1.
Wildlife crime in Uganda:
how can we prevent it?
Presented by Geoffrey Mwedde & Henry Travers
at the Pro-poor Responses to Wildlife Crime Research Workshop
Hotel Africana 25th-26th May 2016

2.
Evidence
review
Inves-ga-on
of drivers
Interven-on
evalua-on
Recommenda-ons
for UWA

3.
The aim of the second phase of
the research was to predict
behaviour change under
different policy and intervenLon
opLons
IntervenLons to invesLgate
were idenLfied following:
• the evidence review
• Uganda Wildlife Policy 2014
• successful approaches from
elsewhere

4.
Interven'ons Descrip'on
HWC miLgaLon
Designate 25% or 50% of revenue sharing funds
specifically to fund human wildlife conflict miLgaLon
Improve livelihoods
Support wildlife friendly enterprise schemes to improve
livelihood opLons available to offenders
Eco-guards
Employ village eco-guards/scouts to act as link between
communiLes and UWA, respond to HWC
Withdraw resource
rights
Withdraw all rights to harvest resources from within
protected area boundaries
Regulated hunLng
Allow a regulated trade in specific species, provided
sustainability of oWake could be ensured
Increase law
enforcement
Increase the probability of detecLon of wildlife crimes
within protected area boundaries

5.
We used three methods to invesLgate the preferences of local people:
• choice experiments
• scenario interviews
• key informant interviews
A workshop was held in Kampala in July 2015 to invesLgate the
preferences of UWA staff

6.
Choice Experiments
• Used to invesLgate local preferences for the different policy
changes and intervenLons
• Good proxy for understanding how people’s views of conservaLon
acLviLes would change under different policy opLons
• Each respondent is shown a series of cards with two alternaLve
opLons that are characterised by different aributes and values
and are simply asked which one they prefer

7.
Specs/A2ributes Acer CB5-311-T9Y2 Dell XPS 13 (2015)
Display Size and Type 14.1 inch LED 13.3 inch
Pixel Density 117 PPI 165 PPI
ResoluLon 1366 x 768 px 1920 x 1080 px
Baery Life 7hrs 5hrs
Processor Cores Quad-Core Dual-Core
Processor Cache 2 MB 3 MB
Price $350 $590
Qn.: Which op'on do
you prefer ('ck)
Computer 1 Computer 2

8.
• what intervenLons/policies have worked elsewhere?
• how did we idenLfy intervenLons/policies to be considered?
• what are the intervenLons/policies we considered?
• methods
• choice experiments
– how does the method work?
– what are the results?
• Scenario interviews
– how does the method work?
– what are the results?
• Key informant interviews
– people suggest what has been done in the past, what they think they are likely to get
– the case of crop-raiding
– reformed poacher associaLons
• UWA staff
• How do the results of the different approaches compare?
5
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Human Wildlife Conflict
1/2 (50%) RS funds to
HWC
No RS funds to HWC
Employ eco-guards
No eco-guards
employed
2 eco-guards in your
village employed
Chances of being caught
hunting illegally
1 out of 1000 people
caught hunting illegally
1 out of 10 people
caught hunting
illegally
Sustainable hunting for
meat (domestic use)
Hunting allowed for
domestic consumption
Hunting not allowed
Wildlife-friendly enterprise
schemes
No scheme, no benefit
Scheme; participants
earn Ugx
1,000,000/yr
Attributes
Which scenario do you prefer (tick one)?
CHOICE SET

9.
• what intervenLons/policies have worked elsewhere?
• how did we idenLfy intervenLons/policies to be considered?
• what are the intervenLons/policies we considered?
• methods
• choice experiments
– how does the method work?
– what are the results?
• Scenario interviews
– how does the method work?
– what are the results?
• Key informant interviews
– people suggest what has been done in the past, what they think they are likely to get
– the case of crop-raiding
– reformed poacher associaLons
• UWA staff
• How do the results of the different approaches compare?
RelaLve preference Rank
Murchison Queen Murchison Queen
50% revenue sharing
for HWC -0.05 1.00 4 1
eco-guards 0.31 0.54 2 2
increase detecLon
prob by order of 10 0.03 0.16 3 4
regulated hunLng -0.17 -0.09 5 5
agri-environmental
scheme 0.39 0.39 1 3

10.
The scenario interviews considered change in three variables
• labour allocated to main livelihood acLvity
• how fair each scenario was considered to be
• how likely respondents were to inform on illegal acLviLes
Scenario interviews cannot be used to directly invesLgate wildlife crime
Scenario Interviews
- Wildlife crime is sensiLve and we cannot quesLon directly about it
- We use proxies
- Scenario interviews invesLgate potenLal effecLveness of policies and
intervenLons
- We can draw conclusions on people’s likelihood to engage in wildlife
crime or to support conservaLon

11.
ProporLon of respondents
who change posiLvely
ProporLon of respondents
who do not change
ProporLon of respondents
who change negaLvely

12.
Crop-raiding
predaLon

13.
Improved livelihoods through wildlife friendly enterprises were considered
to be the fairest opLon at both sites
Authorised resource users more likely to think opLons are fair

14.
Improved livelihoods, ecoguards and human wildlife conflict miLgaLon all
predicted to increase likelihood of households informing
Important implicaLons for intelligence led enforcement

15.
The single biggest response for our
key-informants was steady jobs
Means to earn money all year round
viewed as very important
Hunters willing to earn less to reduce
risks/difficult lifestyle
*If support for livelihoods offered,
very important that is followed
through
*PrevenLng crop-raiding also received
broad support
Key Informant Interviews
- Involved current & former
poachers

16.
We asked UWA staff which
community intervenLons would have
the greatest impact on reducing
wildlife crime

17.
Labour
allocaLon
Fairness
Likelihood
of informing
Community
preference
UWA
preference
HWC miLgaLon + ++ ++ ++ ++
Improve
livelihoods
++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Eco-guards ++ ++ ++ ++ +
Withdraw
resource rights
- - + / -
not
assessed
not
assessed
Regulated hunLng - + / - + - -
Increase law
enforcement
not
assessed
not
assessed
not
assessed
+ ++

18.
Summary:
• Broad agreement found between different methods used
• Overall HWC miLgaLon and wildlife friendly enterprise schemes most
preferred opLons
• Significant differences in responses found between sites
• Households that suffer from crop raiding and livestock predaLon are
more likely to change their behaviour
• There is modest local support for increased enforcement
• Community engagement approaches can improve the effecLveness
of law enforcement through more intelligence

19.
Thank you for listening