Environmental Militarism

Environmental militarism, describes the use of military approaches and resources in conservation efforts.  Also known as “green militarism,” environmental militarism refers to the use of military approaches, personnel, and equipment in conservation efforts. This can involve the extension of military techniques and technologies to wildlife conservation, often in response to issues like poaching and illegal wildlife trade. While some argue that it is a necessary tool for protecting endangered species and ecosystems, others criticize it, citing potential negative impacts on local communities and the environment. Just like the conservation inherited from the colonialists, environmental militarism targets the ecological biological dimension of the environment, completely ignoring the other dimensions of the environment (i.e., the socioeconomic dimension, the sociocultural dimension and the temporal dimension).

Environmental militarism is a complex and controversial issue with both potential benefits
and drawbacks. The raging debate on environmental militarism focuses on the balance
between the need to protect the environment and ecosystems and the potential negative
impacts of military interventions on human rights, the environment, and social stability. A
comprehensive approach to conservation should not only consider the issues, problems and
challenges in the ecological-biological, socio-economic, sociocultural and temporal
dimensions of the environment, but also a range of solutions, including community-based
conservation, sustainable resource management, and, in some cases, military support, but
with careful attention to human rights and environmental impacts.

In this article, I want to explore how Uganda has moved or is moving from or combining
militarised politics with militarised conservation, thereby rendering professional
conservationists useless to the conservation enterprise and worsening the environmental
decay and collapse situation in the country.

MilitaryBudgets and Spending: Global and Uganda

By 2014 global defense spending was $US1753 billion annually or approximately 2.5% of
the world GDP. Significant time and resources are spent in training 28 million defense
personnel worldwide (Zentelis and Lindenmayer (2014). Global military expenditure
increased to $2718 billion in 2024, the 10th year of consecutive rises. The world’s 15 largest
spenders in 2024 all increased their military expenditure. The global military burden – the
share of global gross domestic product (GDP) devoted to military expenditure – increased to
2.5 per cent in 2024. Increases were driven by deteriorating security environments and
sharpened threat perceptions, particularly in Europe and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), which both saw major increases, as did some key Asian countries. Moreover, easing inflation allowed many countries to invest in new capabilities rather than just covering higher operating costs and wages. The only region that did not see real-terms increases was Sub-Saharan Africa, where defence spending declined by 3.7% (McGerty, Fenella and Karl Dewey,2025).

In the Financial Year 2020/21, Uganda’s security sector budget was Shs 2,063.636 billion,
including Shs 608.915 billion for wages, Shs 692.676 billion for non-wage expenses, and Shs
762.045 billion for capital expenditure. Internal Security Organisation (ISO) received Shs
64.004 billion, External Security Organisation (ESO) received Shs 39.232 billion, and the
Ministry of Defence and Veteran Affairs (MODVA) received Shs 1,960.401 billion.  In her
article of June 14 2024, Samula told the world that the Mistry of Works and Security took the
lion’s share of the Shs 72.136 trillion budget in the fiscal year 2024/25. This was not
surprising. There is a lot of unity between the Ministry of Works (whose politico-military
head is a general and security which is squarely in the hands of President Tibuhaburwa
Museveni and his son, Muhoozi Kainerugaba, who is also the Commander of Defense Forces
(CDF). Most projects that are undertaken or overseen by the Ministry of Works, now go to
the UPDF so that the money remains in the army.

Uganda’s proposed budget for the 2025/26 financial year allocates Shs3.737 trillion to the
Ministry of Defence and Veteran Affairs, representing a significant portion of the overall
budget of Shs40.7 trillion. This allocation is intended to support national security and
includes funding for both recurrent costs and development projects, such as equipment
modernization.  Comparatively, the health sector will benefit from Shs1.398 trillion in
development funding, including Shs103.8 billion for upgrades to Mulago National Referral
Hospital and Shs91.5 billion for the Uganda Cancer Institute. An additional Shs204.7 billion
is earmarked for recurrent health expenditures; Education receives Shs497.1 billion for
recurrent costs and Shs322.9 billion for development projects. Makerere University has been
allocated Shs33.9 billion to support its academic programmes and infrastructure; and
Agriculture is set to receive Shs611.5 billion for development projects and Shs188.1 billion
for recurrent expenditures. These funds will support agricultural research, livestock
development, and fisheries management programs nationwide. Clearly, militaristic
development is currently weighing far more than social development. This is in keeping with
President Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s development philosophy that infrastructure comes first,
environment and nature next and people last. Unfortunately, all guns appear to be more
directed towards the people than towards the borders of Uganda with other countries in the
region, thereby promising to sabotage the conservation of human life.

