Uganda Wildlife Authority is not involved in illegal trade

Recently, there have been press reports on wildlife trade by Uganda (The New Vision of Thursday the 21st and Saturday the 23rd 2002). The following issues were raised among others:lUWA is giving out quota for trade that contains animal species, which are not found in Uganda.lUWA does not have the capacity to monitor and control such trade. It would therefore be difficult for UWA to detect illegal activities and hence, abuse of the trade.lThe trade does not benefit the country, because the prices for individual species are too low, and the traders are not Ugandans.Some critics have even argued that the ban on hunting should not have been lifted, as the country will lose all its wildlife species. Through the press, individuals have also aired their concerns and called upon me, as the Minister concerned, to intervene.As the Minister responsible for the sector, I would like to provide the public with my responses to the above concerns, based on the Government’s policy on wildlife, The Wildlife Statute of 1996 and UWA’s five-year Strategic plan.The Minister of Uganda Wildlife Authority is to: “Conserve 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.” This means that the UWA’s approach to manage wildlife is that of wise use or conservation rather than preservation only. This is the type of use that benefits Ugandans and the international community, and a management of the resource that especially involves neighbouring communities and other stakeholders.Prior to 1996, a lot of consultation and debate was put into the finalisation of the merger of two organisations (Game Department and the UNP), which culminated in the promulgation of the Wildlife Statute (1996). In this Statute under the Part VI, provision is made for wildlife use rights, as a mechanism to benefit those interested in wildlife development. The strategy here is that the benefits will act as incentives to conserve wildlife as resources.I would also like to mention that Uganda’s Wildlife Policy recognises the fact that the previous protectionist approaches failed to save all the wildlife in the country. The Policy therefore, advocates for strategies such as collaborative management and wildlife use rights as new innovations to promote lasting and more meaningful partnerships in conserving the Nation’s wildlife resources.Having said that let me address the specific issues mentioned above:l UWA is giving out quota that contains species not found in the country.This allegation is not true. All the species that were included on the quota for trade were carefully scrutinised and discussed with technical people, and this process is still continuing. I want to let the public know that The New Vision reporter got and used an older version of our preliminary working document, which was still being scrutinised by technical officials in my office and UWA. Most of the species referred to as not Ugandan are actually found in Uganda. It is therefore, difficult to know what the motive of the report was.lUWA lacks capacity to implement use rights.UWA recognises its strength and weaknesses. It is true that wildlife use right is a new type of industry to UWA staff. It is also true that UWA has undergone turbulent times since its inception in 1996, with a high rate of staff turnover. In recognition of such weaknesses, but aware that it had to meet its statutory obligation, UWA decided to license only six companies for this trade on an experimental basis. Also, UWA limited itself to only a few animal groups, i.e. birds, and reptiles, and the non-endangered categories. UWA has strategic linkages with other security organs nationally and internationally to ensure compliance with the established regulations. It should be noted that the process to award these licenses, took a period of three years, so as to ensure adequate preparation was done to implement the trade.It should be further realised that before this pilot industry was regularised, there was illegal trade in wildlife species going on in Uganda. The regularisation of wildlife industry was partly to control such illegal trade, and ensure that the benefits accrued to a wider community. I should point out that since 2000, the number of arrests and confiscation of illegal wildlife transactions have increased. In 2000, with the help of the Special Revenue Services, we confiscated over 300 pancake tortoises, which were being illegally ferried in from Kenya, and we sent them back to Kenya. We are unearthing many clandestine transactions, which we bring to the public’s attention in order to discourage them from illegal user. Those who are involved are punished accordingly.lDoes this industry benefit the country?The answer is yes. Five out of six licensed companies belong to Ugandans. Even for the company that does not belong to Uganda, it employs on average 18 Ugandans per month, not mentioning the money paid to the owners of land from where the animals are caught, the taxes and other expenditure in Uganda. The need to get other nationals involved in the industry is dictated by the fact that the wildlife trade industry is not only new in the country, but also highly professional and specialised, and so there is limited expertise which can be got from other nationals. The need to learn from other countries is an important strategy that cannot be ignored.On the question of low prices, it should be understood that this is a competitive trade. Trade go to different countries to get their products. In setting the price, UWA has drawn on the experience of other East African countries. We also considered that as a new industry, there was a need to promote the interests of the private sector and encourage investment in the industry. High prices in a fledgling industry would not be a good way to start.We (UWA and my Ministry) have handled the preliminary part of the pilot phase of promoting the industry in a professional and diligent manner. I find this a worthwhile industry for the Government and the people of Uganda to promote. Those writing in the press are out to tarnish the good work that UWA is doing, and to cripple the industry so that UWA can continue to beg for donor funds which come with strings attached. We can actually safely generate revenue from this industry, both for our programmes and for our rural communities. We however, are open to constructive criticism, but detest defamatory and uninformed reporting, meant to misguide the public. Reporting should be responsible and factual, not to be tarnished by misinformation and lies.My ministry will continue to promote the conservation and sustainable development of our unique wildlife resource, seeking close collaboration with the rural communities and appropriate investors. We definitely shall also prefer a strong well-intentioned partnership with media as the vehicle for correctly updating of the public on what achievements are being made.Prof. Edward B. RugumayoMinister of Tourism, Trade and Industryends