THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BY THE UGANDA WILDLIFE
AUTHORITY
Prepared by Office of the Auditor General
P.O. Box 7083 Kampala
MARCH, 2011
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ii LIST OF PICTURES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... v
CHAPTER ONE .................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE AUDIT ................................................................................... 1
1.2 MOTIVATION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AUDIT AREA .......................................................................... 3
1.3.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 3
1.3.2 Mandate ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.3 Vision and Mission Statement .................................................................................. 3
1.3.4 Strategic goals of UWA .............................................................................................. 3
1.3.5 Activities carried out by UWA ................................................................................... 4
1.3.6 Organizational Structure ........................................................................................... 4
1.3.7 Funding of UWA ......................................................................................................... 5
1.4 AUDIT OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................... 5
1.5 AUDIT SCOPE ................................................................................................................ 6
CHAPTER TWO …………………………………………………………………………….. ………7
AUDIT METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 7
2.1 SAMPLING ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 DATA COLLECTION METHODS .................................................................................... 7
Document review ...................................................................................................................... 7
Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 8
Physical Inspection ................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER THREE .............................................................................................. 9
SYSTEMS AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 9
3.1 SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 9
3.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities of key players .............................................................. 9
3.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 11
CHAPTER FOUR .............................................................................................. 18
FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 18
4.1 RESEARCH AND MONITORING ................................................................................. 18
4.2 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ............................... 22
4.3 COMMUNITY CONSERVATION ................................................................................... 38
4.4 MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE PAS 43
4.5 PROSECUTION OF OFFENDERS ............................................................................... 47
APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 53
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Showing the Declining Population of some of the Wild Animals………………………………..2
Table 2: Showing the Funding of UWA ………………………………………………………………………………5
Table 3: Showing the Forests and Savanah Parks not Surveyed ………………………………………….18
Table 4: Showing Animals poached in Murchison Protected Area ………………………………………..25
Table 5: Showing animals Poached in Queen Elizabeth Protected area ………………………………..26
Table 6: Showing the Different Food rations provided by the CAs Visited …………………………….32
Table 7: Showing Community revenue balanced over the period under study ………………………39
LIST OF PICTURES
Picture 1: Map showing Encroached areas on Mt. Elgon National Park ………………………………..26
Picture 2: Showing Some of the Standard Housing Accommodation provided by UWA………… 28
Picture 3: Showing an Interior view of living conditions of the UWA rangers at Kaikem…………29
Picture 4: Showing a Group of UWA rangers with no or very old uniforms at Bwindi……………..30
Picture 5: Showing a Group of UWA rangers with incomplete and faded set of uniforms……….31
Picture 6: Showing UWA rangers donning the newly acquired uniforms at its HQRs………………35
Picture 7: Showing a Section on Apoka-Kaikem track with carriage way full of gullies……………44
Picture 8: Showing a Section of a closed off track in Kidepo Valley National Park………………….45
Picture 9: The Airstrip at Murchison Falls National park………………………………………………………46
Picture 10: Grader in Lake Mburo National park ………………………………………………………………..47
iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AG Auditor General
AAG Assistant Auditor General
ADA Assistant Director of Audit
AOP Annual Operations Plan
BINP Bwindi Impenetrable National Park
BMCA Bwindi Mgahinga Conservation Area
BoT Board of Trustees
CA Conservation Area
CAM Conservation Area Manager
CCAM Chief Conservation Area Manager
CITIES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
CM Collaborative management
CPI Community Protected Area Institution
CWA Community Wildlife Area
DA Director of Audit
ED Executive Director
EIA Environment Impact Assessment
GMP(s) General Management Plan(s)
GoU Government of Uganda
ITB International Tourism Bourse
KNP Kibale National Park
KVNP Kidepo Valley National Park
KWS Kenya Wildlife Service
LCs Local Councillors
LGs Local Governments
LMCA Lake Mburo Conservation Area
LMNP Lake Mburo National Park
M & E Monitoring and Evaluation
MENP Mt. Elgon National Park
MFCA Murchison Falls Conservation Area
MFNP Murchison Falls National Park
MGNP Mgahinga Gorilla National Park
MIST Management Information System
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MTTI Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Industry
MTWH Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Heritage
MUK Makerere University Kampala
NEMA National Environment Authority
NFA National Forestry Authority
NGO(s) Non- Governmental Organisation(s)
OAG Office of the Auditor General
PA(s) Protected Area(s)
PAMSU Protected Areas and Sustainable Use project
PPDA Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Authority
iv
QECA Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area
QENP Queen Elizabeth National Park
QEPA Queen Elizabeth Protected Area
RMNP Rwenzori Mts. National Park
RWA Rwanda Wildlife Authority
SNP Semiliki National Park
SWIFT Special Wildlife Integration Force for Tourism protection
SWOT Strength, Weakness, Opportunities Threat
UNP(s) Uganda National Parks
UNRA Uganda National Roads Authority
UPDF Uganda Peoples Defence Forces
Shs Uganda Shillings
UTB Uganda Tourism Board
UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority
VFM Value for Money
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
WP Wildlife Policy
WTM World Travel Markets
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
This value for money (VFM) audit on the management of the conservation of wildlife by the
Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) was conducted in accordance with Article 163(3) of the 1995
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. This mandate is amplified by Section 21(1) of the
National Audit Act 2008 which requires the Auditor General to carry out VFM audits for purposes
of establishing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the operations of any department or
ministry.
UWA is a semi autonomous statutory body established in 1996 by an Act of Parliament (Wildlife
Act, Cap 200 of the laws of Uganda, 2000) through a merger of the Uganda National Parks and
the Game department in the then Ministry of Tourism Trade and Industry. UWA has the legal
mandate to conserve and manage wildlife in the country and enforce wildlife laws and
regulations.
The funding of UWA at the time of audit amounted to Shs. 74.736 billion (shs.19.671bn for F/Y
2008/09, 28.2 bn for the F/Y 2009/10 and shs.26.866bn for the F/Y 2010/2011).
The Audit was conducted in accordance with INTOSAI standards. These standards require that
a VFM audit should be planned in a manner which ensures that an audit of high quality is
carried out in an economic, efficient and effective way and in a timely manner. Data collection
methods, such as: Document reviews, Physical Observations, analytical reviews and Interviews
were used.
Motivation
There have been reports and publications by civil society organisations, print media and Uganda
Wildlife Authority, on the increasing poaching activities in and around protected areas and the
decreasing and stagnating population of some wild animals such as Buffalos, Elephants, Hippos,
Uganda kobs, topics, Lions, Zebras, Ostriches in Uganda’s wildlife Protected Areas. There are
glaring data gaps, such as: ecological data, data on production systems as well as data on
markets that need to be bridged to enable evidence-based decision-making. There are also
cases of reported illegal activities inside the Protected Areas (PAs), such as: encroachment
(especially in East Madi Wildlife Reserve and Mt. Elgon National Park), Poaching and illegal
vi
harvesting of other natural resources. The audit covered three Financial Years of 2008/09,
2009/10 and 2010/11.
Major Findings The following audit findings were made:
Research and Monitoring
UWA did not consistently carry out over 47.65% of the surveys that should have been
conducted in the period from 2008 to 2011 for both forested and Savannah parks as required
in its Monitoring and Research Policy.
In the last 8 years [since 2003 to 2011], only 24% of the research work was conducted by
UWA in areas of its greatest threats although 101 researches in other areas had been
conducted in the same period.
Conservation and Natural Resource Management
All PAs sampled did not have approved fire management plans. However, all the PAs were
found with draft fire management plans. The drafts had not been approved because of the
management instabilities at UWA at the time of Audit.
The effective ranger coverage by UWA is only 36%. However, given the available ranger
force of 1,202 covering 19,798 square kilometres of the protected areas, UWA is using one
ranger for every 16 sq km to cover the deficit. Deployment of law enforcement rangers in the
different Conservation Areas (CAs) was not based on established total area of the PA but on
identified threats, from gathered intelligence information.
Staff welfare
The law enforcement rangers were not adequately motivated and facilitated with proper
accommodation, adequate food ratios and proper health care as detailed below:
UWA had managed to provide at least a permanent room for 830 of its rangers through the
PAMSU programme, however, 500 remained in deficit, representing 37% shortfall in
accommodation requirements of the rangers. This is still a challenge to UWA.
vii
Food provided for the rangers while on duty was not based on any set standard. As a result,
different PAs provided different food rations. This could cause disgruntlement among the
rangers since they do the same work, though in different PAs.
The health care provided for the rangers was not adequate and efficient. Access to medical
services was difficult, especially for the rangers at the outposts.
Re-introduction and introduction of extinct species
Rhinos were re-introduced in the country by Rhino fund Uganda in collaboration with UWA but
at the time of audit, there was no MoU between Rhino Fund Uganda and UWA which is taking
care of the interests of the Government of Uganda. UWA is not actively involved in the
management of the Rhino sanctuary. UWA had not developed Rhino specific strategies as
provided for by the Wildlife Policy of 1999.
Community Conservation; Revenue Sharing Scheme
UWA did not remit Shs 3.44 billion, representing 66% of the money that should have been
remitted, to the local Government(s) and the communities surrounding the PAs. As a result,
communities that bear the cost of conservation did not benefit from UWA’s conservation drive.
Monitoring and Control of Problem Animals
UWA is not effectively controlling problem animals. Over 1,000 incidents of the problem animal
were reported in the three years under review (2008/09 – 2010/11). Animals persistently
crossed from the PAs and caused damage to people’s gardens, killed livestock and human
beings.
Maintenance and rehabilitation of the infrastructure within the PAs Park infrastructure
UWA is not adequately maintaining and rehabilitating some parts of its infrastructure. 52.2% of
the sampled roads, trails and tracks totalling to 1,456 km of the roads/tracks maintained by
UWA in CAs had surpassed their maintenance period and some had deteriorated beyond usage.
viii
Prosecution of Offenders
UWA had not managed to identify, train and gazette court prosecutors in all its CAs as specified
in its strategic plan. The authority does not have an intelligence gathering unit to support law
enforcement and prosecution of offenders, and its laws on enforcement and prosecution were
found to be weak and non-deterrent.
Recommendations
Research and Monitoring
UWA should adequately staff its research and monitoring unit so as to manage all the
planned surveys for its biodiversity management.
UWA should strengthen the capacity of the Research and Monitoring unit so as to enable it
conduct its planned research activities.
Conservation and Natural resource management
UWA should equip the planning unit to enable it develop fire management plans and
empower PAs for their implementation. In addition, UWA management should step up its
supervisory role on the Conservation Area Managers (CAM) to ensure that Fire Management
Plans are developed and finalized.
UWA should develop and document standard operational procedures for recruitment,
staffing, deployment, accommodation and food rations for law enforcement rangers.
The management of UWA should provide a complete set of uniforms to its entire staff in
time.
UWA should effectively plan for its procurement activities, which should be accordingly
implemented to avoid delays in the procurement process.
UWA should review its staff medical scheme and strategies to ensure that all staff benefit,
including rangers.
ix
Re-introduction and introduction of extinct species
UWA should follow policies and guidelines for wildlife shipment, translocation and
reintroduction and should be actively involved in the implementation of these policies.
UWA should provide a contact person in the management of the Rhinos that are being kept
at the rhino sanctuary.
UWA should develop a Rhino Specific Strategy for the reintroduction and management of the
Rhinos in the country.
Community Conservation; Revenue sharing scheme
The Community conservation unit of UWA should guide the communities neighbouring the
PAs on how to access and utilize their share of revenue.
UWA should ensure prompt disbursement of the share of revenue to communities.
Monitoring and Control of Problem Animals
UWA should consider strategies that will enable it to protect all its PAs boundaries to curtail
the movement of the problem animals outside their gazatted areas.
UWA, in consultation with Government, should consider strategies for freeing the buffer
zones of the communities surrounding the PA.
UWA should strengthen the capacity of rangers to enable them to effectively monitor and
control the movement of problem animals.
Maintenance and rehabilitation of infrastructure within the PAs
UWA should develop and implement a maintenance plan for its infrastructure. This will help
in the planning and scheduling of its maintenance activities.
UWA should prioritize the maintenance of its road and water equipment to enable it to
increase its capacity to rehabilitate and maintain roads, trails, tracks and ferries in the PAs.
x
Prosecution of Offenders
UWA should identify, recruit, train and gazette prosecutors for every CA as specified in its
strategic plan.
The legal Unit should be staffed adequately to manage all UWA’s legal matters, including the
review of the existing Wildlife Act and drafting of the regulations to operationalise the Act.
UWA Management should ensure that regulations to operationalise the Act are developed
and approved by the relevant authorities.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE AUDIT
This Value for Money audit on the Management of Wildlife Conservation by the Uganda
Wild Life Authority (UWA) was conducted in accordance with Article 163 (3) of the
Constitution of Republic of Uganda. This mandate is amplified by Section 21 (1) of the
National Audit Act 2008, which requires the Auditor General to carry out value for money
audits for purposes of establishing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the
operations of any Ministry or Department.
1.2 MOTIVATION
There have been reports and publications by the civil society organisations, such as: the
African Conservation Foundation and international Gorilla Conservation Programme, print
media and Uganda Wildlife Authority, on the increased poaching activities in and around
the protected areas. In the year 2011 alone, 25 elephants were killed in Murchison Falls
conservation area, which is the worst scenario ever reported in a single conservation
area, considering that Uganda was previously losing around 3 elephants only to
poaching every year. UWA’s annual reports over the last 3 years since 2008/09 have
reported illegal activities inside the Protected Areas (PAs), such as: encroachment
(especially in East Madi Wildlife Reserve and Mt. Elgon National Park); and poaching
and illegal harvesting of resources and how this has affected the natural habitat of
wildlife. Some species, such as: the black and white rhino, Derbys and Oryx have since
become extinct in Uganda. The Roan and Bridget’s gazelle are some of the animals that
are listed as endangered, with low populations from the last count in 1998. These
species, both combined, are less than 110 in number.
The population of some wild animals is declining. Mostly affected, are the lions in Queen
Elizabeth National Park, whose population has reduced by 80%, followed by ostriches
(79%), Zebras (74%) and Uganda Kob (69%) as indicated in the following table:
2
Table 1: showing the declining population of some of the wild animals
ANIMAL SPECIES
2006 2010 Percentage decrease
NATIONAL PARK
Buffalos 1,115 591 47% Lake Mburo NP
Buffalos 14,858 8,128 45% Queen Elizabeth NP
Buffalos* 2,760 2,760 0% Kidepo Valley NP
Buffalos 11,004 9,192 16% Murchison Falls NP
Elephants 2,959 2,502 14% Queen Elizabeth NP
Hippos 5,024 2,886 43% Queen Elizabeth NP
Hippos 2,104 955 55% Murchison Falls NP
Uganda Kobs 20,971 6,543 69% Queen Elizabeth NP
Topics 1,521 657 57% Queen Elizabeth NP
Lions 43 8 81% Queen Elizabeth NP
Zebra* 95 25 74% Kidepo Valley NP
Ostriches* 90 19 79% Kidepo Valley NP
Hartebeest 4,101 3,589 12% Murchison Falls NP
NB * Indicates figures from 2005 to 2008 Source: UWA Mammal population trend Reports According to the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), there are
glaring data gaps that need to be bridged by UWA to enable evidence-based decision-
making with regard to trade in wildlife fauna and flora. Key data gaps include: absence of
ecological data, data on production systems as well as data on markets1
The problem animals have also become a nuisance to the local populace. They destroy
crops, kill humans and livestock. As a result, this has created conflicts between the
communities neighbouring the park and wildlife officials, thus hurting UWA’s community
conservation initiatives.
It is against this background that the Office of the Auditor General decided to carry out a
value for money audit on the management of wildlife conservation by the Uganda Wildlife
Authority.
1 Building a foundation for sustainable wildlife trade in Uganda, a review of the national wildlife trade
policies in support of the convention on international trade in endangered species of fauna and flora
(cites),2008
3
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AUDIT AREA
1.3.1 Background
UWA is a semi autonomous statutory body established in 1996 by an Act of Parliament
(Uganda Wildlife Act, Cap 200 of the laws of Uganda, 2000) through a merger of the
Uganda National Parks and the Game department in the then Ministry of Tourism Trade
and Industry. UWA was created to ensure sustainable management of wildlife and
coordination, monitoring and supervision of activities related to wildlife management.
UWA is responsible for the management of 10 National Parks, and 12 Wildlife Reserves,
and it provides guidance for the management of 5 Community wildlife areas and 13
Wildlife Sanctuaries.
1.3.2 Mandate
UWA derives its mandate from section 5 (a) – (s) of the Uganda Wildlife Act, 2000. The
Act mandates UWA to manage all the country’s wildlife and wildlife-protected areas,
which include ten National Parks and twelve wildlife reserves. UWA is also responsible
for ensuring the coordination, monitoring and supervision of the activities related to
wildlife management in the country.
1.3.3 Vision and Mission Statement
Vision
The Vision of Uganda Wildlife Authority is “To be a leading self-sustaining wildlife
conservation agency that transforms Uganda into one of the best eco-tourism
destinations in Africa”.
Mission
The Mission of Uganda Wildlife Authority is “To conserve, economically develop and
sustainably manage the wildlife and Protected Areas of Uganda in partnership with
neighbouring communities and other stakeholders for the benefit of the people of
Uganda and the global community”.
1.3.4 Strategic goals of UWA
The strategic goals of UWA are:-
4
a) To ensure efficient and effective management of the wildlife in the Protected Area
(PA) and preserve their integrity in Uganda;
b) To effectively and efficiently manage wildlife outside the PAs in colloboration with
stakeholders.
c) To promote conservation-led business and investments that will contribute to local
and national development.
d) To strengthen the capacity of UWA towards becoming a self-sustaining organisation
e) To strengthen relationship with communities in order to reduce human-wildlife
conflicts and enhance benefits from wildlife conservation and PA management.
1.3.5 Activities carried out by UWA
The activities carried out under UWA are:
PA operations and technical services
Habitat restoration
Security and safety
Veterinary Services
Community conservation
Research and ecosystem health monitoring
Conducting Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
1.3.6 Organizational Structure
The Authority is governed through a Board of trustees appointed by the Minister in
charge of Wildlife. The Executive Director (ED) is appointed by the Minister on the
recommendation of the Board and is the Chief Executive Officer. The ED oversees the
operations of UWA, and is also the Accounting Officer; he/she reports to the UWA
Board. The ED is assisted by four Directors, namely: the Director of Tourism and
Business Services, the Director of Legal and Corporate Affairs, the Director of Finance
and the Director of Conservation. Within each directorate, there are managers, wardens
and support staff. The Procurement Manager, Human Resources Manager, and Law
Enforcement Coordinator report directly to the ED. The Internal Audit Manager, like the
5
ED, reports directly to the Board. The conservation area is headed by the Conservation
Area Manager (CAM) assisted by four senior wardens.2
1.3.7 Funding of UWA
UWA is funded through: Park fees, Concessions, Government support, Donor funding
and other operating incomes. In the period under review, a total of Shs 75 Billion was
received by UWA as shown in the table 2 below:
FY
Source
2008/09 In Ushs 000’
2009/10
In Ushs 000’
2010/11
In Ushs 000'
Total
In Ushs 000’
Park Fees 13,813,941 17,931,479 21,815,524 53,560,944
Concessions 936,356 1,440,022 1,429,241 3,805,619
Government
support
2,512,388 5,164,282 1,690,892 9,367,562
Donor Funds 1,409,791 1,843,564 - 3,253,355
Other operating
income
998,697 1,820,386 1,930,152 4,749,235
Total 19,671,173 28,199,733
26,866,135 74,736,715
Source: UWA Final Accounts
1.4 AUDIT OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of the audit was to assess the extent to which UWA was ensuring
sustainable management of wildlife conservation. The specific objectives were:
To establish whether UWA was managing conservation in protected Areas as per their
strategic programmes.
To assess the extent to which UWA was maintaining Park infrastructure as per their
strategic programmes.
To ascertain whether UWA was collaborating with other stakeholders, such as: the
community and other private conservationists in conservation of the wildlife.
2 Details of the organization structure attached as appendix 1
6
1.5 AUDIT SCOPE
The audit was carried out in selected Conservation Areas of Murchison Falls
Conservation Area (MFCA), Mt. Elgon Conservation Area (MECA), Lake Mburo
Conservation Area (LMCA), Kidepo Valley Conservation Area (KVCA), Queen Elizabeth
Conservation Area ( QECA) and Bwindi Mgahinga Conservation Area (BMCA) and
focused on the management of wildlife conservation by Uganda Wildlife Authority with
the aim of ascertaining whether UWA was managing conservation in protected area,
maintaining park infrastructure and collaborating with other stakeholders in the
conservation of wildlife for the benefit of the people of Uganda. The audit considered
three financial years of 2008/2009, 2009/2010 and 2010/2011.
7
CHAPTER TWO
AUDIT METHODOLOGY
The audit was conducted in accordance with the International Organization of Supreme
Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) performance auditing standards and guidelines as set out in
the VFM audit manual of the Office of the Auditor General.
Those standards require that the audit should be planned in a manner which ensures
that an audit of high quality is carried out in an economic, efficient and effective way
and in a timely manner.
2.1 SAMPLING
Six (6) out of the seven (7) Conservation Areas under the mandate and management of
UWA were sampled for this study. The Conservation Areas were further split into twenty
one (21) individual Protected Areas (PA) out of which nine (9) were selected for the
study. To achieve a representative distribution of the PAs, a stratified random sampling
method was applied. Protected Areas were grouped into two categories: Forested Parks
and Savannah Parks. Using simple random sampling, one Park was picked from each
Conservation Area where both savannah and Forested parks existed. Judgemental
sampling was also used to select additional Wildlife Reserves and Parks. The Head office
was brought into the sample frame to corroborate the information that was obtained
from the Protected Areas.
2.2 DATA COLLECTION METHODS
Various methods were used for collecting data from the field and these included:
document review, interviews and physical inspections.
Document review
Various documents as detailed in Appendix I were reviewed to extract data3 relating to
conservation activities in the PAs so as assess the extent to which UWA was managing
wildlife in Uganda.
3 Details of particular document and type of information extracted is attached as Appendix i
8
Interviews
Sixty one interviews were conducted during the audit in order to assess the operations
of UWA and to corroborate the information obtained from the other sources, such as:
inspection and document reviews. The officials interviewed included:
The Ag Director Finance and Administration
The Chief Conservation Area Manager
Six Conservation Area managers
The Veterinary coordinator
The Human Resource Manager
Two legal Officers
Six wardens, community conservation
Eight wardens and coordinator ,research and monitoring
Six Wardens, Accounts
25 Law enforcement rangers
4 community groups around the PAs
Physical Inspection
Physical inspection/observation was used to corroborate the data obtained through
interviews and documentary review in order to better understand the conservation
process, PA operations and technical services. The state of infrastructure in the PAs was
also observed.
2.3 DATA ANALYSIS
Analytical review was used to identify the key relationships that corroborated the data
obtained from UWA on the management of Conservation over the last three years. The
financial and other conservation related information prepared by management, such as:
exhibits, charts, graphs and similar analysis included in UWA’s internal management
reports were analyzed.
9
CHAPTER THREE
SYSTEMS AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION
3.1 SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION
3.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities of key players
Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is the highest governing body of UWA. Its members are
appointed by the minister and perform the following roles:
Responsible for the discharge of business and functions of UWA
Trustee for wildlife and wildlife Protected Areas of Uganda
Review and approve management and strategic plans
Make by- laws for the management of wildlife and wildlife conservation, among others.
The Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Heritage
The Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Heritage which is the Ministry in charge of Wildlife,
is responsible for Wildlife policy formulation, overseeing the operations of UWA, giving
technical guidance and monitoring the performance of UWA.
Executive Director (ED)
The Executive Director is the chief executive officer of UWA and is responsible to the
Board for the day to day operations of the Authority and the administration of the UWA
Act.
