UWA Leadership Exonerated by Parliament

Image of Moses Mapesa from http://www.iisd.ca

It seems that the Ugandan Parliament has seen through the motives of the new Uganda Wildlife Authority board and condemned them for trying to get at the funds held by UWA in its various accounts.  I have written about the questionable actions of the board here, here, and here.

Hopefully this will put a welcome brake on the precipitous actions of the new Uganda Wildlife Authority board of directors. An article in today’s issue of The Monitor, titled MP’s Dismiss Otifiire’s Report on Wildlife Agency, opens with the line “MPs have said the sacking of the Executive Director of the Uganda Wildlife Authority, Mr Moses Mapesa, is part of a wider scheme by some members of the agency’s board and some top officials in the Tourism Ministry to swindle money.”

For people within the Wildlife Authority, it has been clear for a while that the ultimate target of the new board is the Wildlife Authority’s accounts, particularly money that has been set aside to create a trust fund to support the operations in the parks.

This attack on the part of the Minister of Trade, Tourism and Industry, General Kahinda Otifiire, and his appointee Dr. Muballe, comes at a time when the parks in Uganda are particularly vulnerable.  Oil exploration is expanding in many of the national parks here, and a breakdown in the management of the Uganda Wildlife Authority would eliminate any last resistance to uncontrolled drilling in the parks.

Hopefully this ruling  by the Members of Parliament will lead to the reappointment of Moses Mapesa and a strengthening of the power of the Uganda Wildlife Authority to resist attacks on the National Parks regardless of the source of those attacks.

Read the rest of the article here:  MP’s Dismiss Otifiire’s Report on Wildlife Agency

Mark D. Jordahl – Kampala

Environmental Sustainability at St. John’s Teachers College

This post is dedicated to my friend, David Cook, who said I was starting to depress him with the environmental news out of Uganda.  He was right to call me on it – when I started writing this blog, my goal was to have a good balance between challenges and hope, but somehow the balance has been tipped in favor of the challenges.  It has been hard to be hopeful with oil drilling happening in the national parks, and the corruption of the recently disbanded Uganda Wildlife Authority board (who are still trying to get payments out of the UWA accounts!).

However, as is so often the case in Africa (and elsewhere, I guess), the problems are often at the higher levels, and the hope comes from the grassroots.  I honestly have very little faith that the Ugandan government has the will to protect the environment in this country in any way.  I have a personal policy here, though – whenever I get discouraged about the future of Uganda, I try to spend more time with individual Ugandans.  That’s what reignites my hope and reminds me why I am here.

I had that opportunity this week at the St. John the Baptist Primary Teachers College here in Kampala.  It is one of the leading teacher colleges in East Africa, and about 2,000 students attend each year from the five countries in the EAC.  The college has a very active environmental club that has partnered with Tusk Trust, Uganda Conservation Foundation and Siren Conservation Education to implement some model sustainability projects that the newly trained teachers can implement in the schools where they are ultimately placed.  With 2,000 teachers being exposed to this every year, you can imagine how many children will be taught the importance of environmentally sustainable practices.

The project looked at some of the main environmental challenges confronting the college, which also happen to be some of the biggest challenges facing Africa as a whole:

• Water
• Waste management
• Maintaining good food harvests
• Fuelwood for cooking
• Income generation

Below are some pictures of what they have put in place in each of these areas:

Rainwater Catchment System:

Dr. Mayanja with Rain barrel

Harvesting rainwater has multiple benefits wherever it is used.  In many parts of Africa, women still walk for miles to gather water from streams or lakes.  This exposes them and their families to diseases from water that is often shared by livestock, it takes a lot of time and energy to retrieve it and carry the 20+ kilogram jerry cans, and in conflict zones like eastern Congo, exposes them to attack while walking along paths early in the morning.  Directing rainwater into barrels rather than letting it flow freely off the roof also prevents the erosion that frequently undermines the walls or foundations of buildings.  In urban areas, it can also save families or schools quite a bit of money if they are able to use less of the municipal water supply.  During the rainy season, the Teachers College expects to save over 50% on their water bill.

Eco-San Toilets

Eco-san toilet

Everybody poops, right?   Human waste management is a challenge everywhere in the world.  Eco-san toilets provide a way to use that waste rather than “wasting” it (sorry – couldn’t resist).  In these toilets, the solid waste is separated from the liquid waste.  Many people don’t realize that urine has a very high nitrogen content, and that if it is diluted with water (harvested in the rain barrels), it is an incredible fertilizer for crops.  The solid waste goes into a compartment below, and in six months (if mixed regularly with wood ash), it becomes usable as compost for gardens or landscaping.

Permaculture

Seedlings for Permaculture

They are just getting started on this aspect of the project, but in time it will be a very important piece of the puzzle in this largely agricultural country.  Most agricultural leftovers here, like banana leaves, maize stalks, etc, are just piled up and burned.  The soil in Uganda is so fertile that nobody has ever really had to worry about replenishing it.  Composting is probably the cheapest thing that Uganda can do to ensure its future food security.

