Hunting for Conservation? The Re-introduction of Sport Hunting in Uganda Examined

The ‘new’ sport hunting is being implemented in different locations under diverse circumstances (see Table 8.2). While around some protected areas (e.g. Kafu river basin ranches, Nakaseke, Masindi, Kiboga districts) it is practiced purely on privately-owned land, in other cases it is practiced on both private land and government-owned reserves (e.g. around LMNP). In other areas, it is practiced only in government reserves (e.g. Kabwoya Wildlife Reserve) and community-owned wildlife areas (e.g. Kaiso-Tonya Community Wildlife Area). Overall, the ‘new’ sport hunting is managed by both governmental and non-governmental actors, who jointly formulate its guiding principles, stipulated in the sport hunting agreements. These principles include, for example, rules regarding which animals to hunt, e.g. only mature males, penalties for (accidentally) injuring an animal unintended for hunting, and monitoring of hunting.

The implementation of the ‘new’ sport hunting was guided by the Uganda Wildlife Policy (MTTI 1999: 12), that states “…government will encourage a range of participatory approaches such as empowering the people to participate in the conservation and management of the country’s natural resources…”. Also, the Community Conservation Policy (UWA 2004: 6) echoes UWA’s mission statement in this regard: “…to conserve and sustainably manage wildlife and protected areas in Uganda in partnership with the neighboring communities and stakeholders for the benefit of the people of Uganda and the global community”. These documents recognize that a vast number of wild animals is found outside protected areas and must be protected.

Section 29 of the Uganda Wildlife Act 2000 (Cap. 200) provides for six Wildlife User Right (WUR) classes for the general public to benefit from wildlife. These include: sport hunting, farming, ranching, trade, research and education, and resource access. The WUR classification was meant to combat illegal hunting, as changing land uses and degradation of wildlife habitats had raised a lot of concern, especially about ensuring the survival of wildlife outside PAs. At this time, the attitude of communities towards wildlife was not conducive for conservation, leading to drastic decline of wildlife (UWA undated). Local residents saw wildlife as useless and destructive (UWA undated), and according to UWA this attitude encouraged illegal hunting.

Hence, the WUR classification was envisaged as an incentive to promote wildlife conservation and combat the negative perceptions of communities, who regarded wildlife as government property and of benefit only to foreign tourists (UWA undated). The policy was guided by the overall objective of promoting sustainable extractive wildlife utilization, by facilitating the involvement of landowners and users in managing wildlife outside PAs, through the provision of incentives from wildlife.

Further, several national policies, including the Uganda Land Act Cap 227 1998, the National Environment Act 1995, the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003, the National Environment Management Policy 1994, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1998, the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2000, and the National Development Plan 2015, vest all rights of ownership of wildlife with the government of Uganda. They grant limited provisions for individuals to own wildlife, upon lawful acquisition, and share benefits that may accrue from it for social development. Furthermore, the Uganda Wildlife Statute 1995; 1999 and 2004 and Uganda Wildlife Act 1996 stipulate which wildlife can be hunted, and include rules that guide the allocation of hunting quota and hunting blocks, i.e. “any area of land…demarcated as a block managed by an association for professional … hunting” (UWA 2001: 1). At the local level, the new sport hunting is guided by the Local Government Act 1997, the CPI Policy 2000, the CWAs constitutions, and the community norms, which vary from community to community. The local government authorities and CWAs are meant to work hand in hand with UWA to monitor the utilization of annual hunting quotas in the different areas. Tables 8.3 and 8.4 show different annual hunting quotas and fees around LMNP and KWR. These quotas are allocated based on the number of species in a PA. The animal fee means the amount to be paid per animal killed.

Several different types of actors are involved in the ‘new’ sport hunting arrangement, either as policy developer, implementer or beneficiary, while others are only consulted. These different manners in which various actors are involved results in very diverse understandings of the policy, and different presentations of the rationale behind it.

The key actor controlling and implementing the policy is UWA, which introduced the ‘new’ sport hunting, meant as a tool to bridge the conservation-development divide in and around PAs. This was guided by the market-based discourse of ‘selling nature to save it’ (McAfee 1999). UWA advanced sport hunting as an instrument that could minimise illegal hunting outside PAs, provide an incentive for local communities to control their off-take of wildlife, and promote rational use and conservation of wildlife. In the process, UWA involved civil society, the private sector, local communities and donors.

Currently, USAID, WWF and GTZ are in the process of informing communities about the potential benefits of sport hunting, through financing workshops and familiarization tours to southern and other eastern African countries, to learn from their experiences (UWA official, Interview 2013). These organisations are also working on sensitizing the local communities on the values of wildlife, aimed at making communities appreciate wildlife as ‘assets’ that can lead to development, and not as a ‘burden’ to them, since they currently receive direct benefits, and are being ‘freed of’ ‘problem animals¹