Director Conservation and Natural Resources Management
He/she is responsible for the overall planning of the programmes in UWA, including the
development of General Management Plans (GMPs) for individual PAs that guide their
operations. In execution of his/her role, the Director, conservation and natural resource
management, supervises all conservation related activities through the various
coordinators. These include: Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment, Ecological
Research and Monitoring, Veterinary services, community conservation, Fleet
management and maintenance, including the air wing. In addition, the Director
10
supervises field operations in the various conservation areas through the Chief
Conservation Area Manager.
Chief Conservation Area Manager (CCAM)
He/she is charged with the coordination of day to day activities of the Conservation
Areas and the supervision of the Conservation Area Managers.
Director Finance
He/she is responsible for the formulation and implementation of financial systems and
procedures and is also involved in monitoring UWA’s financial position and advising ED
on the measures to be undertaken to improve or enhance financial performance.
Director Legal and Corporate Affairs
The main role of the Director legal and corporate affairs is to give support to the ED on
a range of activities, which include: the development and implementation of strategic
plans, legal services, performance management, partnerships, contingencies and other
core corporate service functions.
Conservation Area Manager (CAM)
His/her main roles are to coordinate and supervise the implementation of PA
management programs within a conservation area according to the approved
management plans. He/she is also involved in the coordination of consultative meetings
with stakeholders during the preparation of General Management Plans (GMPs) and
guiding their implementation. His/her other duties include supervision, monitoring and
coordination of field staff during the implementation of activities in and around the PA in
line with the Annual Operations Plans (AOP), GMP and human resources manual.
Warden in charge of Research and Monitoring
He/she is responsible for the determination of wildlife related research priorities,
development and implementation of the wildlife monitoring and research programs and
maintenance of data bases for feeding into the decision making process at PA level.
11
Law Enforcement Ranger
The main responsibility of a law enforcement ranger is to control illegal activities within
the PA, arrest of persons violating park laws and by-laws, provision of boundary
maintenance and law enforcement trails, collection of data necessary for resource
management and control of problem animals using interventions recommended by the
law.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and the private sector:
Government recognizes the involvement of NGOs and the private sector in the
management of wildlife through encouraging their participation and involvement by
providing appropriate incentives and guidelines in the conservation of wildlife. The role
of NGOs and private sector also extends to the facilitation of training, education,
establishment of tourism facilities and funding of wildlife projects at grass root level.
NGOs also help UWA in the implementation of its strategic activities like animal
translocation programmes, wildlife census, problem animal control and funding of
special projects (e.g. the Protected Areas Management and Sustainable Use).
3.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Conservation and Natural Resource Management
Formulation of General Management Plans (GMP) of Protected Areas (PA)
On establishment of a PA, the Executive Director of UWA should prepare a General
Management Plan (GMP) for each PA and wildlife reserve with the approval of the
Board. GMP is formulated through a consultative process, involving the communities,
local Government leaders, other stakeholders and development partners working in the
District and communities neighbouring the PA. The Executive Director publishes in a
daily newspaper or any other appropriate form of media, a notice of his/her intention to
prepare a GMP, inviting suggestions from all interested parties on matters to be included
in the plan. He/she, in addition to the notice, requests the respective District Councils, in
which a wildlife PA falls in whole or in part to forward any proposal for inclusion in the
plan within or not more than 21 days. Public consultations are held including attending
District council meetings to explain the proposals in the plan and consider the
suggestions forwarded. The suggestions received are taken into account when preparing
12
a draft management plan. The draft plan is then submitted to the Board for comments
and on approval the plan is published.
Protection of Wildlife
UWA has the mandate to protect wildlife from all poachers. Poachers can be classified
into two groups. That is: commercial and subsistence poachers. Commercial poachers
can either be local or foreigners while subsistence poachers are mainly locals.
Subsistence poaching is done with the aim of feeding one’s immediate family.
Commercial poachers aim at hunting animals for sale, thus for commercial gain. The
protection of the wildlife in the national parks falls under the Directorate of Conservation
under the direct supervision of the Chief Conservation Area Manager (CCAM).
The protection of the wildlife is a process, which involves law enforcement against
illegal activities, such as: abuse of animals and plants, and over utilization of animals
and poaching. It involves a number of players, namely: the rangers; wardens; local
communities, living next to protected areas, including their leaders (Local Councils) as
well as other security and law enforcement agencies of government: particularly, the
UPDF, police and the judiciary.
The Rangers use regular (short or extended) field patrols, aerial surveillance and
intelligence gathering to control poaching and other illegal activities. The conservation
area manager (CAM), through the Warden in charge of law enforcement, deploys
rangers on patrols in parks and safari areas (read concessions). According to the World
Commission on Protected Areas, an International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN), program that guides protected area management, the effective ranger density
should be one ranger to 20 square kilometres.
Short patrols are usually done in PAs. These are carried out on daily or weekly basis
depending on the area plans. Extended patrols go for up to 10 days but the average is 5
days for any one extended patrol. The rangers, when going on extended patrols, obtain
the necessary equipment and consumables from their stations. If they notice the
presence of poachers in the field, the immediate action is to try and apprehend/arrest
the poachers. They can also call for re-enforcement from the nearest outpost if they
judge that the poachers may overpower them. Depending on the nature of the situation,
13
the rangers may notify the CAM seeking for guidance on appropriate action to be taken.
For field patrols, the CAM is the highest level for quick decision making.
However, where the CAM cannot make the decision, he/she seeks guidance from the
CCAM at the head office. The CCAM makes a decision and if it is beyond his/her
capacity, he/she takes it up with the Director Conservation and finally the Executive
Director, if the matter is too complex for the Director. The Decisions made by UWA at
the head office pass through the same chain of command, but depending on the issue in
question, the Executive Director or Director Conservation can instruct the CAM. Where
lives are lost (human, wildlife or both) the head office must be informed promptly.
Security of Protected Areas
The security in the wildlife PAs of Uganda is managed by a paramilitary trained staff of
Rangers and a Special Wildlife Integration Force for Tourism protection (SWIFT) from
the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF). The role of the Rangers and the SWIFT is
to give policing and military support to the Protected Areas (PAs) when need arises.
Furthermore, the UPDF provides training and equipment, like: guns, and aircraft, for
rescue in the Conservation Areas (CAs) upon request.
Intelligence gathering and investigations / Law enforcement
This function falls under the ED, but with a dotted linkage to the CCAM. It deals with
any form of animal crime. It involves gathering intelligence information and also
investigating cases of poaching and other forms of wildlife abuse, including safari
operators who violate wildlife laws. Intelligence gathering is done through undercover
operations and ground coverage techniques. Intelligence information (pertaining to
illegal hunting, trafficking of wildlife and their parts like elephant tusks and specially
protected species) is received from various sources, mainly: informants, UWA staff and
the general public. Some community members are volunteers in the management of the
security through sharing information on the detected illegal activities and encroachment
on parks and wildlife resources. When such information is received, the law
enforcement unit reports to the ED who in turn calls for an instant reaction (appoint a
team to look into the matter) in order to prevent the intended crime from happening.
This may lead to arrest [if the intelligence is right] and culprits handed over to the legal
division of UWA from where charge sheets are prepared for court proceedings. On the
14
other hand, law enforcement may also take it up with management if the issue involves
staff [staff members are dealt with, in accordance with the rules and regulations spelt
out in the UWA Human Resource manual and or the laws governing the wildlife of
Uganda].
Community conservation (CC)
The Community Conservation Unit (CCU) is one of the units in the directorate of
Conservation. Its key result area is to implement programmes that address community
and stakeholder interests that interface with wildlife and conservation objectives. These
include formation of an institutional framework for community participation in wildlife
management, Revenue Sharing, Collaborative Management, Problem Animal
Management, Wildlife Use Rights (sport hunting, wildlife trade, farming and ranching,
general extraction) and Conservation Education and Awareness. Among others, the
wildlife benefit sharing programmes are meant to contribute towards achieving the
Government policy of poverty eradication and improved community livelihoods.
The Uganda Wildlife Authority recognizes the local community as a key stakeholder in
ensuring the protection of wildlife both within and outside the PA. Since the 90s, the
community conservation (CC) approach has been used to complement the traditional
policing practices that largely excluded the communities from protected area
management. CC aims at harmonizing the relationship between the managers and the
neighboring communities; allowing community access to resources in the protected
areas through dialogue; and facilitating local community participation in planning for and
management of protected area resources. In order to achieve the intended objective,
the CC unit implements a number of activities, such as: resource access, conservation
education and awareness, revenue sharing, problem animal management and wildlife
use rights.
Under resource access, communities are allowed regulated access to some key
resources that may not be found outside the protected areas, such as: medicinal herbs,
papyrus and vines for handcrafts, fish, firewood, bamboo, bee keeping, water access in
the dry season or drought and others depending on the priorities of a given community
neighboring a particular park.
15
Revenue Sharing Process
The revenue sharing program as mandated by the Wildlife Act 2000: Section 69 (4)
states that: “The Board shall, subject to subsection (3) of section 23, pay 20% of the
park entry fees collected from a wildlife protected area to the Local Government of the
area surrounding the wildlife protected area from which the fees were collected. In line
with this, 20% of every protected area gate collection is given to the local districts for
community projects that contribute to improvement of community welfare and poverty
alleviation. Consequently, a number of projects such as bee keeping, tree planting,
improved pasture, zero grazing cattle, health units and schools, where financial gaps
exist, are identified for funding. In some areas where problem animals are a big threat,
some funds are invested in interventions aimed at reducing human-wildlife conflict
including construction of elephant trenches and buffalo wall to deter wildlife from crop
raiding. The money is, by law, remitted to the beneficiary local communities through
their local government treasuries upon receipt of a project proposal generated by the
beneficiary community with guidance from the CCU of UWA.
Problem Animal Management
This is one of the biggest challenges of conservation in general. The main cause is land
use changes and the search for farmland resulting from population pressure that has led
to a decrease in the wildlife range. Human encroachment on wildlife habitats is the main
cause of the ever increasing human wildlife conflicts. Forests and wetlands are being
turned into factories, homesteads or farm land every day. UWA is supposed to respond
to problem animal reports about crop raiding, threat to livestock and threats to
communities. Large wildlife game, such as: buffalos, elephants and hippos, hyenas,
lions, leopards, reptiles, especially, python and crocodiles have been dangerous to the
community. The methods used include: scare shooting to chase them back into the
protected area, capturing and translocation and sensitizing the communities. As a last
resort, notorious animals that fail to get back into the protected area may be sport
hunted or killed as problem animals to reduce the threat.
16
Management of threatened or endangered Species
According to the Uganda Wildlife policy 1999, UWA has the duty to identify animals that
are threatened with extinction or are endangered. Monitoring is done on a continuous
basis by using rangers to gather information on the wildlife. Animal distribution and
population counts are done in collaboration with partners like Wildlife Conservation
Society (WCS) to help in identifying species that are depleting in numbers. This is done
to identify species that are at dangerously low levels or extinct. For example, the Black
and White rhino, Derbys eland and Oryx have since become extinct in Uganda. The
policy provides a framework from which programmes (Strategies or Species Action
Plans) can be developed, which should contribute to the survival of all wildlife species
and protection of those that are threatened or endangered.
After an animal is identified, recommendations are made through the UWA Board to the
minister for enlisting in the Act as a protected species by law. Once the animal has been
promulgated in the Act, no one will be allowed to hunt it on any land except where the
Director has given a written consent (license). Animal specific policies are then
developed to cater for the management of the animal in question.
Research and Monitoring
The goal behind the Monitoring and Research Program is the provision of relevant,
accurate and timely information for planning, decision-making and evaluation in
conservation of bio diversity and sustainable management of wildlife resources. In
collaboration with UWA, Makerere University runs the Makerere University Biological
Field Station in Kibale National Park and Mbarara University runs the Institute of Tropical
Forest Conservation in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park. The management of UWA,
through its research and monitoring unit, lists the priorities that reflect the Authority’s
mandate of conservation and development under four main themes:
1. Ecology: species, habitat, fire, hydrobiology and diseases.
2. Biodiversity: inventories, vegetation dynamics and mapping.
3. Social-economics: local communities, human-wildlife interactions and cost-benefit
sharing.
4. Development: policy, tourism, use rights and trade.
17
The Research and ecological monitoring unit details research priorities for each of the
PAs. The Unit also manages and updates the Management Information System (MIST),
a research database, for easy retrieval of information on all research projects, research
organizations and personnel and a library. Anyone intending to conduct research in
Wildlife Protected Areas or on Wildlife in general, must fill in application forms, attach a
detailed proposal and CV, and submit them in duplicate to UWA. Anyone applying to
conduct research in UWA's protected areas follows the procedures outlined below:
1. Obtains research application forms from UWA HQ, PAs, the Internet or any other
place UWA may designate. Application forms are submitted together with copies of
research proposals and a CV of the principal researcher at least 3 months before the
proposed date of commencement of the research.
2. Completes the application form in duplicate (1-copy deposited at UWA's HQ and one
sent to the protected area where the research is to be carried out).
3. Students in higher institutions of learning wishing to conduct their research in UWA
PAs obtain a letter from their institutions of affiliation, certifying their studentship. So
do students from outside Uganda.
4. The proposals are vetted by the respective PA and experts in the particular field of
concern, before approval of the research by UWA. Proposals from undergraduate
students are vetted by UWA HQ alone since these are usually for a very short period
of time and do not involve detailed research methods or in- depth analysis to be of
much use to park management. Foreign researchers are required by law to seek
clearance from the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology upon
approval from UWA.
5. All researchers submit progress reports to UWA at specified intervals and a final
report at the end of the research. Foreign researchers are required to deposit a
refundable fee of $300 at UWA HQ. This will be given back on submission of the final
report. A researcher, whether local or foreign, who fails to submit a report is not
allowed to carry out any other future research within UWA's PAs.
18
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
In this Chapter, findings on the management of conservation of wildlife by UWA in
reference to the audit objectives and questions are presented.
4.1 RESEARCH AND MONITORING
4.1.1 Data for Wildlife Resources and biodiversity Management
UWA’s Monitoring and Research Policy, 1999 requires surveys to be carried out in the
forested and in the savannah parks after every 5 years and every 2 years, respectively.
This is to promote the collection and provision of relevant, accurate and timely
information for conservation and good management of Uganda’s wildlife resources and
its bio diversity.
Through interviews and documentary reviews, it was noted that the management of
UWA did not carry out surveys in the ten parks consistently as required in the entity’s
Monitoring and Research Policy. From the data provided, UWA did not carry out over
47.6% of the surveys that should have been conducted in the period from 2008 to 2011
for both forested and Savannah parks as shown in table 3 below:
Protected Area Required Survey Actual Survey carried
%age of surveys NOT carried out
Murchison NP 2 1 50%
Queen NP 2 1 50%
Kidepo V. NP 2 1 50%
Lake Mburo 2 1 50%
Katonga WR 2 1 50%
Kibale NP 2 1 50%
Bugungu WR 2 0 100%
Kabwoya WR 2 1 50%
EMWR 2 1 50%
TWS 1 1 0%
Ajai 1 1 0%
Bwindi and
Mganhinga NPs
1 1 0%
Total 21 11 47.6%
19
It was also noted that the surveys carried out related only to specific large mammals
that UWA considered as being key wildlife species4 leaving out the small mammals which
are equally important in the eco-system.
Audit attributed the failure to conduct surveys on a regular basis to lack of adequate
personnel, and insufficient funding to the research unit. The organisational structure is
explicit on the minimum staff requirement for the research unit (three), but audit
considers the number very small and lacks terrestrial ecologists considering the total
number of PAs and other animal sanctuaries.
In the absence of frequent surveys, UWA may lack data which could be processed into
information to be used by managers to adequately monitor the status of wildlife and
other resources and develop plans that will adequately ensure sustainable wildlife
management.
Conclusion
UWA’s Research and Monitoring Unit is not carrying out surveys consistently for
biodiversity management; as a result, the promotion, collection and provision of
relevant, accurate and timely information for conservation and good management of
Uganda’s wildlife resources and its bio diversity is not being fully achieved.
Management response
The failure to carry out all the surveys at the required frequency is not the
result of inadequate staff in the Research Unit, but largely due to
inadequate funding, it requires billions of shillings to do one complete
round of survey in all PAs. UWA’s aircraft for conducting surveys crashed in
2009 at Adjumani and it has not been replaced. The Authority now hires
aircrafts for aerial surveys and it is very costly. UWA does not need to hire
more staff for doing the surveys because there are many volunteers and
students to use. The number of staff in the unit is as per the UWA
establishment and they are adequately trained to plan, conduct and analyze
data on wildlife surveys.
4 List of key wildlife species counted in each PA is attached as appendix. Key wild species are mammals whose
absence would easily be noticeable.
20
Recommendation
UWA should prioritize her population survey and ecological monitoring activities
through improved budgeting and resource allocation mechanism.
UWA should mobilize and encourage volunteers and students who are willing to
conduct surveys into the activities of wildlife management.
4.1.2 Wildlife Research for Conservation Management
The Uganda wildlife Policy, 1999 requires that UWA should promote research that is
relevant to the defined conservation needs, and which directly contributes to protected
area conservation and management.
It was noted that whereas UWA had identified 11 research priority areas of its greatest
threats as detailed in Appendix II, in the last 8 years [2003 to 2011], it had only
managed to conduct research in 24% of these areas. As a result, the parks continued to
suffer the occurrence of these threats with no corrective actions being identified.
Audit also noted that UWA had nonetheless managed to conduct research in more than
101 topics in the same period, though this research was not necessarily in the areas of
the identified threats. Management attributed the limited number of research carried out
especially in the identified threat areas to inadequate funding and equipment and the
closure of the Uganda Institute of Ecology, which was located at Mweya in Queen
Elizabeth National Park. The institute used to train ecologists and carry out ecological
monitoring and research.
Because of not conducting research as planned, information on the ecological
monitoring required to assess and respond to ecosystem changes was too inadequate
to support proper planning. Research would have assisted management in the
identification of new environmental concerns, prioritization of issues and the evaluation
of trends over time.
With limited Research it is difficult to fully understand the range of factors that affect
wildlife populations and habitats and the relationship between them. Catastrophic death
and reduction in numbers of animals such as the Uganda kobs in Queen Elizabeth
National Park and similar incidences in other parks has occurred without finding the root
causes.
21
Conclusion
Understanding PA eco systems and processes is necessary for the successful
development and implementation of management programs. UWA is not conducting
research as planned and as a result, information on the ecological monitoring required
to assess and respond to ecosystem changes may not be sufficient to support
meaningful management of PAs.
Management Responses
UWA has undertaken measures to strengthen its research & monitoring
capacity, such as: recruitment and deployment of Research & Monitoring
Wardens in all Conservation Areas to coordinate and undertake research in
protected areas; training and building the capacity of some staff to
undertake priority research, like carbon stock assessment, wildlife census,
disease surveillance and translocation; signing MoUs with academic,
research and other organizations with capacity to undertake research such
as: Nature Uganda, Makerere University, Mbarara University, Wildlife
Conservation Society, World Wildlife Fund, Mountain Gorilla Veterinary
Program, International Gorilla Conservation Program and conservation
through Public Health. UWA coordinates all wildlife research done by these
and other institutions.
There is need for Government to create an independent wildlife research
body to compliment and support UWA’s functions as is the case in other
countries. UWA is currently overwhelmed by other wildlife management
issues resulting in limited concentration on research as a function of
management. Fortunately, the Wildlife Policy under review, has already
identified this need and is providing for the creation of the Uganda
Wildlife Research and Training Institute to address the wildlife research
and training gaps in the sector.
Recommendation
UWA should strengthen the capacity of the Research and Monitoring unit so as to
enable it to adequately monitor and promote its planned research activities.
22
The process of reviewing the Wildlife Policy should be expedited to enable the
creation of the wildlife Research and Training Institute.
4.2 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
4.2.1 Protection of Wildlife
Uganda Wildlife Authority is mandated by the Wildlife Act Cap 200 to protect the wildlife
PAs and the wildlife existing both inside and outside of the gazetted areas in: 10
National Parks, 12 Wildlife Reserves, 13 wildlife Sanctuaries, and community wildlife
areas. To ensure wildlife protection, UWA was to develop fire management plans for
each PA, have an effective ranger density to counter threats of game poaching and
illegal activities in and around the PAs, develop and maintain relevant infrastructure
within the PAs, protect the wildlife habitat, reduce the threat of invasive species, and
enlist the support of the communities surrounding the PAs.
Audit established that UWA was not effectively protecting the wildlife in and around the
PAs. While UWA had managed to develop a five year strategic plan (2007-2012) for
wildlife management, strategies to implement the plan will not be fully operationalised
by the end of the final year (2012). For instance, the following strategies to wildlife
protection were not being fully implemented:
4.2.1.1 Fire Management plan for each PA
According to the UWA strategic plan of 2007-2012, 60% and 100% of PAs were
supposed to have prepared fire management plans by the 3rd and 5th year, respectively.
It was noted that all the PAs sampled did not have fire management plans in the fifth
year of the plan. However, draft fire management plans were found in six (6) PAs of:
KVNP, LMNP, KNP, BINP, MGNP and MFNP. It is estimated that wildfires burn nearly
50% of LMNP annually5. Fires burnt part of Kidepo Valley National Park (KVNP) from
Lomeji hills west of Apoka in 2004/2005 and led to the disappearance of Elands that had
been translocated from Lake Mburo National Park6. In Bwindi / Mgahinga Conservation
Area, fires often sweep through sections of the Conservation Area, covering about 0.8%
of BINP (Babaasa et el., 2000) and part of Mgahinga Gorilla National Park (MGNP).
5 Lake Mburo Conservation Area General Management Plan 2003-2013 6 KVNP GMP 2011-2021
23
Further, audit noted that the management of UWA did not have a well-documented
history of fire occurrences in all its protected areas, which should have been relevant in
fire prevention/management planning. Data on the time of occurrence, location, cause
of the fires and mitigation efforts and their effectiveness was not recorded.
The audit attributed the lack of fire management plans to lack of capacity in the
planning unit. This unit is charged with planning for 22 administrative units in addition to
other duties assigned to it such as preparation of General Management plans for all the
twenty one(21) Protected Areas (PAs),Annual Operational Plans (AOPs),UWA Strategic
Plans, and Business Development Plans, among others. The unit as a result is
overwhelmed and could not sustain the demands posed by the various PAs such as the
fire management plans, among others. Similarly, management priorities do not seem to
favour the planning unit as exemplified from the staffing limitations within the unit, as a
result, the unit has remained understaffed despite awareness by management of this
shortfall over the last three years.
However, management attributed the failure to come up with fire management plans to
lack of supervision of the PA management teams.
Failure to have fire management plans renders the management of fires in the PAs
difficult and it becomes increasingly impossible to minimize the occurrence and adverse
impacts of wild fire on the park ecosystem. For instance, in KVNP, annual wildfires have
adversely affected the breeding conditions of ostriches and their survival is of great
concern. Fires from Sudan devastate the breeding sites of ostriches at the time of either
hatching or when they have chicks between October and March.7
Similarly, the absence of fire management plans for PAs made it difficult for UWA to:
Solicit resources for fire fighting.
Acquire modern fire fighting equipment and therefore continue to arbitrary fight
fires using rudimentary equipment such as tree branches.
Deal with wild fires that ravage the PA as a result of absence of control measures.
7 KVNP GMP 2011-2021
24
Adequately mitigate the effects of fires on flora and fauna, such as the biodiversity
conservation, propagation of exotic and invasive species such as germination of
acacia and hockii seeds.
Assess the impact of fires on other ecological biodiversity such as reptiles and
underground biodiversity, especially under unplanned wild fires.
Management response
The Planning Unit has been building the capacity of Monitoring & Research
wardens in PAs to develop fire management plans. As a result the following
PAs have come up with draft Fire Management Plans: KVNP, LMNP, KNP,
BINP, MGNP. Fire management actions are also highlighted in General
Management Plans (GMPs) and each National Park has a GMP. The Planning
Unit has prepared and sent to PAs guidelines to develop fire management
plans. Some PAs have used these guidelines to produce the current Draft
fire management plans while others have not, due to managerial
weaknesses that will be addressed. However, fire management actions are
being undertaken in accordance with GMPs in all PAs and the requirement to
have documented fire management plans will be met as staff weaknesses
are being addressed. By the end of 2012 all Parks will have Fire
Management Plans.
