This is a presentation by biodiversity team leader Dilys Roe, of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). It presents an overview of the three-year project ‘Building capacity for pro-poor responses to wildlife crime in Uganda’, and the findings from the evidence review of the drivers and impacts of wildlife crime in Uganda, which was undertaken for the project. Roe gave this presentation to open the project’s research workshop, which was held in Kampala, Uganda, on 25 May 2016. More information: http://www.iied.org/building-capacity-for-pro-poor-responses-wildlife-crime-uganda

1. 1
Author name
Date
Dilys Roe
Project Overview

2. 2
Pro-poor responses to
wildlife crime
• 3 year project (April 2014 –
March 2017)
• Funded by the UK Govt Illegal
Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund
• Implemented by UWA, WCS,
IIED, Oxford

3. 3
Two Key Objectives
1. Build national (Ugandan) capacity to
deliver pro-poor responses to wildlife
crime
2. Draw out lessons learned that have
international applicability.

4. 4
Three main components
• Research : 3 key questions
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?

5. 5
Three main components
• Research
• Capacity development – Wildlife
crime database

6. 6
Three main components
• Research - who undertakes wildlife
crime and why, what interventions
work and why
• Capacity development – Wildlife
crime database
• Changes in policy and practice –
redesigned policies and new wildlife
crime interventions at key sites

7. 7
Changes in policy and practice

8. 8
Anticipated outcomes
1. at least one improved or new intervention to tackle wildlife crime is
implemented at each study location, based on local people’s
perceptions,
2. the wildlife crime mitigation policies in at least one of the two
National Parks have been re-designed to ensure fairness and are
being implemented.
3. a functioning wildlife crime database is in routine use by UWA
together with improved reporting processes for monitoring wildlife
crime, for adaptive management and for better targeting of
interventions in response to offender profiles.
4. Lessons learned are disseminated widely (including UWA-led side
event at the 2016 CITES CoP.)

9. 9
A: Research
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?

10. 10
Evidence Review
Evidence review of
extent to which
poverty is a driver of
wildlife crime.
Focussing on Uganda
but bringing in
international evidence
as well.

11. 11
Wildlife Crime and Poverty
Key questions:
1. What is the nature and extent of wildlife
crime in Uganda?
2. Is poverty a driver of wildlife crime?
3. What impacts does wildlife crime have
on poor people?
4. What impacts do responses to wildlife
crime have on poor people?

12. 12
Methodology

13. 13
1. Nature and extent of
wildlife crime in Uganda
• Most common crimes: bushmeat hunting,
protected area incursions (land
encroachment), firewood collection and timber
harvesting
• “Serious crime”: less widespread in Uganda
compared to many other African countries,
BUT
• “Uganda, Ethiopia and Nigeria rarely supply
ivory from local elephant populations, but
frequently function as entrepôt and/or exit
countries for ivory sourced elsewhere” (CITES
2013).

14. 14
Wildlife crime
Any harm to (including intent to harm and subsequent trade of) non-
domes cated wild animals, plants and fungi, in contraven on of
na onal and interna onal laws and conven ons
Na onal
e.g. from rural to
urban areas
Local
Within ‘local’ community
of similar social status
Subsistence
For use/consump on personally/
within household
Commercial
To generate monetary income or to
be used as currency
Injus ce
Damage caused without material ‘use’, due to
nega ve a tudes towards wildlife and/or
conserva on, for example because of livestock
preda on, crop raiding or social injus ce
Interna onal
To meet the demand
of the diaspora
community
To meet foreign
demand
Pre-emp ve Reac ve
Tradi onal
For tradi onal cultural purposes
NB. Purposes of wildlife crime are
overlapping, so these categories
should not be seen as mutually
exclusive.
2. Is poverty a driver of wildlife
crime?

15. 15
… to provide the
resource they need
… to provide a
subs tute for the
resource they need
… to generate income
to meet needs
e.g. bushmeat,
firewood, land
e.g. grass for
thatch instead
of iron sheets
e.g. mber,
bushmeat
High and increasing
popula on density
Households fail to sa sfy
basic needs, so conduct
wildlife crime…
Environmental stress,
e.g. dry season,
drought, crop damage Conflict
Immigra on
High dependence
ra o and low income
Poaching for subsistence

16. 16
3. What are the impacts of
wildlife crime on poor people?

17. 17
4. What are the impacts of
anti-crime interventions on
poor people?
• Disincentives – eg law enforcement,
penalties and fines
• Incentives – eg jobs, rewards for
intelligence, HWC mitigation
• Alternatives – eg improved agriculture,
non-wildlife enterprises

18. 18

19. 19
Intervention Positive Negative
Law enforcement Improved local security Abuse of power by officials
Reprisals on local informants
Penalties easier for wealthier to
pay
Imprisonment exacerbates poverty
Revenue sharing Income, social infrastructure,
new livelihood opportunities
Inequitable distribution
Corruption
Benefits do not exceed costs
Regulated
resource access
Access to subsistence
resources
Income opportunities
Cultural traditions maintained
Some elite capture
Reformed
Poachers
Associations
Some jobs
Income opportunities
Loss of access to hunted meat
Conservation
education
Improved relations with park
managers
Improved recognition

20. 20
Recommendations
Different responses needed for different
crimes and different drivers:
• Commercial/large-scale – strengthen law
enforcement
• Subsistence/cultural: improve revenue sharing
and resource access. Could there be a case
for regulated bushmeat hunting?
• Improve revenue sharing so those who bear
the cost receive the benefits

21. 21
THANK YOU
Funded by the UK
Government Illegal
Wildlife Trade
Challenge Fund