In 2014 International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reported the reasoning of
an expert that a fraction of global military spending could save the Planet’s biodiversity.
Radwin (2024). made the world aware of the proposal by Mexico that nations should redirect
1% of Military Spending towards reforestation, We need another proposal to redirect a
percentage of the military budget to combating pollution, land grabbing, genetically modified
organisms (GMO), human trafficking, et cetara.

Uganda’s Security Structure

In Uganda, the army called Uganda Peoples Defense Forces (UPDF) by constitutional design,
formally a guerilla army called National Resistance Movement (NRA) and linked to the
existing political group called National Resistance Movement, is said to have supersonically
expanded to 47,000 personnel. There are also 10, paramilitary personnel, 10,000 reserve
forces, according to a Yu Tube Video.

Like any other army, UPDF has its Military intelligence wing, which is called Chieftaincy of
Military Intelligence (CMI). However, this was recently rebranded “Defence Intelligence and
Security (DIS) (The Independent, 2024). conducts intelligence operations for the military and
often collaborates with the Uganda Police Force (UPF) to combat violent crimes such as
terrorism, armed robberies, abductions, kidnappings, and murders, although there have been
accusations against the agency for engaging in similar activities (The Independent, 2024).

The UPF is supposed to be a separate agency, but has become so militarised that it is no
longer possible to pinpoint the boundary between the army and the police, with most police
commanders now being military.

There is currently an illegal joint Police-army Anti-Terrorist Task Force (JATT), most likely
with its members being military, and supposedly created the President through The Anti-
Terrorism but legally unknown to The Parliament of Uganda. There is another illegal military
outfit called Special Forces Command (SFC) created by the President and which protects the
President of Uganda. With the recent Executive moves, including giving each member of
Parliament UGX 100m, to erect a completely new UPDF Act 2025, it is most likely that
JATT and SFC will be legalised retrospectively and fully integrated in the army under the
new UPDF Act 2025.

Lastly there are what are called Internal Security Organisation (ISO) and External Security
Organisation (ESO) both of which are Intelligence-oriented organisations with military
personnel.

All the above information explains the general pubic thinking, belief and conviction that
Uganda’s civic space has been completely militarily conquered and occupied (e.g.,
Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 2024) with serious consequences (e.g., Oweyegha-Afunaduula,
2024). Even the Parliament of Uganda has been “constitutionally militarily” penetrated, with
UPDF represented by 10 Members of Parliament (MPs). It is ,therefore, easy to see why
Uganda’s Security budgets have been spiralling upwards, by far superseding the education,
health and agriculture budgets.

The President has preoccupied the soldiers with anti-rebellion activities internally and with
wars in other countries, especially the Democratic Republic of Congo, where they have
committed heinous crimes, including robbing natural resources and destroying the
environment, for which the Ugandan taxpayer is paying highly at a time when the national
economy is in shambles. War fuels ecocide (Kaya Mark, 2024). It can also fuel genocide,
ethnocide and intellectual death (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 2025). The current moves by the Executive to enhance the powers of the military leaders over the civilians via a new UPDF Bill 2025 that will become the UPDF Act 2025, promise to usher in new conditions for genocide, ecocide, ethnocide and intellectual death in Uganda. The Bill proposes that any person found in illegal possession of equipment or ammunition that is the monopoly of the army will be tried in military courts (Busein Samilu, 2025). However, we are aware that in the past the military has placed such materials in the residences of people it has wanted to arrest and restrict, thereby violating their human rights.

Towards Militarisation of Conservation

The challenge facing President Tibuhaburwa Museveni is how to keep his soldiers happy and
preoccupied. He has allowed them to get out of the barracks and live among and in civilian
spaces. In the 1990s and beyond the President allowed soldiers to sabotage environmental
conservation by letting them mine gypsum in Queen Elizabeth National Park, to poach trees
in natural forests, to clandestinely mine and export Uganda’s minerals to enrich themselves,
thereby converting large stretches of land into derelict land; to grab public ranches; reclaim
Lake Victoria; grab community lands, thereby destroying the time-tested agroecological
farming systems on which our food security has depended for centuries; and convert
themselves into modern-day landowners away from their human energy system called
nomadic-pastoral human energy system. Traditional conservation systems have been
completely wiped out by the new landowners.

Recently we witnessed the President embrace the growing phenomenon of environmental
militarism or green militarism. He has also allowed soldiers to occupy the Lakes, especially
Lake Victoria and Lake Kyoga, in what can be called “militarisation of conservation”,
thereby bringing an end to the time-tested traditional fishing; pushing numerous families into
protein malnutrition; and enriching soldiers, Indians Chinese and, reportedly, Banyarwanda,
at the expense of the indigenes. Military stresses are now everywhere in the country.