4.2.1.2 Ranger Coverage
According to discussions with the management of UWA, the ideal ranger deployment
strategy should be 1 Ranger to every 6 sq km.
It was, however, established that the deployment of law enforcement rangers in the
different CAs was not based on established total area of the PA but on identified threats
from gathered intelligence information. According to the available data on PA area
coverage and total number of rangers, given the ratio of 1:6, the effective ranger
coverage by UWA is only 36%. However, given the available ranger force of 1,202
covering 19,798 square kilometres of the protected areas UWA is using one ranger for
every 16 sq km to cover the deficit.
25
All PAs sampled used the hot-spots identified as a basis for the deployment of rangers.
For instance, in MFCA, maps showing areas recently patrolled were used to prepare a
two week patrol operation plan for extended patrols on the basis of the identified illegal
activities noted from the last patrols. As a result, the discretion of deployment of law
enforcement rangers was left in the hands of individual CA management. While audit
acknowledges the differences between workforce gaps and deployment tactics, the fact
that UWA did not have an effective intelligence unit to provide intelligence on which the
tactical deployment strategy relied made it difficult for audit to establish how effective
the employed strategy was.
Management attributed the small number of rangers to insufficient funding to cater for
their remuneration, housing, medical and their other welfare requirements. The situation
was further aggravated by the frequent staff turnover of the law enforcement rangers as
a result of insufficient remuneration and motivation.
Audit, however, noted that UWA had no standard deployment procedures for ranger
deployment in any of their operational and policy documents. Lack of a deployment
standard caused low ranger coverage as UWA was not able to adequately establish
sufficient ranger numbers needed for each PA. Low ranger coverage led to failure to
cover the entire area of the PAs. This could explain the occurrence of the illegal activities
like poaching within the PAs as shown in the figures below.
Table 4: Showing Animals poached in Murchison Protected Area
Buffal
o Bushbu
ck Elepha
nt Giraff
e Hipp
o Oribi
Ugandan kob
Water buck
Grand Total
2008 18 2
18
11 2 51
2009 20 1 1
2
10 4 38
2010 8
3
5 1 3 2 22
2011 5 1
1 4
5 1 17
Grand Total
51 4 4 1 29 1 29 9 128
Source: Research and Monitoring reports- UWA
26
Table 5: Showing Animals poached in Queen Elizabeth Protected Area
Year Buffalo Elephant Giant Forest Hog
Hippo Lion Topi Ugandan
kob Warthog
Water buck
Grand Total
2008 7 2 1 19 1
2 3 1 36
2009 28 2 2 13
9 4 1
59
2010 15 5 3 14
2 1 8 48
2011 2 9 1 8
20
Grand Total
52 18 7 54 1 9 8 5 9 163
Source: Research and Monitoring reports- UWA
The information provided by UWA is inaccurate as it was being captured inconsistently.
For instance, there were incomplete figures provided for the poaching on Elephants,
giraffes and Oribi. Available records from the Monitoring and research department
(Animal health Monitoring) of Murchison falls show that 25 elephants and 6 giraffe were
killed in 2011 alone in the Park.
Similarly, there were incidences of encroachment in Mt. Elgon National Park (MENP) with
a total encroached area of 6,000 ha affecting mostly the southern parts as depicted by
the map below:
Picture 1: Map showing encroached areas on Mt. Elgon National Park
Courtesy map: - UWA
³
0 4 8 12 162Kilometers
Park Boundary
Recent Enroachment (2008/2009)
27
Management response
Most of the Audit findings on the ranger coverage are correct. UWA
requires about 3,300 rangers to adequately cover the entire wildlife estate
in the country but at the moment has about 1,200. This is due to the
insufficient funding to cater for their remuneration, housing, medical and
other welfare requirements. However, UWA has been progressively
increasing the number of rangers over the last five years, for instance, in
2008, UWA recruited an additional 200 rangers and in 2011, another 204
rangers were recruited.
Recruiting up to 3000 rangers will, therefore, be a gradual process due to
limitations in funding. The plans to establish an intelligence unit are
underway and already, UWA is working with the Police, through the
recently introduced Tourism Police, to strengthen intelligence operations.
It is important to note that other than the wage subvention from MoFPED,
UWA does not receive any additional funding from MoFPED, but uses her
own generated revenue to fund her operations. The revenue base is
currently too low to address all the needs of the organisation.
UWA also acknowledges the inadequacies of the Management
Information System (MIS), Software program for data capture, analysis
and dissemination and is developing a new Database based on MS Access
that is more robust than a tailor-made program.
The total encroached area in Mt. Elgon is only 6000 ha and most of this is
under contention with court cases and injunctions that make it difficult for
UWA to address. Once the court process is completed, UWA would reclaim
all encroached areas. UWA also faces a challenge of politicization of
encroachment in MENP. This is a political problem requiring a political
rather than a technical solution.
28
4.2.2 Staff Welfare
According to the UWA Human Resources Manual -2008, UWA is supposed to provide
attractive and competitive welfare packages to all employees in compensation for their
effort and commitment to work. To ensure effective protection of wildlife, a very highly
motivated and facilitated ranger force is paramount.
Audit established that most of the law enforcement rangers were not adequately
motivated and facilitated. The basic necessities of life, such as: food, accommodation,
clothing (uniform) and water were not sufficiently being provided. For instance, each
ranger is supposed to be provided with at least a single room. Audit established that
while UWA had managed to provide descent and permanent rooms for 830 of its
rangers through the PAMUSU programme, 500 rangers (representing 37%) were not
adequately being accommodated at the PAs. Audit further observed that even the
provided accommodation did not cater for the rangers’ families.
Picture 2: Some of the standard housing accommodation provided by UWA through the PAMUSU programme, to its Rangers. Similar accommodation is provided at QENP, MFNP, KVNP, BINP and TSWR. Other
decent accommodation is in KNP and SNP
However, the accommodation at the outposts still remained a challenge for UWA. For
instance, in some visited outposts at Kitahurira in Bwindi NP, Kaikemin Kidepo NP, latoro
in Murchison Falls NP, Wanale in Mt.Elgon NP and Kanyihasara in Lake Mburo NP, the
rangers were still sharing the single rooms, sleeping on bunk beds in congested
dormitories and/or semi permanent structures. Such accommodation was not fit for
adults.
29
Picture 3: An interior view of the living conditions of the UWA rangers at Kaikem Outpost in Kidepo Vallley National Park
The pitiable staff accommodation was attributed to the deployment strategy that UWA
has adopted for its rangers that is based on the hot spots identified over time. These
hotspots are temporary and rangers soon shift as per recorded security gaps at a given
time. Management did not see the use of permanent accommodation, as out-posts are
created from time to time, based on this strategy of deployment.
Audit, however, noted that while the explanation given by management was logical
based on its current deployment strategy, the fact that the UWA management has not
come up with a documented deployment standard has rendered long-term planning for
a decent ranger camp with basic facilities impossible in view of the fact that the outposts
had more or less become permanent. Some outposts in Murchison Falls National Park,
Queen Elizabeth National Park and Bwindi National Park had permanent structures.
Furthermore, under provision 26(1) of the UWA Human Resource Manual, UWA was to
provide suitable uniforms and protective clothing for all its employees. Provision 29
states that the procurement of these uniforms is supposed to take place once after
every two years and on recruitment. A full kit of uniform should include shirt, trouser,
water battles, ponchos, bags, tent and sleeping bags and should have UWA’ s logo for
easy identification.
It was noted that the rangers had not been provided with uniforms since 2008, that was
four years ago. The last set of uniforms to be provided was incomplete as it lacked
water bottles, ponchos, bags, tents and sleeping bags mainly for long and extended
30
patrols. At the time of audit (Dec 2011), the uniforms were tattered and faded making it
difficult to effectively identify UWA rangers. Interviews with rangers revealed that those
who didn’t have uniforms were borrowing from their SWIFT counterparts.
Picture 4: A group of UWA rangers found with no or very old or borrowed uniforms at Kitahulira Outpost in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park
31
Picture 5: A group of UWA rangers found with incomplete and faded set of uniforms at Kitahulira and Kaikem Outpost in Bwindi Impenetrable and Kidepo valley National Parks
The delay to provide uniforms was attributed to the late initiation of the procurement
process by the management of UWA. For instance, the procurement that should have
been initiated by 2009/10 started in FY 2010/2011, going by the last time the uniforms
were provided.
The procurement process for the provision of the uniforms which started on the 6th
August, 2010 was still underway by the time of this audit (December 2011). This was
more than one year ago from the inception of the procurement.
Similarly, the food provided for the rangers while on duty was not based on any
standard set. It was common practice for different CAs to have varying food rations
32
since the UWA management had not set prior guidelines, and even then, the audit was
not availed with information on some items as seen from the table below:
The table 6: below shows the different food rations provided by the CAs visited. NO PA POSHO
(Kgs) per ranger per day
BEANS (Kgs) Per ranger per day
DRY RATION (BISCUITS, in packets) Per ranger per day
COOKING OIL (litres)
SUGAR (Kgs) Per ranger per month
SALT Kg Per ranger per month
Any other
1 MFCA 1 0.5 -0.5 (for two rangers) per month.
0.25 0.5 (for two rangers)
2 KVCA 0.7 0.25 1 Unspecified - Silver fish
- Meat on public holidays
3 BMCA 0.36 0.18 - Unspecified - - -
4 LMCA 1 0.5 - If available If available
5 MECA 0.33 0.17 - 1.5 (for 7 rangers for a month)
0.5 (for 7 rangers for a month)
OAG: Analysis of ranger rations that were being provided by UWA to its rangers It was further established that UWA spent Shs.1.682 Billion on food rations in the period
under review. This money was, however, arbitrarily arrived at, given that UWA did not
have a standard for determining food rations and therefore the amount of money
required. This implies that proper planning for actual food requirements was not based
on properly identified needs. Verification of accountability, to establish how economically
this money was spent became difficult in the absence of standard food rations.
Lack of standardization of food rations was attributed to laxity on the part of the
management to develop standards governing the welfare of rangers.
33
The health care provided for the rangers was not adequate and efficient. It was
established that UWA spent approximately Shs 2.114 Billion on staff medical scheme
and other medical expenses during the period under review, however, the health
insurance provider was not geographically well spread throughout the PAs and this
made accessibility to medical services difficult or impossible. Most ranger outposts were
located very far from health facilities and did not have fast means of transport. The
rangers who had the option of going to the partnering health centres could not do so,
because their membership cards from the Heath Insurance provider had expired at the
time of Audit. The first Aid kits which could have provided an immediate relief were
missing in 5 of the 6 CAs, and in Bwindi - Mgahinga where they existed, they lacked in
basic first aid supplies.
Failure to renew the health insurance is mainly due to poor planning by management, as
timely renewal of the contract with the service provider was not prioritized.
The failure by the UWA management to provide appropriate standby transport limited
timely access to health services, especially for outposts in areas far off from the nearest
service providers and /or health centres.
Poor staff welfare affects UWA’s conservation efforts as:
Low productivity may be manifested among the law enforcement rangers, leading to
non-performance;
Staff may abscond from duty, which could aggravate the ranger density problem;
Staff in PAs that are provided with lesser food rations may become disgruntled and
look to the available resources (wildlife) to supplement their food requirements.
Conclusion
UWA is not effectively protecting Uganda’s wildlife in and around the PAs. The strategies
for wildlife protection that UWA developed, such as: fire management plans, Ranger
coverage per sq km and staff welfare are not effectively being implemented.
Management response
With respect to staff welfare, UWA has tried its best to improve staff
welfare. All staff receive their salaries before the end of each month. A
medical scheme for all staff and their dependants (spouse and four
34
biological children) is in place. A staff insurance scheme is also in place in
accordance with the Workers’ Compensation Act.
The inadequacies in food ration are noted, but are a result of the current
inflation that has affected the prices of foodstuffs across the country yet
the budgets have remained the same. It is in the interest of UWA to
provide adequate food ration but external factors (like inflation) have a
significant impact and result in variations in the quantities provided in
different CAs as food prices are different in different parts of the country.