Fuel-Efficient Stoves

Fuel-efficient stoves are another simple technology that has far-reaching and many-pronged implications.  Deforestation is believed by many to be the most pressing environmental threat to Uganda.  93% of the population uses wood or charcoal for cooking, and the forest are disappearing at an alarming rate.  In addition to the environmental devastation, there are also the same impacts on women that are seen with water collection.  As sources of firewood or water get more scarce, women and children are having to go farther to collect these resources.  There are also respiratory issues that come with the traditional indoor “3-rock” open fireplace.  Fuel-efficient stoves can reduce firewood use dramatically.

Fuel-efficient stoves

But there are cultural issues to overcome and old habits to break.  Some people like cooking over the old, familiar, 3-stone fireplace.  Check out the picture below to see where the cooks at the school, despite the money and effort that was put into building the fuel-efficient stoves and their obvious benefits, have set up an open fire pit to cook.

3-stone Firepit. Old habits die hard.

There are also supply-chain issues.  The picture below shows a recent delivery of firewood to the school.  Look at the size of the logs.  First of all, this was a mature tree cut down rather than more sustainable saplings and, second, there is NO WAY these are going to fit in the stoves.  Is somebody really supposed to cut these down to size with a machete or a hand-saw?  This school does not have chainsaws or a mechanical log-splitter.  It takes time to shift behaviors in a more sustainable direction.

Firewood Delivery

Income Generation

The environmental club has started raising chickens to fund some of the club activities, like trips to the national parks for club members.  The chickens in this pen are expected to nearly pay for an entire group of 30 students to visit Queen Elizabeth National Park.

Chickens for Income Generation

I left inspired by the work of the environmental club at St. John’s, and will be going back in January to do a training for their in-service teachers.  The school would also like to become a model site, and will soon be welcoming visiting groups who might be interested in implementing similar projects at their own sites.

And David – thanks for the reminder!

Mark D. Jordahl – Kampala

Murchison Falls Continues to be Museveni’s Punching Bag (or Punchline)

Golfing and Wildlife don't Mix

Can this really be happening? In another blow to the survival of Murchison Falls National Park, President Museveni is demanding that the Madhvani Group, the owners of Paraa and Chobe Lodges, be allowed to build a golf course within the park.  Clearly he does not take the concept of “National Park” seriously.

I think building a Wal-Mart or a 24-hour Nakumatt at the Top of the Falls would be a reasonable next step.

First, let’s address the fact that Museveni is really in no position to make this call, either legally or in terms of his ability to assess the impacts of a project like this.  He is quoted as saying “Golf has no fumes. It is not a factory to generate fumes, it is just grass. This must be resolved. Tell UWA that I want this to be done.”

He has absolutely no environmental credentials, and there are, theoretically, laws that a development like this should have to follow (for instance, undergoing one of those pesky Environmental Impact Assessments).  It should also be a decision made by the Uganda Wildlife Authority, not by decree of the president.  If the president is able to just sidestep constitutional process whenever it is convenient for him, that is a sign of a broken political and legal system.

While there are efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of golf courses in countries with strict environmental oversight, unregulated courses are notoriously polluting.  The chemicals used to maintain the “perfect” grass have contaminated water sources around the world.  I don’t know where in the park the Madhvanis plan to build this course, but my guess is that they will want a view of the river,  which means there is a high likelihood of chemical runoff into the Nile.  There is also the issue of irrigating the entire course during the dry season, presumably with water from the river.

Building a golf course in Murchison Falls National Park will also result in yet another area of the park where the wildlife, the main reason for the existence of the park, will not be welcome.  As oil development expands into the production phase, the wildlife will already be feeling pressured as the open habitat shrinks.

The Madhvanis requested permission to build a golf course in Queen Elizabeth National Park sometime back, but were turned down by the Uganda Wildlife Authority because of the impact it would have on wildlife.  The current, questionably-appointed Acting Executive Director of UWA, Mark Kamanzi, has apparently agreed to the current proposal, saying “There’s nothing wrong with the President allowing a golf course to be built in the park. It does not mean that the land has been given away.” It is important to note that, like President Museveni, Mark Kamanzi has no environmental credentials – he is a lawyer who was moved into the position of Executive Director by the Board that was recently disbanded.

Uganda’s natural assets should not be sold off to the highest bidder.  The national parks here have the highest level of protection of any blocks of land in the country.  If even that level of protection can’t keep these places safe, what does that mean for the rest of the remaining forests and other natural lands?  Ugandans successfully fought to keep Museveni from selling off part of Mabira Forest, but they shouldn’t have to continually fight to save places that are already legally protected.

It will be a sad day if Uganda’s National Parks become little more than a National Joke.

Mark D. Jordahl – Kampala

Yes, Northern Uganda IS Safe AND Amazing

I just read another article about the “ongoing conflict” in northern Uganda, called Uganda: The Rest of the Story.  The author, who I have written to with no response, states in her article that “Clearly — and tragically — the conflict rages on.”

For those of you who have been following this blog, you’ll be happy to hear that this article is not at all associated with Invisible Children.  This author, sadly, even did some research and linked to an article about the LRA that she doesn’t seem to have read.  I have a feeling she never got beyond the title:  Uganda’s LRA killed 2,500 people, abducted 697 children over past 18 months.  I can see why she might have been confused by the title, but the article, from The Christian Science Monitor, makes it clear in the first paragraph that the atrocities described happened in Democratic Republic of Congo and Central African Republic, and in the third paragraph even mentions that the LRA was “pushed out of Uganda in 2005.”

I realize that there will always be journalists who are up against a deadline and have to put out a story that they haven’t fully researched.  So, to approach this issue in a more positive way, I’ve decided to dedicate this post to showing how incredible northern Uganda is, and why everyone should try to get there to explore a bit.

The following are some pictures taken on a road trip with Wildlife Conservation Society and Wildlife Clubs of Uganda that I was fortunate enough to be invited to join.  Our basic route was Kampala – Gulu – Adjumani – Arra – Mt. Otzi – Adjumani – Kitgum – Kidepo – Pader – Gulu – Kampala.  We did this drive in the dry season and were impressed by the quality of the roads for the whole trip, making it from Arra (near Adjumani) to Kidepo Valley National Park in one day’s drive.  I have heard that it is not quite so easy in the wet season, and that it is still not safe to travel the eastern route through Karamojaland.  For now, stick with the western route through Kitgum.

Kidepo Valley

Nile River near Arra Fishing Lodge

Moonrise on the Nile

Mt. Otzi near Sudan border

East Madi Wildlife Reserve

Zoka Forest Footbridge

Sunset at Arra Fishing Lodge

Dufile Landing on Nile

Village in Dufile Fort site

Approaching Kidepo Valley NP

The queue for the loo

A Village with a View

Landscape near Pader

Beyond the spectacular landscape, it is wonderful to feel the sense of vibrancy in northern Uganda, as communities and economies rebuild.  Expect the tourism infrastructure to expand in the near future, which will make it even easier to explore this part of Uganda.  But, don’t wait too long.  There is a sense of adventure that comes with traveling through an area before all the infrastructure gets built.

For now, all the main towns have basic accommodation available, and a good hub for exploring the western part of the region is the Arra Fishing Lodge, which is about 30 minutes from Adjumani and just a few kilometers from the Laropi Ferry Crossing, giving you access to Mt. Otzi and the whole West Nile area.

One of the most exciting aspects of the tourism potential in northern Uganda is the 200km stretch of the Nile that is navigable from Murchison Falls National Park to the Sudan border, passing through a number of wildlife reserves and past two of Emin Pasha’s old fort sites.  It will just take one savvy investor to renovate an old steam ship and start running multi-day trips on the Nile.

Northern Uganda is no longer a place of war – it is a place of potential.  Sure, it still has its challenges, but one of the things it needs most is to be more integrated with the rest of Uganda.  What that will take is more people traveling there and seeing it as a living, vibrant part of the country rather than a mythical land of warfare and abductions.

Mark D. Jordahl

Spitting Fight between Nagenda and Otafiire

The mess at Uganda Wildlife Authority seems to have taken a more personal twist lately, with volleys in the press between Presidential Media Advisor John Nagenda and Minister of Trade, Tourism and Industry, General Kahinda Otafiire.

In a recent article in the New Vision, Nagenda refers to Dr. Muballe, who Otafiire appointed as Chair of the UWA board, as “a monster daily devouring its own children.”

In another article a month ago, Otafiire threatened Nagenda saying “Nagenda cannot insult us like that. It is fine to insult me. I will hit back at him at a given time somewhere else.”

This personal battle runs the risk of deflecting attention from what is still going on within Uganda Wildlife Authority.  Staffers at headquarters never know from day-to-day if they will keep their jobs, and are working in an atmosphere of mistrust, where they believe people are looking through their things at night, and that their communications are being monitored.

Much of the fear comes from the fact that the dismissals can appear capricious, as the true motivations behind them are unclear.  There was a recent audit of the Friend-a-Gorilla campaign which purportedly unearthed corruption and misuse of funds.  I have not seen the report, but I have heard from people I trust within UWA that the money raised by the campaign is all accounted for, and that the variety of bank accounts is the result of PayPal not being able to deposit funds into a Ugandan account.

I have also done some research into the costs of developing a commercial website, and the $65,000 is in line with what should be expected for an international-standard website with the complexity of the Friend-a-Gorilla site with e-commerce and social networking.  Sure, websites can be done cheaper, but the goal of the Friend-a-Gorilla campaign was to put Uganda on the world scene, and you don’t want to do that with a cheesy, $1,000 website.

