Gorilla Permit Monopoly Affecting Uganda's Tourism Industry

By Baluku Geoffrey

Kampala, Uganda

A public out cry continues over the illegalities and monopolization of gorilla permits. The endangered Mountain Gorillas; are believed to share 98.4% of their genes with humans. Out of an estimated 720 mountain gorillas left in the world, 340 are found in the jungles of Bwindi Forest which is said to have slightly over 32 groups / families of gorillas.

Of the over 32 groups of gorillas, only four (4) have so far been habituated for tourism and these include Mubare, Bitukura, Habiyanja, Rushegura which has since changed base to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Nkuringo which is the current subject of debate. Mubare, Habiyanja are at the Buhoma side and are easily accessed through Kanungu while Bitukura is in Ruhija and the Nkuringo family of gorillas though still in Bwindi Forest is easily accessed through Kisoro district. One new other group is expected to be open for tourism very soon.

It is important to note that over 70% of the revenues from tourism come from Gorilla trekking. This continuous flow of tourists to go Gorilla trekking has been through a concerted effort from various players in the industry that include tour operators, hoteliers to mention but a few.

However, Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) who are expected to be the custodians of all National parks in Uganda encouraged some individuals to come up with a company with whom they could do private business. The company later came to be known as NCDF. According to the articles and memorandum of association, the company comprised of around 23 people who were all meant to have accented to the articles. On perusing through NCDF’s articles and memorandum of association, several irregularities are noted.

UWA and NCDF entered into a dubious agreement that enabled them to also acquire land with funding from USAID through Prime West. The over US$800,000 that was used to pay for land (buffer zone) in an area that is not that much needs to also be investigated. It should be noted that the lease hold for the land co owned between NCDF and UWA is on plot 5, Nteko Nkuringo Block 121 which copy is now being kept at the Executive Director (UWA’s) office in Kampala.

This top secret deal was started on 30^th August 2004 when UWA signed a memorandum of understanding with NCDF that included exclusive rights to gorilla permit sale. NCDF later entered another agreement with The Uganda Safari Company (TUSC). However, the owner of TUSC - Jonathan Wright was a member of the UWA board till 2005. Questions related to a conflict of interest have been raised and the public feels several Acts were breeched. A similar scenario happened in 2001, when Mr. Zahid Alarm who was a member of the UWA board at the time tried to support a tender for investors (his friends) to manage treks on Mt. Rwenzori. It is on record that Mr. Jonathan Wright clearly said that was a conflict of interest (Ref Monitor Newspaper 17^th July 2001).

Also around 1995 UWA tried to do the same by allocating 50% of the total number of gorilla permits available per day to Abercrombie & Kent (A & K). A & K also had similar proposals of putting up a lodge in the name of “conservation” to which the stakeholders rejected. The A & K gorilla permit monopoly was cancelled though the lodge (Gorilla Forest Camp) was still built and is being well run even with no condition such as tagging of gorilla permits.

This arrangement between UWA, NCDF & TUSC continues to raise more questions and is likely to escalate into a full blown conflict.

It is a known fact that gorilla permits are not only scarce but they are also competitive. Thus giving the exclusive right of the permit sale to one lodge and more so one tour operator is a vice that should be challenged.

Let it be clear that we concerned stakeholders are NOT against the lodge but against the issue of monopolization of the gorilla permits and more so pegging them to one lodge.

Monopolies create distortions and should not be welcomed in liberalized economies like Uganda. There is need to engage in normal competitive business that is in line with governments’ policy. Several people and companies including foreign and local have invested heavily in the areas of Bwindi despite not getting such preferential treatment. Is the UWA, NCDF and TUSC alliance that special?

The new lodge is also said to have received a grant of US$250,000 from Prime West as contribution for building. There is no further justification for other “gifts” in the name of gorilla permits.

There have been petitions from the parishes of Nteko & Rubuguri that make up Nkuringo. More petitions have been raised by the people of Muko that nears Rubuguri; Kisoro district leadership, hoteliers in Kisoro, Ugandan Tour Operators Association, church leaders and several other stake holders have all petitioned government questioning the rationale of such a deal.

From a survey carried out in Kisoro (where the Nkuringo group is easily accessed) it was realized that more than 85% of the tourists who stay in Kisoro hotels and lodges were linked to a gorilla permit. Thus the allocation of 6 permits (75% of the available permits to the TUSC and NCDF has led to a decline of around 80% of their bookings which also applies to tour operators. Industry players feel this is very unfair as it gives the opportunity to one lodge and more so one tour operator to receive and handle guests.

The arrangement between UWA, NCDF and TUSC entitles them to sell guaranteed gorilla safari departures on any day, week and month for the entire period the agreement is in place. They also do not have gorilla permit risk since they do not deposit any money on permits and there fore do not suffer cancellation charges as is stipulated in UWA’s booking guidelines for 2008.

The private operator is now also at liberty to decide whom they can sell the permits to and will most likely lead to favoritism and discrimination. What makes this whole arrangement more questionable is that there are clauses which state that everything should be kept in “secret” considering that even the “community” in question did not have a lawyer to represent their interests.

Through consultation with a few other lawyers, it has also been realized that the agreement between Flora & Fauna International and UWA in regard to purchase of land in Nteko parish specifically provides that the law applicable shall be the contract law of United Kingdom yet the subject matter of the contract is in Uganda. What is even more disturbing is that one of the “beneficiaries” was air lifted for agreement signing between NCDF & TUSC in Nairobi.

The law of Uganda is very clear on how to deal with communities. The structures of the local council (LC System) have to be used. However, UWA and IGCP opted not use the normal system but rather encouraged a few individuals to come up with a company instead of a trustee. This company (NCDF) was later realized to be limited by guarantee and comprised of around 23 people with some forgeries being noticed in the MOA. Considering that the community is made up of over 33,000 people with many of them against NCDF because of its loop holes, is reason enough to cancel this dubious deal.

According to UWA, their aim was to help the “community” get returns from the losses caused by the gorillas. It is argued that the gorillas had a home range of 25km² parts of which was outside the park boundary on community land. The issue of why the gorillas used to move to community land (taking in mind that this very land was paid for thus being the buffer zone) is a subject for further debate. The most evident cause is that the canopy in the forest is high while the gorillas want to eat from lush secondary grass. The solution for this is to carry out controlled cutting of some of the trees in the forest so as to create feeding ground for the gorillas. UWA does this in other parks where they carry out controlled burning in the parks so as to enable growth of new vegetation that is suitable for the wild animals.

They have also branded NCDF as a “community” project. On the contrary it is not as has been highlighted in several petitions.

Mapesa, the Executive Director of UWA always has always argued that the community was to get 6 permits though the money from the permit sale would go back to UWA. This is what one of the tribes in Uganda refer to as “Byoya Byanswa” or “hot air”. In actual sense the benefits would come from the accommodation side where an eco lodge was mooted hence becoming a contradiction in terminus. It now becomes evident that some people were pushing for their own selfish interests as there is no business plan to justify this whole deal.

According to the current arrangement NCDF will be getting US$30 per bed night from the US$450 TUSC charges per bed night taking in mind that NCDF are said to be the “rightful” owners of the lodge. Who is fooling who? If NCDF are truly the right owners of the lodge then they should be the ones to pay TUSC management fees of say 15% of the profit earned.

Normally the local council can help protect its people from such crime or robbery. Those who claim the project was “good” for the community chose to leave them out in the planning and implementation stages. All they do is package the deal as a “conservation and community” issue despite the fact that it is being used to enrich a single investor – crazy way to do business.

The local government Act 1997 clause 50 sub section d and f stipulates that the parish or village executive committee shall over see the implementation of policies and decisions made by its council and shall serve as the communication channel between the Government, District or higher local council and people in the area. It also goes on to note that the local councils will generally monitor projects and other activities undertaken by Government (UWA in this case), local Governments, and Non Governmental Organizations in their area. What happened – UWA dealt with a private company that seems to have been created illegally?

Part IV of the basic Public Procurement and disposal principles clause 45 is clear when it says that all procurement and disposal shall be conducted in a manner which promotes transparency, accountability and fairness. The secrecy involved and lack of business focus for industry players clearly shows that the PPDA ACT 2003 was breached.

Section 12 of the Uganda Wildlife Act gives local councils the right to appoint a committee to advise UWA on wildlife management. Part III of the wildlife Act Cap 200 under subsection 13 clause 3 and 4 also states that the Executive Director shall publish in a daily newspaper and in any other appropriate forms of media a notice of his or her intention to prepare a management plan and invite suggestions from all interested parties of what matters should be in the plan. It should be noted that the secrecy involved in this whole deal even made UWA not to consult industry players on the proposed monopolization of gorilla permits. The Uganda Wildlife Act Cap 200 goes on to say that the Executive Director shall request the district council within whose area the wildlife protected area falls in whole or in part to forward to him or her within a reasonable time, which time shall not be less than 21 days any proposals for inclusion in the plan. Considering the several petitions raised by Kisoro district council, just goes on to show that there secrecy in regard to gorilla permit privatization was not agreed upon.

It is important to note that the Association of Uganda Tour Operators at its sitting on 8^th April 2008 (in the presence of Mel Gormley - Past chairman AUTO and the Ministry of Tourism Trade and Industry staff) a committee was chosen from members present to investigate this whole saga . The members present agreed in principle to co opt other stakeholders with whom a investigations were conducted and findings presented through a report that was later adopted by the membership as their position. The committee was not supposed to delve so much in the several documents but to raise areas of concern and come up with a stand point for AUTO which was done.

During the investigation, an opportunity to travel to Kisoro was made possible. UWA which was represented at one of the Kisoro district council meetings by Mrs. Eunice Mahoro Duli acknowledged that they had blundered and were looking for a way forward. From the Kisoro district council deliberations, it was realized that over 90 % of the councilors were of the view that the arrangement between TUSC and NCDF not only be CANCELLED but were also of the opinion that the IGG investigate UWA’s dealings. The district speaker with advice from the Chief Administrative Officer proposed that they first handle the issue through the line Ministry prior to contacting the IGG’s office. It was then that the Prime Minister and Minister of Tourism were petitioned not only by the Kisoro District Council but also by the Association of Uganda Tour Operators and other stakeholders including actual Nkuringo Community members and not those masquerading to be their representatives.

For more information on the publics concerns visit

http://www.petitiontime.com/ViewPetition.aspx?key=nkurigorilla