On accommodation, UWA is currently providing 831 permanent rooms in
all PAs to about 1300 field staff. Assuming that each staff was provided
with a permanent room, the deficit would be about 500 rooms. We,
however, note the need to provide more than one room to each staff and
would require approximately 105 billion shillings to complete housing
units for each staff. Nonetheless, UWA, under the PAMSU Project, has
provided decent accommodation to staff in QENP, MFNP, KVNP, BINP and
TSWR. Other good accommodation is in KNP and SNP.
At the time of Audit, Uniform procurement was in progress and the delay
was caused by management changes at UWA where the entire Top
Management and Contracts Committee was sent on leave and later
terminated, leaving a gap of over six months
Audit comment
Whereas it is true that UWA eventually procured and distributed uniforms to the
Rangers, the following items that form part of the uniform had not been provided at
the time of verification; Ponchos, water bottles, back packs, sleeping bags warm
jackets and tents. However, management acknowledged the weakness in the
procurement of these items by the CAs and was considering centralising the
procurement of these items.
35
Picture 6: UWA rangers donning the newly acquired ranger uniform at its
Headquarters in Kamwokya, Kampala.
Recommendations
UWA should equip the planning unit to enable it to develop fire management plans and
empower PAs for their implementation.
UWA should develop and document standard operational procedures for staffing,
deployment, accommodation, and food rations for law enforcement rangers.
The UWA management should provide a complete set of uniforms to its entire staff in time.
UWA should effectively plan for its procurement activities, which should be accordingly
implemented to avoid delays in the procurement process.
UWA should review its staff medical scheme and strategies to ensure that all staff benefit,
including rangers.
36
4.2.3 Re-introduction of Extinct Species
According to the Uganda Wildlife Policy 1999, UWA has the duty to identify animals that
are threatened with extinction, are extinct, or are endangered to ensure that appropriate
policies and guidelines for wildlife shipment, translocation and reintroduction are put in
place and followed.
At the time of audit (December 2011), UWA had managed to identify the animals that
were threatened, endangered or extinct as detailed in Appendix III and it developed
appropriate policies and guidelines for wildlife shipment, and reintroduction, it was,
however, not following the set guidelines.
For instance, UWA in collaboration with Rhino Fund Uganda reintroduced white rhinos
on 19th July 2005 with an intention of building up a viable rhino population that would in
future provide seed for reintroduction into the former rhino habitats in Uganda. At the
time of the audit, ten rhinos were found at the rhino sanctuary in Ziwa ranch in
Nakasongola; however, there were no guidelines or programme as to how they were
supposed to be managed and eventually reintroduced into the former rhino habitats in
Uganda.
Through interviews and documentary reviews, it was further noted that there was no
MoU between Rhino Fund Uganda and UWA, which is taking care of the interests of the
Government of Uganda.
It was further noted that UWA is not actively involved in the management of the Rhino
sanctuary as evidenced by the failure by UWA to attend the Board meetings of Rhino
Fund Uganda on which it is a member.
Audit also noted that UWA had not developed Rhino specific strategies as provided by
the Wildlife Policy, 1999, to prepare for their eventual reintroduction into, and
management in the wild.
Management attributed the absence of appropriate policies and guidelines to the
management instability that has rocked the Wildlife body for the last three years.
37
However, the audit noted that the Rhinos had arrived in the country as far back as 2005
before the instability referred to was experienced.
It was noted that the cause of not having appropriate policies and guidelines for wildlife
shipment, translocation and reintroduction is the reluctance on the part of management
to develop them.
The absence of appropriate policies and guideline for wildlife shipment, translocation
and reintroduction negatively impacts on the conservation efforts as sustainable
populations of wildlife play a role in maintaining the integrity of ecosystems on which
humans ultimately depend. For instance, conserving the Rhino has both consumptive
and non-consumptive benefits as rhinos have the potential to generate significant
amounts of economic income and to contribute to the livelihoods of rural people through
harvesting Rhino horns from live rhinos through sedation and tourism
Conclusion
UWA is not following appropriate policies and guidelines for the shipment and
introduction of extinct and declining species. As a result, efforts for the re-introduction
of species such as the White Rhino are not being coordinated by UWA.
Management response
UWA has a Translocation Policy developed and approved by the Board in
1999 (Policy document attached for ease of reference). The policy outlines
the objectives for translocation and guidance on how a translocation
project is undertaken.
UWA also developed species specific guidelines for the Translocation of
Elands from Lake Mburo to Kidepo in 2004 and is now developing the
Uganda National Rhino Strategy that will guide the reintroduction of rhinos
into Uganda’s protected areas. The draft Rhino Strategy is still undergoing
internal consultation after which it will be subjected to national
consultation before approval for implementation.
The rhino species at the Rhino Sanctuary in Nakasongora are Southern
White Rhinos which are “out of range” species as Uganda never had
southern whites but northern white rhinos and eastern black rhinos. The
38
current strategy emphasizes reintroduction of species that were occurring
in Uganda. There is therefore no need to introduce out of range species
instead of reintroducing the species that were in the country before. The
current rhinos at the Sanctuary will remain for education purposes but
not for introduction and UWA has already given a wildlife use rights
license Class C (Ranching) in accordance with section 29 of the Wildlife
Act to the proprietor of the Ziwa Rhino and Wildlife Ranch that clarifies
the status of rhinos at the private ranch and is currently providing
technical and logistical support to the ranch in the management of the
rhinos. The Rhino Strategy under development by UWA will address the
issue of reintroduction of the rhinos into protected areas.
Recommendations
UWA should follow policies and guidelines for wildlife shipment, translocation and
reintroduction and should be actively involved in the implementation of these policies.
UWA should actively involve itself in the management of the Rhino Fund Uganda as
required by the signed memorandum of understanding.
UWA should develop a Rhino Specific Strategy for the reintroduction and
management of the Rhinos in the country.
4.3 COMMUNITY CONSERVATION
4.3.1 Revenue Sharing Scheme
According to the Wildlife Act 2000: Section 69 (4), the Board shall, subject to subsection
(3) of section 22, pay 20% of the total revenues collected from park entry fees to the
Local Government(s) of communities surrounding the wildlife protected area from which
the fees were collected.
The 20% remittance was to be utilised for community projects that contribute to the
improvement of community welfare and poverty alleviation to ensure that the local
communities living adjacent to the PAs obtain benefits from the existence of these
areas, improve their welfare and ultimately strengthen partnerships between UWA, local
communities and Local Governments for sustainable management of resources in and
around the PAs.
39
It was established that for the 2008/2009 and 2010/2011 financial years, UWA did not
remit Shs 3.44bn, representing 66% of the money that should have been remitted to
the Local Government(s) and the communities surrounding the PAs. The unremitted
revenue continued to lie idle on accounts8 opened and controlled by UWA on behalf of
these communities by the time of audit (December 2011). Details of revenue balances
still held by UWA are shown in the table that follows:
Table 7: Showing Community Revenue balances over the period under study
Period Amount that
should have been
remitted (Shs)
Amount
remitted (Shs)
Amount
Unremitted
(Shs)
%
unpaid
2008/2009-
2010/2011
5,199,878,628 1,761,210,355 3,438,668,273 66
Source: OAG Analysis of UWA Revenue sharing accounts
According to management, the communities surrounding the PAs are not submitting
proposals for projects to be funded, so UWA has no basis for releasing this money.
However, through interviews with the beneficiary communities in Murchison Falls
National Park and Bwindi National Park, it was noted that the community conservation
function of UWA was not effectively guiding the communities to come up with
sustainable projects for funding.
The failure by UWA to disburse all revenue due to the beneficiary communities does not
provide an enabling environment for establishing good relations between the PAs and
their neighboring communities because no benefit is accruing directly to the
communities and this may negatively affect the conservation efforts of UWA.
Moreover, non remittance may lead to diversion of funds.
8Unremitted revenue is attached as Appendix iv
40
Conclusion
UWA is not guiding the communities neighboring the PAs on how to access their share
of revenues generated from park entry fees. The non disbursement of this revenue may
prevent UWA from winning over the communities towards the conservation of Wildlife in
the PAs and their surroundings.
Management response
The Audit findings are noted and acknowledged. However, management
wishes to report that the cause of non-remittance of revenue sharing funds
to the communities is not what is reported but is due to two factors:
(1) Failure by some Local Governments to make accountabilities for
previous funds released to them. Local Governments (like those around
Bwindi), which had accounted had received their revenue sharing funds.
UWA has been releasing revenue sharing funds in accordance with the
existing guidelines and where guidelines are not followed, UWA finds it
difficult to release the funds without proper accountability, as these are
public funds governed by financial regulations that require accountability.
(2) Unjustified funding proposals submitted by Local Governments on
behalf of communities. UWA was funding common good projects like school
and health centre constructions that had no direct relationship with wildlife
conservation and such projects when submitted have not been accepted by
UWA resulting in funds remaining on the account pending submission of
projects that are responsive to the criteria for revenue sharing.
UWA undertook a process to revise the revenue sharing guidelines to
address the challenges and gaps in the implementation of the program.
The revised revenue sharing guidelines have been finalized but await
Board approval once the UWA Board is put in place by the Minister. This
has also affected further release of revenue sharing funds but we hope
this will be addressed soon. The recommendation for UWA community
conservation staff to sensitize communities is taken and will be
strengthened as this is the daily work of community conservation staff in
41
protected areas. Once the revised revenue sharing guidelines are
approved by the Board and issues of accountability for previous releases
are sorted out, UWA will be promptly releasing the funds to Local
Governments as required and spelt out in the guidelines.
Recommendations
The Community conservation unit of UWA should guide the communities neighboring
the PAs on how to access and utilize their share of revenue.
UWA should ensure prompt disbursement of the share of revenue to communities.
UWA should expedite the process of the review of the revenue sharing guidelines
and the approved guidelines should be communicated to beneficiaries.
4.3.2 Monitoring and Control of Problem Animals
According to Section 5 (i) of the UWA Act Cap 200 of 2000, UWA should monitor and
control problem animals. This, according to the UWA community conservation Policy
2004, is to ensure that human-wildlife conflicts are resolved in order to build a positive
attitude towards wildlife by the public and to minimize the conservation cost to those
who bear them most.
The interviews conducted with selected communities around the PAs together with the
documents reviewed revealed that UWA did not manage to control the problem animals
in all its protected areas sampled for the audit. Over 1000 problem animal incidents
were reported in the three years under review (2008/09 – 2010/11). Animals
persistently crossed from the PAs and caused damage to people’s gardens, killed
livestock and human beings.
Over the 3 years, for instance, in Lake Mburo National park, 137 livestock and 13 human
beings and 8 others were killed and critically injured, respectively. In Kidepo Valley
National park, there were 20 incidences of problem animals that raided over 20 gardens
in the areas of Lokial village, Kapedo Sub County and killed one person in Logerema
village.
The failure to monitor and control problem animals was caused by:
Porous park boundaries;
42
competition for natural resources by the increasing human population which settled
close to the PAs leaving no room for buffer zones;
low ranger density which led to failure to prevent animals from leaving the protected
areas into community land; and,
The changing vegetation in some PAs as a result of exotic and invasive species
which has led to unpalatable grass that has forced the animals out of the PAs.
The existence of problem animals in the communities could escalate the human wildlife
conflicts and create a negative attitude towards conservation by the communities
surrounding the PAs as they avenge the loss of their community members and property
destroyed by problem animals.
Conclusion
UWA is not effectively managing and controlling problem animals around the PAs and
this has dented its conservation efforts.
Management response
Problem animal management is a routine activity of UWA and one of the
most serious challenges facing the country at the moment. The root cause
of this problem is the increasing number of human populations that keep
encroaching on the habitat for wildlife.
In the past, there were buffer zones and wildlife corridors to all parks but
these are no more as they have been settled in by communities. UWA is
working with communities, LGs and NGOs to make interventions to
prevent animals from crossing the national parks to community lands.
Some of the interventions tried have included: trenches, fences, buffalo
wall, growing non- palatable crops, bee keeping along the boundaries and
active management by chasing the animals back. UWA has done over
125Km of trenches in MFNP, QENP, KNP but still needs to do over
200Km of trenches to cover all areas.