Granted, the campaign has not been as successful as was hoped, but that does not mean that the process was corrupt.  Also, what many people don’t remember is that this campaign was launched right after the Kampala riots in fall of 2009.  There were a few weeks where every piece of news about Uganda in the international press was about the riots.  Then along came the Friend-a-Gorilla campaign and suddenly the world’s focus on Uganda shifted to a positive story.  How much would Uganda have had to pay for a PR campaign to turn around its international image in such a short period of time?

I am very concerned about the future of the parks in Uganda.  The actions that are being taken by the new UWA board are significant, and they are being done at a speed that does not allow for proper examination of each step.  I find it interesting that Nagenda is taking such an active role and can only hope it is a sign that the top leadership in the country also has concerns about how things are being handled at UWA.

Mark D. Jordahl – Kampala

The Expat/Ugandan Dynamic

Image from http://www.america.gov

My recent post, The Plot Thickens at Uganda Wildlife Authority, drew two interesting comments from Dr. Muballe, the new chair of the Board of Directors at UWA.  In his more agitated comment he wasn’t actually responding to anything I wrote, but to a comment left by Wolfgang Thome, who has written openly about his criticisms of the new board’s actions on his own website and in his articles at eTurboNews.  However, since both comments were left on my site, I figure it is fair for me to write about the thoughts his comments provoked for me.

First, the mild one:

“Trust me on this the motive of the new BoT of UWA is noble. The proof in the pudding is the outcome of the ongoing forensic Audit. If the motive was less than noble why Audit UWA.

If it help you understand UWA whose Annual budget is approximatelys$15,000,000 runs 20 accounts in 5 different banks. Does that make economic sense.

Kindly give us time to prove our worth. Not all that comes out of Uganda is Corrupt. There are many honest ugandans who truelly wish to see the country Grow. If at any stage the temptation to be corrupted afflicts me then be assured i shall resign.  Pro deum et Patrium.”

In his favor here, I must agree that it is a little ridiculous to have 20 accounts in 5 banks for a relatively small budget.  That is a perfect set-up for corruption, as it is difficult to monitor expenses in so many accounts, and I can only imagine the convoluted signing-authority arrangements for retrieving money from any of those accounts.  Part of the “proof in the pudding” on this one will be how they try to restructure this.  Who will have signing authority for the new, condensed accounts?  While the finance committee of a board needs to have the ability to review the accounts of the organization they oversee, they should never have the ability to actually access the funds.  By suspending everyone with signing authority, the road was open to have the Board be the only signatories.  Now that the court has re-instated the Executive, that road is not so clear.

They will assuredly have time to prove their worth.  So far, though, the road is already bumpy.  Their dismissals of the Executive Director and the Director of Conservation have been overturned, and when Dr. Muballe was called to speak to Parliament he did not appear.  The Monitor, the independent newspaper in Uganda, has also reported unprecedented fees being paid to the new board under Dr. Muballe in “Wildfire Consumes Wildlife Authority:”

Members of the previous UWA board, headed by city lawyer Andrew Kasirye, received a monthly retainer of Shs700,000 and a sitting allowance of Shs103,000.

However, Dr Muballe now receives a monthly retainer of Shs2m [$1,000] and a sitting allowance of Shs300,000 [$150 per meeting]. Other board members have a monthly retainer of Shs1.5m and a sitting allowance of Shs250,000.

Travel and night allowances have also been doubled to $200 (about Shs400,000) for the chairman and $150 (about Shs300,000) for members.

The new board has also approved new allowances and benefits to its members with Dr Muballe receiving a monthly allocation of 200 litres of fuel [worth about $250 – $300], Shs200,000 [$100] for airtime, and an entertainment allowance of Shs1m [$500].”

Pretty sweet packages, I must say, particularly for the board of an underfunded government agency where a single sitting allowance would be a good monthly salary for many of the employees.  And for those of you reading this outside of Uganda, a “sitting allowance” is basically extra money that you have to pay higher-level people here to do their jobs.  If you need somebody from the Health Ministry to come see a project at a health center, you have to pay them extra to get them to leave their desk.

There are also questions around how the new board was selected, as most of them have no conservation or wildlife experience and some had never even been to the parks before joining the board.  Dr. Muballe was the personal physician to the Minister of Trade and Tourism, who appointed him to the post.

His next comment, directed towards Wolfgang Thome, is a bit spicier:

Mr Wolfgang,

you have judged us with inadequate information. kindly prepare your apology in 30 days time. YOUR EUROCENTRIC ATTITUDE SHALL BE PUT TO SHAME. BY THE WAY SOME OF THE CORRUPTERS OF UWA OFFICIALS ARE GERMANS. if i gave you evidence to the effect could you help bring them to book?

Have a nice week.

aluta comtinua, victoria ecerta. We have declare war on corruption if you believe in transperancy help us prosecute these corrupt europeans as well.

