Reducing Wildlife Crime Through Evidence-Based Interventions
1. Wildlife Crime Project
1. What are the drivers and impacts of
wildlife crime?
2. What are the socio-economic profiles
of individuals who participate in wildlife
crime?
3. Which interventions are most effective
in reducing wildlife crime?
2. 1. What are the drivers and
impacts of wildlife crime?
Evidence review of extent to which poverty is a
driver of wildlife crime. Focussing on Uganda
but bringing in international evidence as well.
Mariel Harrison (Imperial); Geoffrey Mwedde
(WCS) and Dilys Roe (IIED)
Due for completion by end of March 2015
3. 2. What are the socio-economic
profiles of individuals who
participate in wildlife crime?
Identification of known poachers from
arrest data
Survey of 2000 hh around QE and
Murchison
Indirect questioning focussed on who
poaches and why, correlated against hh
wealth
Prep work completed, main fieldwork Feb
– April, (Henry Travers, Imperial)
4. 3. Which interventions are
most effective?
Park by park analysis attempting to correlate
different variables (eg patrol effort, expenditure
on community conservation) with crime (will
also feed into evidence review)
Fieldwork to explore different response
interventions based on policy scenarios and
key informant interviews
Park analysis nearly completed (Mariel and
Geoffrey)
Fieldwork (Henry and Geoffrey) May – July
2015
5. Wildlife Crime Database
Database finalised
Ongoing digitisation of historical records
Capacity building of UWA staff
(production of database manual and
training sessions)
WCS (Andy Plumptre)
6. Role for U-PCLG?
Inputs to evidence review
Inputs to park by park analysis
What next?
Editor's Notes
It was also clear that biodiversity is not the first and only thing to be mainstreamed into development – lots of experience from other areas
First issue is the most important – and the reason for biodiversity mainstreaming in the first place. This emerges from experience in environment mainstreaming which documents that environment is still largely seen as an obstacle to development rather than an opportunity or asset
This is not helped by a poor understanding of biodiversity
And a weak evidence base on its contribution to development objectives
6. For example in our recent NBSAPs 2.0 workshop, all the project countries also stressed the importance of having to make the NBSAP work not only for biodiversity practioners but also for other policymakers concerned about jobs and food security. It was agreed that NBSAPs would have more traction with development policy makers if they were presented in terms of recognised development priorities first – then biodiversity contribution, or biodiversity risks to those priorities – the number of jobs generated by wildlife tourism in Namibia, the importnace of biodivrsity in maintaining healthy fisheries in Seychelles. It is important to note that the mainstream is interested in jobs, health, and food security, not in levels of endemism or endangeredness