The National Development Plan identifies fencing of national parks as a
strategy to keep wildlife inside the parks and UWA has prioritized hot spot
43
areas for fencing once funding from government becomes available. In
the meantime we shall continue with interventions agreed upon with the
communities.
Problem animal management will require a multipronged approach
involving many players including other government agencies (such National
Water, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health etc) to provide basic
services to the communities so as to minimize the contact between humans
and wildlife in their habitats. At the moment UWA needs about 100 billion
shillings to undertake fencing of hot spot problem animal areas and
another 100 billion shillings per year to start a compensation scheme.
Recommendations
UWA should consider strategies that will enable it to protect all its PAs boundaries to
curtail the movement problem animals outside their gazatted areas.
UWA, in consultation with Government, should consider strategies for freeing the
buffer zones of the communities surrounding the PA.
UWA should strengthen the capacity of rangers to enable them to effectively monitor
and control the movement of problem animals.
4.4 MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE PAS
According to the UWA strategic plan 2007-2012, Strategic Objective 4.6, UWA set out to
regularly maintain and rehabilitate the road network, tracks and trails, and staff
accommodation facilities inside PAs.
It was established that UWA was not adequately maintaining and or rehabilitating its
infrastructure within the PAs since a number of essential Park infrastructures were not
functioning as required. For instance, in spite of spending Shs 1.231 Billion in the period
under review (2008/2009 -2010/11) on trails, roads, tracks and ferry maintenance
alone, 52.2% of the sampled roads, trails and tracks, totaling 1456km, of roads/tracks
maintained by UWA in CAs had surpassed their maintenance period and had
deteriorated. UWA’s approach to maintenance was reactive rather than proactive; as a
result, tracks and trails were not uniformly maintained in the various parks.
44
For instance, whereas tracks and trails in Murchison Falls National Park were developed
and well maintained, those in Kidepo Valley National Park, Queen Elizabeth National
Park and Lake Mburo National Park had not been properly maintained to facilitate PA
operations and management. Tracks and trails in Kidepo had developed huge gullies and
had overgrown grass that covered the entire carriage way and some tracks were closed
off due to their impassable state. In Queen Elizabeth National Park, the queen drive
game track had not been cleared of any obstacles which included fallen trees. In Lake
Mburo National Park, the main drive way to the park headquarters was submerged with
water, making it impassable
Picture 7: A section on Apoka-kaikem track with a [dysfunctional] carriage way full of gullies.
Picture 8: A section of a closed off track in Kidepo Valley National Park
45
The ferry which connects the north bank to the south bank in Murchison Falls National
Park, and is very vital for park operations, such as: patrols, treatment of animals,
research and monitoring and tourism is not well maintained. For instance, there are no
divers or swimming experts in the Engineering Department in the CA to handle the
underwater maintenance. The ferry that has been on water for 12 years has some of its
pontoons [which should have been replaced after three years] due for replacement and
yet there is no management plan for their replacement.
The airstrip within Murchison Falls National Park did not have a plate compacter to
smoothen the gravel during its maintenance, graveling had not been done and as a
result had a rough landing surface and grown-in vegetation in the middle of the runway
which could endanger the safety of those aboard an aircraft during landing and takeoff.
Picture 9: The airstrip at Murchison Falls National Park
The poor state of roads, tracks and trails was caused by the grounding and or a lack of
appropriate road maintenance equipment, such as: graders, water bowsers, compacters
and trucks (dump trucks). The wheel loader and available dump trucks were more than
25 years old and had exceeded their useful life. The grader for Kidepo Valley National
Park was down since 2009 and its engine had been removed and transported to
Kampala for repair but had not been returned at the time of audit. The one in Lake
Mburo had been grounded for three years as shown in picture 10.
46
Picture 10: Grader in Lake Mburo National Park.
Similarly, absence of the requisite staff in the maintenance sections of PAs further
aggravated the infrastructure problems. Kidepo, Queen Elizabeth, Murchison and Lake
Mburo PAs lacked appropriate staff in the maintenance sections. Whereas infrastructure
maintenance would require both Civil and Mechanical Engineers, Kidepo Valley and Lake
Mburo National Parks lacked both, while Murchison Falls National Park had only a civil
engineer.
Poor infrastructure in the PAs could interfere with conservation efforts in the following
ways:-
tracks and trails which also act as fire breakers act as conduits for the spread of wild
fires if not well maintained, as fires easily spread with the overgrown grass.
may hamper accessibility to the sick and or injured animals and humans.
may make it difficult to conduct vehicle, air and foot patrols.
it makes it difficult to quickly respond to illegal activities in the PAs.
Conclusions
UWA is not maintaining and or rehabilitating its entire infrastructure within the PAs in a
timely manner. With non/poor maintenance of the infrastructure in the PAs, the proper
functioning of the operations in the PAs is hampered.
Management response
UWA maintains its infrastructure but like any other government agency
47
with limited funding, some maintenance schedules are not followed due to
lack of funding and appropriate road maintenance equipment. At the time
of the Audit, the graders in Kidepo and Lake Mburo had broken down and
the required spares had to be imported. The Grader for Kidepo has been
repaired and will open all the roads and tracks soon while the Grader for
Lake Mburo is to be replaced as the procurement process has been
initiated. UWA has recruited civil and mechanical engineers in MFNP,
KVNP, QENP and UWA HQ for purposes of maintaining infrastructure and
equipment and we have plans to recruit more. The poor state of roads in
Kidepo is also a result of the floods that hit eastern and northern Uganda
in Mid 2011.
UWA requests further government support in the area of infrastructure
and earth moving equipment for road construction and maintenance.
According to UNRA standards, the 1.231B UWA spent on road
maintenance for all the 1456Km road network over the Audit period (3
years) is only enough to make less than 100Km of gravel road.
Recommendations
UWA should develop and implement a maintenance plan for its infrastructure. This
will help in planning and scheduling its maintenance activities.
The management of UWA should identify appropriate staff to manage its
infrastructure needs.
UWA should prioritize the maintenance of its road and water equipment to enable it
increase to its capacity to rehabilitate and maintain roads, trails, tracks and ferries
in the PAs.
4.5 PROSECUTION OF OFFENDERS
According to the UWA strategic plan 2007-2012, UWA was to strengthen and equip its
law enforcement units to combat illegal wildlife activities in and outside the PA. Each CA
was to have a gazetted court prosecutor. UWA was also to identify existing gaps in the
wildlife policy and laws, and make recommendations to the relevant authorities for
review and was to develop regulations to operationalise the Wildlife Act and policy
48
It was established that UWA did not strengthen and equip its law enforcement units to
combat illegal wildlife activities in and outside the PA; and had not managed to identify,
train and gazette court prosecutors in all its CAs as specified in its strategic plan. The
entire Authority had only two gazetted prosecutors based at head office carrying out
other legal duties such as advisory work and handling civil cases. UWA relied on other
security agencies such as the Police to investigate and prosecute illegal activities within
its PAs on its behalf.
It was further noted that UWA did not have an intelligence gathering unit to support law
enforcement and prosecution of offenders. UWA entirely relied on information collected
from the rangers to sort out illegal activities for prosecution in their CAs. The data
provided by the Management Information System (MIST) was irregular and inadequate
considering that the patrols conducted were irregular and limited and did not provide
sufficient information on illegal activities to management on the entire sq km of each PA
patrolled.
It was established that UWA had not identified existing gaps in the Wildlife Law and
Policy and had not developed regulations to operationalise the Wildlife Act and Policy. As
a result, the law remained weak and non-deterrent against illegal wildlife activities.
Where prosecutions were successfully conducted and the culprits convicted, the
penalties were not deterrent enough. A review of available data on prosecuted cases, for
the last six months from June to December 2011, indicate that four (4) culprits [from a
foreign country] prosecuted for possession of illegal wildlife products (Ivory ornaments)
were given a penalty of imprisonment of three (3) months or a fine of one million
shillings each and they each decided to pay the fine of one million shillings.
In addition, one hundred (100) other cases of illegal activities in the PAs [involving
Ugandan nationals] were prosecuted and also handed non-deterrent penalties ranging
from cautions, jail sentences ranging from four(4) months to eighteen(18) or fines
ranging from Ushs 100,000 to Ushs1,000,000. Of these cases, 29% were habitual
offenders a sign that the penalties were non deterrent. Details of these cases are in
Appendix v.
49
The lack of prosecutors at every CA was attributed to failure by the management to
prioritise the recruitment of prosecutors.
The failure to identify existing gaps in the Wildlife Law and develop regulations to
operationalise the Wildlife Act and Policy was caused by limited capacity of the legal
unit. The staff structure in the legal unit had not been fully filled making the available
staff overwhelmed by advisory and civil matters which left them with limited or no time
to review the existing law and develop regulations. Management had also failed to
recruit, train and retain legal personnel.
The effects of UWA’s failure to recruit, train and gazette prosecutors for every CA, revise
the law and develop regulations to operationalise the Act are that:
UWA’s ability to prosecute wildlife offenders is highly limited;
UWA’s overreliance on other Agencies like the Police to handle its investigation and
prosecution of offenders is hurting the fight against wildlife illegal activities as police
might be overwhelmed with other crimes and may not be familiar with wildlife laws
and or appreciate conservation values:
UWA will continue to have convicts turn into habitual offenders.
Conclusion
UWA is not effectively handling wildlife related cases as a result of failure to recruit,
and train and gazette appropriate personnel.
The existing Wildlife Act remains non-deterrent because UWA has not managed to
identify existing gaps and recommend to the relevant authorities for its revision.
The Board has not developed regulations to operationalise the UWA Act and as a
result the Act has remained dormant to a great extent.
Management response
The main challenge faced by UWA in this area has been maintaining a
unified Legal Unit due to insufficient funding. Efforts have now been
made to strengthen the Law Enforcement section by:
(1) Recruitment of three prosecutors who are still based at UWA HQ but
the plan is to have them in each Conservation Area. In 2012, UWA will
50
deploy two prosecutors in MFCA and QECA (the two CAs have the highest
number of court cases) and this will be rolled over to other CAs with time.
(2) Using the UPDF Intelligence Officers attached to the Legal Unit was a
stop gap as we would need over 100 Lawyers to handle the legal issues
of UWA. The strategy UWA has adopted is to enlist Law firms (through
framework contracts) in the different regions of Uganda, who are
engaged on a retainer basis to handle UWA’s cases, but coordinated by
the Legal Unit. The process for the revision of the Wildlife Policy and Act
has already started in the Ministry and UWA is actively involved. Some
Regulations to operationalise the Act, such as: Wildlife Use Rights, use of
arms and ammunition have been made and are in use.
Recommendations
UWA should identify, recruit, train and gazette prosecutors for every CA as specified in its
strategic plan.
The legal unit should be staffed adequately to manage all UWA’s legal matters, including
the review of the existing Wildlife Act and drafting of the regulations to operationalise the
Act.
The UWA Management should ensure that regulations to operationalise the Act are
developed and approved by the relevant authorities.
John F. S. Muwanga AUDITOR GENERAL
KAMPALA
19TH MARCH, 2012
51
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Biodiversity The variety of plant and animal life in a particular habitat
Community conservation
A broad term used to describe all work involving interaction with communities living around protected areas and includes education and awareness programs, conflict resolution, and consultative meetings as well as revenue sharing and collaborative management
Community wildlife area
An area described as a community wildlife area under the Wildlife Act
Conservation Looking after and managing a resource so that the resource maintains its ability to fulfil its functions and provide goods and services for present and future generations
Conservation Area includes a national park, wildlife reserve, wildlife sanctuaries,
community wildlife areas or any other area provided for under the
Wildlife Act
Dump truck Earth moving equipment used for ferrying gravel and other materials necessary for road construction and maintenance.
Eco system A community of plants, animals and smaller organisms that live, feed, reproduce and interact in the same area or environment.
Ecotourism. Tourism directed towards unspoiled natural environments and intended to support conservation efforts
Exotic species New plant species within the protected area that are not indigenous and destroy the habitat of other species
Extinct animal species Animal species that were indigenous in Uganda, but are currently nonexistent within the country
Grader A wheeled machine for levelling the ground especially in making roads
Hot spot A section of a park with a high rate or signs of illegal activities
Invasive species. Indigenous plant species in a protected area that multiply at a very high rate, and destroy the habitat of other species
National park Any area of international or national importance which because of its biological diversity, landscape or natural heritage has been described as a national park under the Wildlife Act
Out post A small camp at a distance from the park headquarters at which rangers are stationed to protect that section of the park
Plate Compactor A vibrating machine that is used for levelling and compacting the laid gravel on surfaces.
Pontoons A flotation device with buoyancy sufficient to float itself as well as
a heavy load such as a ferry
Problem animals includes any animal which poses a danger to human life or
property
Protected Area Includes an area which is provided for as a national park or a
52
wildlife sanctuary under the Wildlife Act
Ranger A person entrusted with protecting and preserving a conservation area; all UWA staff are rangers
Reintroduction The deliberate translocation of a species into the wild in areas
where it was indigenous at some point, but no longer at the
present.
Translocation The movement of an animal species, by people, from one area to
another usually to control animal populations and to deal with
problem animal.
Water bowser A mobile water tank for distribution of water on gravel during road construction, before compaction.
Wildlife reserve Any area of national or local importance which because of its biological diversity, landscape, or natural heritage is provided for as a wildlife reserve under the Wildlife Act
Wildlife sanctuary Any area which is provided for as a wildlife sanctuary under the Wildlife Act for the purpose of protecting a species of animal or plant or a class of such species
53
APPENDICES
Appendix I Documents Reviewed
SNO DOCUMENT REVIWED INFORMATION OBTAINED
1 The constitution of Uganda 1995 Mandate
2 The Wildlife Act Cap 200 Mandate
3 The Local Government Act 1997 Role of local councils in wildlife conservation
4 The Wildlife Policy 1999 Strategies to operationalise part of the UWA Act
5 The National Policy for the conservation
and Management of Wetlands 1995
Ecosystems, Criteria, biodiversity
6 Uganda Forestry Policy 2001 Ecosystems, Criteria, biodiversity
7 Memoranda of Understanding between
UWA and different stakeholders. e.g. UTB
Operational guidelines with stakeholders
8 Auditor Generals Reports on UWA Funding
9 Strategic Plan Goals, vision, mission objectives, criteria, strategies
10 General Management Plans Strategies for the management of each CA
11 Annual Operations Plans Performance indicators, Performance Gaps, Targets set by UWA management.
12 UWAs Annual Report 2008-2010 Information on collaborative management partnership.
13 Conservation Area Quarterly Reports Specific Conservation Area Performance
14 Internal Audit Reports for years under
review
Funding, Issues worth auditing
15 Organogram Organisation structure
16 UWAs Monitoring and research plan
(2003-2008)
Research priorities.
17 UWAs Human resources manual Information on staff entitlement and welfare
18 UWAs Revenue sharing programme
around protected areas ( September
2000)
Percentage and Mode of sharing of revenue.
19 Proposal for strengthening the veterinary
unit in UWA (2011)
Understand the functionality of the Veterinary unit.
54
Appendix ii UWA Research Priorities (a) Research Topics applicable to most Pas
Threat Research Topics PA where research is needed
Poaching Comparative analysis of disincentives and incentive methods of controlling poaching
Effectiveness of UWA strategies to tackle poaching
Analysis of markets and the trade in bush meat
Encroachment Investigating the effectiveness of restoration mechanisms in formerly encroached areas.
MGNP,KNP,MENP T/SWR,MFCA
Wildfires Analysis of strategies to tackle fires in forest and savannah ecosystems
Use of fire as a management tool in savannah ecosystems (for savannah Pas)
Long-term impacts of fires on forest ecosystem dynamics (forest parks)
All PA All savannah Pas Forested PAs
Grazing Potential of integrating livestock and wildlife in certain savannah protected areas.
LMCA, QECA Katonga WR
Wildlife diseases Epidemiology of common wildlife /livestock zoonotic diseases in and around Pas.
All CAs
Plant resource harvesting (legal & illegal)
Resource regeneration rates and calculation of sustainable off take levels
Identification of alternative resources/sources outside protected areas and analysis of potential for on farm substitution.
Ecology of specific target resources.
All PAs
Human – wildlife Effectiveness of ICDPs in MECA, QECA,BMCA,KCA
55
conflicts reducing human-wildlife conflicts around protected areas.
Socio-economic analysis of the human-wildlife conflicts around protected areas.
Analysis of potential barriers that could reduce raiding
All Pas
Invasive & exotic species
Inventory of exotic/invasive species in Pas
Feasibility of controlling invasive/exotic species in protected areas and possible eradication methods.
Distribution and generation of exotic species and their impact on indigenous species.
QECQ, IMNP, MFCA, BMCA, KCA
Pit sawing Effects of pit sawing on species regeneration, diversity and richness.
Economics of the timber trade locally to specific protected areas and analysis of alternatives
All Forested PAs
Waste management
Effects of refuse/ waste disposal on wild animals in Pas.
All PAs
Charcoal burning Impact of charcoal burning on biodiversity
Economics of the charcoal trade
All PAs
Source: Taken from “the Monitoring and Research Plan 2003-2008”
56
Appendix iii
Population Trend of selected mammals in Uganda (1960-1998) showing endangered and extinct species PERIOD 1960’s 1982/3 1995-8 CURRENT STATUS
Elephants 30,000 2,000 1,900 Population low but stable
Black rhino 400 150 0 Extinct in Uganda
White rhino 300 20 0 Extinct in Uganda
Burchells Zebra 10,000 5,500 3,200 Population declining
Hippopotamus 26,000 13,000 4,500 Population declining
Rothschild’s giraffe
2,500 350 200 Population declining
Buffalo 60,000 25,000 18,000 Population low but stable
Hartebeest 25,000 18,000 2,600 Population declining
Topi 15,000 6,000 600 Population declining
Impala 12,000 12,000 2,000 Population decreasing
Waterbuck 10,000 8,000 3,500 Population stable
Uganda cob 70,000 40,000 30,000 Population stable
Brights gazelle 1,800 1,400 100 Very rare, precious
Roan 700 300 8 Very rare, precious
Oryx 2,000 200 0 Extinct in Uganda
Eland 4,500 1,500 500 Population declining
Derby’s eland 300 ? 0 Extinct in Uganda.
Source: Aerial Surveys and early Uganda Game Department reports [taken from the Uganda Wildlife Policy June, 1999]
57
Appendix IV REVENUE SHARING - FINANCIAL YEAR 2010/2011
COMMUNITY REVNEUE SHARE Murchison Falls Queen Elizabeth Kidepo Valley Bwindi Mgahinga Mt. Elgon Lake Mburo Kibale Rwenzori Semilik NP Semiliki WR Kaiso Tonya Katonga Pian Upe WR
Balance at 30th June
2010
643,919,171 600,996,740 50,452,279
212, 740,962 44,888,983 34,796,098
140,354,713 74,417,613 72,905,487 11,973,486 9,515,433
- 2,764,278
8,205
20% share for the year
660,638,139 429,780,618 34,412,123
144,610,720 28,320,401 21,472,082
197,168,516 88,115,703 40,957,954 5,768,902 4,018,037
77,678
Amount paid during
the year 18,430,000
287,396,000 0 0 0 0
301,531,075 0 0 0 0 0 0
Balance at 30th June 2011
1,286,127,310 743,381,358 84,864,402
357,351,682 73,209,384 56,268,180 35,992,154
162,533,316 113,863,441 17,742,388 13,533,470
0 2,842,956
8,205
Sub total 1,899,733,448 1,655,340,873 607,357,075 2,947,717,246
Consolidated Revenue Share (For Bwindi) 490,951,027
TOTAL 3,438,668,273
58
REVENUE SHARING AS AT 30TH JUNE 2009/2010 FINANCIAL YEAR
COMMUNITY REVENUE SHARE Murchison Falls Queen Elizabeth Kidepo Valley Bwindi Mgahinga Mt. Elgon Lake Mburo Kibale Rwenzori Semiliki NP Semiliki WR Kaiso Tonya Katonga Pian Upe WR
Balance at 30th June 2009
604,118,960 479,873,511 33,994,396
189,813,623 29,634,762 35,321,129 65,589,026
117,041,905 47,231,180 5,999,822
17,256,128
2,600,567 8,205
20% share for the year
474,221,211 321,318,412 16,457,883
122,931,339 15,254,221 23,974,969 75,504,485 96,555,708 25,674,307 5,973,664
11,887,305
163,711
Amount paid during the year
434,421,000 200,195,183
0 100,004,000
0 24,500,000
738,798 139,180,000
0 0
19,628,000 0 0
Balance at 30th June 2010
643,919,171 600,996,740 50,452,279
212,740,962 44,888,983 34,796,098
140,,354,713 74,417,613 72,905,487 11,973,486 9,515,433
0 2,764,278
8,205
Sub total 1,628,483,214 1,189,917,215 918,666,981 1,899,733,448
Consolidated Revenue Share 376,639,050
TOTAL 2,276,372,498
59
REVENUE SHARING AS AT 30TH JUNE 2008/2009 FINANCIAL YEAR
COMMUNITY REVENUE SHARE Murchison Falls Queen Elizabeth Kidepo Valley Bwindi Mgahinga Mt. Elgon Lake Mburo Kibale Rwenzori Semiliki NP Semiliki WR Katonga Pian Upe WR
Balance at 30th June 2008
296,943,873 270,350,945 17,859,391
109,125,985 34,823,808 17,364,241 69,970,334 57,689,698 78,288,181 16,502,674 13,003,603 2,306,599
8,205
20% share for the year
307,175,087 265,832,732 16,135,005 80,687,638 13,445,329 17,956,888 85,554,028 59,352,207 24,249,421 4,497,148 4,252,525
293,968 0
Amount paid during the year
56,310,166
18,634,375 0
89,935,336
55,306,422 15,000,000
0 0
Balance at 30th June 2009
604,118,960 479,873,511 33,994,396
189,813,623 29,634,762 35,321,129 65,589,029
117,041,905 47,2231,180
5,999,822 17,256,128 2,600,567
8,205
Sub total 984,237,537 879,431,976 235,186,299 1,628,483,214
Consolidated Revenue Share 279,706,851
TOTAL 1,908,190,065
60
Appendix v WILDLIFE CASES PROSECUTED AND PENALTIES AWARDED Wildlife cases prosecuted against foreigners in the last six months (June – November 2011) at Entebbe Chief Magistrate’s court
OFFENDER OFFENCE PENALTY AWARDED
Uganda vs Wu Linfel Illegal possession of wildlife products without a use right
Imprisonment of 3 months or a fine of 1 million
Uganda vs Jan Xiang Illegal possession of wildlife products without a use right
Imprisonment of 3 months or a fine of 1 million
Uganda vs Wang Jian Xiang
Illegal possession of wildlife products without a use right
Imprisonment of 3 months or a fine of 1 million
Uganda vs Fu Jian Illegal possession of wildlife products without a use right
Imprisonment of 3 months or a fine of 1 million
Wildlife cases prosecuted against nationals in the last six months (June – November 2011) at Masindi Chief Magistrate’s court
No. of suspects Case category Court ruling / management action
09 Firewood collection, illegal entry Cautioned and released
03 Involvement in poaching Granted RTU to 4th division to face UDC
07 Agriculture encroachment on PA Terminated prosecution
46 Illegal entry, possession of dangerous weapon, illegal hunting, killing of protected species, cattle grazing, possession of wildlife products, destruction of vegetation, fishing, etc
Jail sentences ranging from 4 months to 18 months imprisonment or pay fines ranging from Ug shs.100, 000 to Ug shs. 1,000,000
29 (Suspects were habitual offenders)
Illegal entry, possession of dangerous weapon, illegal hunting, killing of protected species, cattle grazing, possession of wildlife products, destruction of vegetation, fishing
Jail sentences ranging from 5 months to 15 months imprisonment without fines
06 Illegal entry, possession of dangerous weapon, illegal hunting, killing of protected species, cattle grazing, possession of wildlife products, destruction of vegetation, fishing
Sentenced to caution and released