Just for context, Wolfgang has been in Uganda for twenty years, is married to a Ugandan woman, and is set to live the rest of his life here.  He is clearly committed to this country, and probably has stronger ties here than he does back in Germany.  I’m not exactly sure what Dr. Muballe saw as “Eurocentric” in Wolfgang’s comment or his other writings.  He has been openly supportive of Moses Mapesa, who is a Ugandan, since this issue first started making headlines, and much of what he has written has been based on evidence that has come out through investigations by local, Ugandan reporters.  It is easy to avoid addressing the issues directly when you simply write-off your critics as “outsiders.”

Muballe’s comment, however, brings up a deeper issue.  There is a push-pull in Uganda between two opposing attitudes.  One, expressed here by Dr. Muballe, is essentially “Who do you mzungus think you are, telling us how to run our country?”  The other was expressed by a young man I met in a village last weekend who said to a group of us “Maybe we could sit down together and you could tell us how to organize our lives.”

Neither of these attitudes is healthy or appropriate.  Westerners have a role to play here just as Africans have a role to play in the United States or in Europe.  It is the unique blend of perspectives, experiences and gifts that different people bring to the table that make a country strong.

I do think there is a sense of entitlement on the part of many donor countries to have a say in the workings of Uganda, particularly due to the fact that a third of the national budget is direct support from international donors.  Compounding this is the fact that Uganda is actually moving backwards on the Corruption Perceptions Index created by Transparency International.  The Freedom House Country Report on Uganda also shows Uganda’s rating dropping over the last 4 years in the categories of Accountability and Public Voice, Rule of Law, and Anticorruption and Transparency.  The Civil Liberties category was the only one in which an improvement was seen.  So while Muballe is certainly correct that “not all that comes out of Uganda is corrupt,” it is impossible to ignore the fact that corruption is widespread here.  The cards are also very much stacked against those people, be they Ugandan or foreign, who want to steer clear of corruption.  That said, it is a delicate and awkward balance between “investors” having a say in their investment and a nation having sovereignty.

The frustration for me is that I don’t see Uganda as a poor country, or at least not as a country that needs to be poor.  The land here is extremely fertile, there is a growing business sector, recently discovered sources of oil, other minerals, and an English-speaking population, which makes it easier for Ugandans to interact with the global business community.  The human and natural resources are here.  What seems to be lacking is leadership that is committed to serving the people first, and themselves second.  Uganda could be a virtual paradise if the money that was allocated to strengthen it was used for that purpose.

Ugandan law does provide for both the bribe payer and the payee to be prosecuted.  It will be interesting to see what happens if this is enforced.  Will there be economic stagnation if authorities refuse to allow business activity without receiving a bribe but the businesses won’t pay the bribe due to fear of reprisal?

Donor countries do have a role to play in pressing for more transparency in the governments they support.  However, it must be remembered that those countries (and individuals working in the aid industry) have a vested interest in continuing to provide funding.  I think it is pretty rare for donors to follow through on any threats to reduce funding as a penalty for corruption.

The other side of this equation, the one expressed by the young man in the village, is also off-base.  None of us in the group knew anything about him, yet he thought we could help him “organize his life” simply because we are mzungus.  I believe that for some, there is a tendency to assume we mzungus bring more to the table than we actually do.  There are always pitfalls in making assumptions about entire groups of people, whether those assumptions are positive or negative.  As with anybody else, each mzungu here has some skills and lacks others, has certain positive character traits and certain negative ones.  I have enough trouble keeping my own life on track – I certainly don’t feel qualified to tell anybody else how to “organize” theirs.

So how do we move towards a healthier, more realistic relationship between western expatriates and Ugandans?  Reducing the wealth gap is an important step.  Improving the education system here to get it on-par with international standards is another.  But these are long-term undertakings.  Is there a way, in the meantime, to get people to look at each other as individuals, with unique strengths and weaknesses, no matter what their skin color or nationality might be?

Mark D. Jordahl – Kampala

The Permit Wars

NCDF Headquarters

I really don’t know where I come down on this issue.  On one hand, you have a monopoly over six of 48 gorilla permits on offer in Uganda each day.  On the other hand, you have a creative public/private partnership that is giving far more financial benefit to a couple of communities than pretty much any other tourism initiative I have seen here in Uganda.

Nkuringo is a community on the border of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, the home of about half of the world’s remaining highly endangered mountain gorillas.  As in so many communities around the parks here, the people living in Nkuringo were having trouble with wildlife coming out of the forest and damaging their crops.  This tends to lead to people killing wildlife to protect their food source.  People in these boundary communities also tend to see many tourists driving past their homes in nice vehicles, but receive very little financial benefit from this tourism.

To address these issues, in 2004 the International Gorilla Conservation Foundation and the Uganda

Bwindi View

Wildlife Authority set up the Nkuringo Community Development Foundation to represent Nkuringo and Rubugiri parishes, bordering a section of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park.  They were given control of a large piece of land and right of first refusal on 6 of the 8 mountain gorilla tracking permits available each day for the family of gorillas that has been habituated in the area (not all 8, as the articles below claim).

