, the capacity of protected area managers should be increased to detect wildlife crime. This may be much more effective than stringent penalties alone because the perceived probability of capture is a far more effective deterrent to crime than the penalty itself. The hiring of more rangers shall reduce youth unemployment in Uganda, and once they are paid better and provided with the equipment they need to do their jobs, wildlife crime will become history. This will reduce the temptation for youth to get involved in illegal activities and bribery, although unemployment needs to be tackled at higher levels to eliminate an environment where youth are too desperate to do anything for money however risky it may be. The hiring of local youth as law enforcement rangers will also increase local support for conservation and compliance with rules and regulations, as well as increase local income. Although, local rangers might be more sympathetic to their community’s needs or not want to report family or friends, and allow illegal activities to continue, this likely challenge may be remedied by employing local people from one park at another park, for example people from Bwindi Impenetrable National Park to Queen Elizabeth National Park. UWA and partners should provide positive incentives to the youth to encourage youth to improve their behaviour towards conservation Although, youth commit wildlife crimes for various reasons, the lack of viable or realistic alternatives is used by many as a justification. For others, committing wildlife crimes is simply the easiest means of earning quick money. Although law enforcement has a vital role to play in deterring potential offenders, the risks of getting caught and penalised are often insufficient to change youth’s decision making, particularly for those driven to crime by necessity. Providing incentives to encourage youth to change their behaviour is therefore a crucial part of the action plans. Such incentives work best when they are directly linked to wildlife conservation such as the park revenuesharing scheme or tied to compliance with pro-conservation agreements such as on resource access. The benefits that youth derive from the incentive schemes may be different such as resource access rights, performance payment and livelihood training, among others, but should be set at a level that youth collectively feel is appropriate and should be distributed in a way that is widely perceived to be fair. If the benefits from incentives are accepted as appropriate compensation for the costs of conservation, a gradual shift in youth behaviour can be expected. This may be faster where the benefits are conditional on collective behaviour change and efforts are made to build the capacity of local youth groups so that individuals within the groups feel pressured from their peers to comply. UWA and partners should improve regulated resource access programmes while ensuring that they do not reduce household incomes. Regulated resource sharing should be improved by permitting people to access more resources in less limited areas over a greater time period. However, this should be after adequate research has been carried out into what levels of harvesting are sustainable. One resource that this approach would be particularly relevant for is bush meat, which is one of the most important resources to local people both culturally and in terms of subsistence needs. Regulated bush meat hunting at a subsistence level may be sustainable where species-specific hunting methods are used to avoid bycatch. In areas where regulated resource access is offered as an alternative to profitable wildlife criminal activities, as occurred at Budongo Forest Reserve, there is a need to be careful to ensure that household incomes do not decline. In 2013, members of Budongo Forest Reserve’s programme were dissatisfied that beekeeping did not generate as much income as timber, indicating that the programme might not be a sustainable solution to wildlife crime.67 UWA and partners should increase youth participation in decisions and activities regarding the utilization and conservation of wildlife resources The concept of youth’s participation in matters that affect them is becoming increasingly applicable to all sorts of human endeavour, thus it is not unique to modern-day wildlife conservation. The participation of youth in decisions and activities regarding the utilization and conservation of wildlife resources ensures that those whose livelihoods as well as health and well-being are dependent on the sustainable and appropriate use of such resources, are able to influence decisions so that their interests are taken adequately into account in the planning and implementation of social and economic programmes and projects. It is imperative that the youth establish strategic partnerships with UWA. This may be done through the local council youth executive committees to rally their fellow youth to actively participate in wildlife conservation and the fight against wildlife crimes. Such participation would even enable the youth to exercise their right to take legal action in the courts or other appropriate tribunals, to force any person or organization, including government authorities, to act in a manner required by the law as a way of protecting their right to a clean and healthy environment. UWA and partners should promote public awareness, sensitisation, education and training among the youth about the negative impacts of wildlife crime. Education is the most important tool we can use to change the world. 68 Wildlife crimes can be substantially reduced if the youth are well informed and motivated towards a culture of wildlife conservation. Wildlife conservation issues should be integrated in the primary and secondary school curriculum and at tertiary education level, in addition to courses such as tourism, modules and courses specifically on wildlife conservation should be developed since these are occupied largely by youth. 67 Turyahabwe N et al, ‘Impact of Collaborative Forest Management on Forest Status and Local Perceptions of Contribution to Livelihoods in Uganda’ (2013) 68 Lightning your way to a better future: Speech delivered by Mr. Nelson Mandela at the launch of Mind-set Network, July 16, 2003 Various kinds of youth events and gatherings should be used to deliver wildlife conservation related information. Youth leaders should use the media to disseminate wildlife conservation related information through organising and participating in live broadcast radio and TV programmes where panellists discuss and viewers participate through phone calls and the sending of messages.