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