The community group was having trouble marketing the permits, so they joined in a partnership with The Uganda Safari Company.  IGCP solicited $250,000 from USAID to build a lodge in Nkuringo, and The Uganda Safari Company matched that initial investment (and have apparently put in much more subsequently).  The result was the beautiful (and pricey) Clouds Lodge, opened in 2008.  Permits and lodging tend to be sold in packages, so people tracking this particular family of gorillas are likely to stay at Clouds.

This raised the ire of many of the other tour operators in the country.  There are peak seasons in the year when permits need to be booked months in advance, and it is a definite advantage to any company to have a guaranteed six permits per day to offer their clients. The complaints of these other tour operators led to an investigation by the Inspector General of Government, Raphael Baku.  The resulting report was a pretty strong condemnation of the arrangement and an order to cancel the contract.

However, I have heard that the IGG report was riddled with inconsistencies and errors, and certainly there are some problems even with the information that has made it out into the news.  One of the articles states:

The NCDF, a company limited by shares, gets eight permits each day and purports to represent entire communities of Rubuguri and Nteko parishes neighbouring Bwindi Impenetrable Forest yet it is owned by only 23 people, the IGG wrote.

In fact, NCDF is not a company at all, but a registered NGO.  They have a Board of Directors consisting of 39 members, and a general assembly of 271 representing the villages in the parishes.

Another article stated:

Investigations by the IGG office indicated that UWA encouraged individuals to form a private company with which they operated private businesses in respect to gorilla permit tourism, edging out others.

Once again, they are either referring to NCDF, which is not a private company, or The Uganda Safari Company, which was in operation for years before it got involved with this arrangement.

One way or another, there is a lot of misinformation out there, and I think it is not unlikely that the IGG will reverse its decision.

I recognize that from a strictly business perspective, it is unfair to give an advantage to one company by offering them right of first refusal for 75% of the permits available in Nkuringo, and I’m sure some of my friends in the tourism industry here will stop talking to me for a while for even suggesting otherwise.

NCDF Projects

But here’s the thing…in 2009, the NCDF, a community-based organization representing two boundary parishes, received $40,000 through this arrangement.  That’s a lot of money.  For every single person who stays at Clouds Lodge, $35 goes to NCDF whether the lodge is turning a profit or not.  They also receive rent from the land the lodge sits on.  I am not aware of any other tourism arrangement in Uganda that funnels so much money directly into local communities (although it is possible that the Buhoma Homestead, fully owned and operated by the Buhoma community, is bringing in that much or more).

I am not making a naïve assumption that the arrangement is perfect.  Corruption is the norm here, and who knows how much of that money actually got where it was supposed to go.  I also don’t like the fact that the community group receives the money whether or not they do anything, reinforcing the handout mentality that plagues a lot of projects here.

It’s a tricky issue.  Uganda needs business development, and tour operators are fueling a growing percentage of the economy here.  There needs to be a supportive business environment to encourage them to expand.  However, most tourism here doesn’t really benefit local communities all that much. When you have an alternative tourism arrangement that seems unfair to some tour operators, but has the potential to reduce poverty in communities around Bwindi, how do you define fair?

Mark D. Jordahl – Kampala

More info:

Uganda Wildlife Authority’s Statement

http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/220/720510 New Vision Article

http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/922650/-/item/0/-/u1qp5wz/-/index.html The Monitor Article

Should Sport Hunting be Allowed in Uganda?

Last night in Kampala there was a forum held by NatureUganda about whether sports-hunting should be used as a wildlife management tool in Uganda.  This is obviously a hot issue, with strong feelings on either side.  I invite you to read this post, and then vote in the attached poll.

Achilles Byaruhanga

Speakers:
Achilles Byaruhanga, Executive Director of NatureUganda
Sam  Mwandha, Director Conservation, Uganda Wildlife Authority
Dr. Richard Lamprey, Technical Advisor, Flora and Fauna International
Philip Chollet, Owner, Karamojo Safaris LTD

Background:
Sport hunting in Uganda is an activity that falls under “Wildlife Use Rights” in the Wildlife Act of 2000, as one of six ways that wildlife can be “used” to benefit people and the economy in general.  After nearly 90% of the wildlife in the country was decimated in the 1970s under the Idi Amin regime, all hunting was made illegal to allow wildlife populations to recover.  However, poaching continues to be rampant.  The Wildlife Authority decided that the populations of some species had recovered enough that they instituted a pilot sport-hunting concession around Lake Mburu National Park in 2001 (it is important to note that no hunting will be allowed inside the national parks).  The pilot period was subsequently extended twice, and finished in October 2009.  The Uganda Wildlife Authority website states:

“The overall objective of granting WUR is to promote sustainable extractive utilization of wildlife by facilitating the involvement of landowners and users in managing wildlife on private land. The underpinning principles are that;

• Sustainable extractive utilization of wildlife can provide cultural, customary, and socio-economic benefits at the local, district and national levels.
• The consumption of wildlife resources could contribute significantly to food security and poverty reduction in rural areas.
• Profit motive and leisure factors are important in encouraging private sector and community involvement in wildlife conservation and management.
• Benefits accruing from WUR leads to better wildlife management and increase in animal populations in those areas where they have been depleted.”

Many more official details about Use Rights can be found at: http://www.uwa.or.ug/Hunting.htm

The main arguments against sport hunting at this time are based on questions about whether the population sizes of the targeted species are actually viable, and whether the data the Wildlife Authority is using to set quotas is accurate.  There are also concerns about the transparency of the concessions granting process and the oversight of the actual hunt.

Here is a link to an article that covers some of the concerns:  http://www.eturbonews.com/12343/uganda-s-new-hunting-license-promises-more-controversy

Here are some highlights from each of the speakers:

Achilles Byaruhanga, Executive Director of NatureUganda

As the host of the evening, Achilles was primarily setting the stage for the discussion.  He pointed out a number of concerns that he has with the current arrangements for sport hunting.

1. It seems that some of the quotas are not based on current population surveys.
2. What message is being sent to the local communities?  They are still not allowed to hunt, but they will now see wealthy foreigners coming in to hunt.  They may even come to believe that hunting, in general, is now allowed since they will see others hunting, and meat from wild game will be consumed openly in communities (after a kill, the meat is often given to the communities since the sport hunter primarily wants the horns or skin).
3. Uganda Wildlife Authority has very sparse staffing in the areas where these hunts will take place.  Will they really be able to patrol these areas?
4. If the one of the main arguments for sport hunting is the livelihood benefits to the communities, how many animals will you have to kill at a price of $150 – $5,000 (depending on the species) to really have an impact on the communities?
5. The concessionaire signs a 24-month agreement, which allows them to immediately begin operations, but their management plans are not due until the end of the 24 months.  This basically allows them to operate with no management plan for the duration of their concession.

Sam  Mwandha, Director of Conservation, Uganda Wildlife Authority

The Uganda Wildlife Authority position is based on what they say are observed increases in wildlife numbers in the areas where hunting has been happening during the pilot phase.   He started his talk by stating that for the sport hunting companies, “Their business isn’t sport hunting, their business is wildlife management.”  Here are some other points from his talk:

1. There are five companies who have been given concessions in a total of 8 hunting blocks.
2. 2% of a species’ total population is the maximum quota, and most of the quotas set in Uganda are below that threshold.
3. Hunters want trophies, so they focus on the old males, leaving the females and young males alone.
4. When they approve a permit to hunt a hippo or a leopard, they focus on “problem animals.”  Only 5 leopards have been killed by sport hunters in the last 3 years.
5. The populations of hunted species are skyrocketing [note – he showed graphs that showed a more-than-tenfold increase in some species in five years.  During the discussions afterwards, many people expressed doubts about the numbers.]
6. The income local communities have derived through sport hunting has improved local attitudes towards wildlife, which has reduced the amount of poaching.
7. He confirmed that the hunting companies can operate for 24 months without a plan, but that it would not make good business sense for them to do that since they rely on healthy animal populations.
8. Communities can benefit a lot financially from sport hunting.  The permit fee (ranging from $150 – $5,000 depending on the animal) is divided up as follows:  45% to the community wildlife association (for development projects), 30% to landowner, 15% to Uganda Wildlife Authority, 5% to local government, 5% to community protected-area institution. [note – the Uganda Wildlife Authority gets most of its income through selling the actual concession for the hunting block to the outfitter]

Dr. Richard Lamprey, Technical Advisor, Flora and Fauna International

Richard Lamprey has been involved in parks management in many parts of Africa and has been involved in decision-making around sport-hunting in Tanzania.  His talk was the most balanced of the evening, and I honestly couldn’t have told you at the end whether he is for or against sport hunting in Uganda.

He started his talk by saying that to truly get involved with this debate, you need to begin to understand the mentality of the dedicated sport hunter, who is passionately dedicated to the hunt and who will willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to do it (currently a 7-day hunt for sitatunga in the Ssesse Islands of Uganda costs about $20,000).

Here are some of the points he made:

1. Sport hunting can bring a huge amount of money into a country.  The “Daily Rate” that a hunter here pays is about $1,000 on top of permit fees, lodging, transportation, etc.
2. In Tanzania, one study showed that 600 hunters per year bring the same amount of money into the country as 200,000 game viewers (people who go on a non-hunting safari).  That is a lot of money that can be used for wildlife management. [and possibly a lower overall impact on wildlife given the smaller numbers]
3. The idea behind all “Wildlife Use Rights” is to put a value on wildlife.  If local villagers can earn significant revenue by supporting sport hunting, they will want wildlife numbers to increase and will be less likely to allow poaching on their lands.
4. Hunting companies pay $10,000 – $30,000 for each “hunting block” per year depending on the country.  Tanzania has about 120 of these blocks, so it is a significant source of income.
5. There are very few studies in Africa showing a change in animal populations (up or down) due to sport hunting because very little data is available.
6. For communities to really benefit from sport hunting, they need strong, transparent community institutions to reduce the possibility of corruption.
7. Because there is so much money to be made in the sport hunting industry, there is huge competition for hunting blocks and, thus, strong possibility for higher-level corruption between outfitters and authorities.
8. There is not the strong control over illegal hunting practices (hunting from a car, baiting, using dogs, hunting with a spotlight at night, etc) that was in place in the early days of African big-game hunting.
9. There is a lot of incentive for hunting companies to engage in illegal hunting practices.  If your client payed $20,000 to kill a sitatunga and didn’t get one, will he come back to you next year?
10. The block rates that go directly to Uganda Wildlife Authority have the potential to be a very important source of revenue to fund their park management operations (the parks currently operate at a loss)
11. There are already some signs of possible corruption.  One active outfitter that currently holds 3 of the 8 hunting blocks was removed from operations in the early 2000s for taking hunters into a national park.  Also, in a review of contracts that went through PPDA (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority), 60% were found to be flawed.  As wildlife are a public asset in Uganda, it is my understanding that this is the body that is ultimately responsible for approving concessions.
12. All quotas need to be made public, since wildlife is a public asset.
13. The Wildlife Authority can use on-line tools to help monitor illegal activities.  There are “Hunt Report” websites where sport hunters post accounts of their trips to Africa and other parts of the world.  They will often mention in their reports if their guides did anything (even illegal things) to help insure a “good hunt.”

Philip Chollet, Owner, Karamojo Safaris LTD.

With Filip’s talk, we were able to get a glimpse of the passion of the hunter that Dr. Lamprey referred to.  He started his slide presentation with images of an eland that was wounded by poachers.  Clearly, his main thrust was to emphasize that sport hunting can reduce poaching.  Here are some of his points:

1. With no animals there are no hunters.  With no hunters, there are no animals.  Hunters are strong advocates for conservation because they want to be able to continue to hunt.
2. If nobody “owns” the wildlife or if they don’t benefit from it, they will kill it. [tragedy of the commons]
3. If one hunter comes to an area for 2 weeks and kills one buffalo, the local communities get 4 million shillings (about $2,000) through their share of the permit, the hiring of trackers, porters, etc.  By contrast, when an eco-tourist comes to one of the game parks on safari, the local communities get almost nothing.
4. If the communities keep benefitting from sport hunting, will they allow poachers to continue?
5. Wildlife is a commodity.
6. Ecosystems are not self-regulating and the only way to control animal populations is for hunters to kill them. [hmmmm…]
7. In one of their hunting concessions, the Pian-Upe game reserve, you will find illegal snares every 500 meters.  When sport hunters are out every day they can patrol for and remove snares and, again, if the communities are benefitting they will also put pressure on the poachers to stop.

General Discussion:

There was a lot of discussion around whether the survey numbers that Uganda Wildlife Authority was using are accurate.  It doesn’t seem possible that impala numbers could increase from 5,000 to 35,000 in less than ten years.  Aggrey Rwetsiba, Director of Research for UWA, admitted that they had switched survey methods between the earlier and later numbers and that animal population counts are very difficult to do accurately.

If 30% of the permit fee goes to the landowner where the animal was killed, and most people are too impoverished to own land, it is a fair distribution of the revenue?

The owner of a lodge in Lake Mburu National Park pointed out that the quotas are based on total populations in the area, both inside and outside the park, while hunting is only allowed outside the park.  He argued that the quotas should only be based on the average populations outside the park since that’s where the hunting takes place.

The same lodge owner claimed that there have already been impacts on game viewing opportunities in the parks.  In Lake Mburu NP he has observed that the eland herds have become more skittish, as they have nearly all been shot at at some point.  This could have a serious impact on eco-tourism, which is still the primary form of tourism in the country.

There were also questions about whether ecotourism and sport hunting are compatible.  In general, eco-tourists don’t want to be in a place where animals are being shot.

Inconclusion (yes, I meant to spell it like that):

Sport hunting has the potential to increase livelihoods in communities around protected areas, fund the wildlife management activities of the Wildlife Authority, and reduce poaching which could result in increased wildlife populations.  At the same time, it is unclear whether the animal populations here are ready for hunting, there is a lack of trust in government institutions to manage the process in a legal and transparent way, and there are concerns about the impacts of sport hunting on other forms of tourism.

There was virtually no discussion about whether hunting is “right” or “wrong,” which is perhaps not surprising in an African context.  Hunting is being used as one component of wildlife management around the world (think about deer permits in the U.S.), and it does have the potential to bring far more money into local communities than game viewing.

If you really want to go deeper into this issue, here is a book that Dr. Lamprey referred to in his talk:
Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice

So what do you think?  Should sport hunting be allowed in Uganda?

Mark D. Jordahl – Kampala