evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Bwindi Gorilla Tourism Revenue-Sharing — Three Decades of Permit-Funded Community Payments

Uganda · Buhoma, Bwindi Impenetrable National Park · See the Uganda profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 76% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since 1994, Uganda has shared 20% of park revenue plus a $10-per-permit gorilla levy with communities bordering Bwindi, funding schools and clinics as the mountain gorilla population grew from 240 to over 1,000 — though independent evaluation finds mixed local attitudes.

20 %
Share of park revenue returned to communities (1994-present)
10 US$ per permit
Gorilla-permit community levy (since July 2015 (raised from $5))
240 individuals
Mountain gorilla population, 30 years ago
1,063 individuals
Mountain gorilla population, latest joint census
459 individuals
Bwindi-Sarambwe gorilla population
604 individuals
Virunga Massif gorilla population
Bwindi Gorilla Tourism Revenue-Sharing — Three Decades of Permit-Funded Community Payments

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)
Period
1994–present
Keywords
wildlife tourism, biodiversity finance, community development

Context

Established in 1994/95, the Uganda Wildlife Authority's revenue-sharing scheme returns 20% of annual park revenue to parishes bordering national parks and wildlife reserves, plus, at Bwindi specifically, a direct $10 levy on every gorilla-tracking permit sold, raised from $5 in July 2015.

Activities

Districts retain 5% for administration and forward 95% to sub-counties for approved projects that must either reduce human-wildlife conflict or improve frontline village livelihoods, including schools, health centres, feeder roads, water tanks, goat-rearing, beekeeping and Mauritius-thorn hedges to deter crop-raiding wildlife, with only villages directly bordering the park qualifying.

Results

Over the same three decades, the mountain gorilla — found only in the Bwindi-Sarambwe ecosystem and the Virunga Massif — grew from about 240 individuals thirty years ago to 1,063 in the most recent joint census (459 in Bwindi-Sarambwe, 604 in Virunga), leading the IUCN to downgrade the species from Critically Endangered to Endangered in 2018.

Conclusions

Independent research led by IIED, however, found that despite three decades of revenue-sharing, many communities bordering the park still hold negative attitudes toward it, concluding that the scheme 'has not to date generated significant benefits for the majority of people living around the park' — a widely cited finding that the gorilla population recovery cannot be attributed to revenue-sharing alone, and that a well-documented governance structure does not by itself guarantee strong local buy-in.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — Funded from park revenue itself: 20% of annual park revenue plus a $10 per-permit gorilla levy (raised from $5 in July 2015); districts retain 5% for administration.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Operating continuously since 1994/95, over three decades.
Staffing & skills
Uganda Wildlife Authority community conservation unit, District and sub-county administration for fund disbursement, Village-level project committees

Conditions for success

  • A transparent, formula-based revenue-sharing structure (20% of park revenue, permit levy) sustained over decades
  • Funded projects targeted at communities directly bordering the park, reflecting the higher conservation costs they bear
  • Independent academic evaluation (IIED) providing a feedback check on community impact

Common failure modes

  • IIED research found that despite three decades of revenue-sharing, many communities still hold negative attitudes toward the park, and the scheme 'has not to date generated significant benefits for the majority of people living around the park'
  • Population recovery cannot be attributed to revenue-sharing alone, so the mechanism's causal contribution to conservation outcomes is unproven

Where it fits

Governance type
national wildlife authority with district/sub-county administration
Scale
single park and its bordering parishes
Income level
low-income

Commonly funded by

Own resources / municipal budget

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful