1

Pro-poor responses to wildlife crime

• 3 year project (April 2014 – March 2017)

• Funded by the UK Govt Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund

• Implemented by UWA, WCS, IIED, ICCS

2

Two Key Objectives

1. Build national (Ugandan) capacity to deliver pro-poor responses to wildlife crime

2. Draw out lessons learned that have international applicability.

3

Three main components

• Research - who undertakes wildlife crime and why, what interventions work and why

• Capacity development – Wildlife crime database

• Changes in policy and practice – redesigned policies and new wildlife crime interventions at key sites

4

Anticipated outcomes1. at least one improved or new intervention to tackle wildlife crime is

implemented at each study location, based on local people’s perceptions,

2. the wildlife crime mitigation policies in at least one of the two National Parks have been re-designed to ensure fairness and are being implemented.

3. a functioning wildlife crime database is in routine use by UWA together with improved reporting processes for monitoring wildlife crime, for adaptive management and for better targeting of interventions in response to offender profiles.

4. Lessons learned are disseminated widely (including UWA-led side event at the 2016 CoP.

5

Research Questions

1. What are the drivers and impacts of wildlife crime?

2. What are the socio-economic profiles of individuals who participate in wildlife crime?

3. Which interventions are most effective in reducing wildlife crime?

6

1.What are the drivers and impacts of wildlife crime?

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

Launch this evening

7

2. What are the socio-economic profiles of individuals who participate in wildlife crime?

Identification of known poachers from arrest dataSurvey of 2000 hh around QE and MurchisonIndirect questioning focussed on who poaches and why, correlated against hh wealthUpdate from Henry

8

3. Which interventions are most effective?

Park by park analysis attempting to correlate different variables (eg patrol effort, expenditure on community conservation) with crimeFieldwork to explore different response interventions based on policy scenarios and key informant interviews

Park analysis nearly completed but many gapsFieldwork completed (Geoffrey and Lucy)

9

Wildlife Crime Database

Database finalisedOngoing digitisation of historical recordsCapacity building of UWA staff (production of database manual and training sessions)WCS leading (Andy Plumptre)

10

Changes in policy and practice

11