Military Stresses through military activities on the Environment are many. Military activity
affects the physical environment in the following direct ways: pollution of the air, land, and
water in peacetime – the immediate and long-term effects of armed conflict – militarisation of
outer space – nuclear weapons development and production and land use (e.g., International
Peace Bureau, 2002).

Military stresses are, however, not only in the ecological-biological dimension of the
environment. They are also in the socio-economic dimension of the environment (e.g.,
deploying the army to restrict traditional fisherfolk from Lake Victoria and Lake Kyoga, there
by disorganising their socioeconomic life) and in the socio-cultural dimension of the
environment (e.g disconnecting the local communities from the lakes, thereby disorganising
their cultural ties to the lakes). When soldiers preoccupy their time with controlling the
actions and movements of the people using the gun and tear gas, they displace the time of the
people from proactive life.

Otherwise, awareness is growing that each nation’s quest for security must move beyond the
traditional dependency on military security. It has been argued that real security requires a holistic, cooperative approach that addresses all the inter-linked threats to humanity. This includes the threats that attempts at military security have themselves created (International Peace Bureau, 2002) to the environment. It has been suggested that the national budget allocation reflect the commitment that the government has towards the protection and defense of the environment and natural resources rather than assuming an ad hoc stance.

Militarised Conservation

There are growing concerns about poaching and trafficking have led conservationists to seek
urgent responses to tackle the impact on wildlife. One possible solution is the militarisation
of conservation, which holds potentially far-reaching consequences (Duffy, et.al., 2019).
Militarised anti-poaching, for example, leads to human rights abuses and further
marginalisation of the people and requires alternative approaches to address these issues
(Dobelsky, Zakour, Saluck, Gajathar, 2025). These include the promotion and extension of
violence and use of force; the negative impacts on human rights and people who live in and
around protected areas; and a failure to address the root causes of illicit hunting, mining and
biodiversity use.

Natural resources are crucial in supporting human life and the survival of various species on
Earth. The significant impact of natural resources on human development has given rise to
critical intersections of resource commodification, security concerns, and the justification of
nature-related violence, commonly referred to as militarization of nature with the potential to
turn into green wars (Matusse and Mushonga, 2025). Violence on Nature by soldiers destroys
microhabitats, habitats, food webs and food chains and parts of or whole ecosystems, thereby
sabotaging conservation in the short-term, medium-term and long-term.

The militarisation of conservation refers to the use of military or paramilitary logics,
practices, technologies, and personnel in the name of protecting biodiversity and spaces of
conservation. This is often referred to as ‘green militarisation’ (another way of talking of
environmental militarism or green militarism).

These approaches are part of the history of conservation, but militarisation has intensified in
the past decade, putting the military at the centre of conservation). This is in part because of
the sense of urgency surrounding the escalation in the commercial poaching of wildlife
(Duffy and Masse). However, in countries such as Uganda, practising politicomilitarism,
militarisation of conservation is a political choice to enhance political control, domination
and conquest of the indigenes who naturally own the natural resources.

Militarised conservation is accelerated when insecurity – violent conflict or heavily armed
poaching – poses an immediate threat to wildlife and the integrity of protected areas.
However, militarization often remains long after acute threats fade. To understand how
violent conservation becomes an ingrained state of affairs, this article focuses on the broader
geopolitics of green militarism. Training curriculums and practices encourage park rangers in
Uganda to become ‘like soldiers’ and adopt a warfare mentality. In-depth fieldwork in the
Murchison Falls National Park reveals how such training represents occupational violence
against the rangers themselves and contributes to their use of lethal violence against park intruder Therefore, militarisation is not only prompted by immediate security threats, but by the broader geopolitics of green militarism – reflecting the political interests of authoritarian–military governments and their international backers (Ashaba and Marijnen, 2025).

Critics of green militarisation or militarised conservation, argue that it is unable to address
the root economic causes of poaching; that it imposes pressure on rangers to implement
“shoot-on-sight” and “shoot-to-kill” policies; that it has a tendency to lead to a perpetual arms
race; and that it can breed animosity and violence between local communities and
conservationists. (Dobelsky, Zakour, Saluck and Gajathar, 2025).

Besides, direct involvement of soldiers in conservation, at least in Uganda, has led to many
deaths. This is the case on Lake Victoria and Lake Kyoga in Busoga, where the military has
been deployed to protect fish against the locals catching young fish using illegal nets. Many
have been killed or forced to dive into the water, thereby drowning and being eaten by
crocodiles. However, the soldiers have simultaneously become wealthy through selling fish
illegally.

There are unconfirmed reports that the soldiers allow Chinese to scoop sand from the shores
of Lake Victoria and also get enuni from Nile Perch (Emputa) and export them to China.
There are also suspicions that the Chinese are clandestinely mining elements of power, such
as Platinum, from the bottom of Lake Victoria, under protection by UPDF soldiers, and that
some people highly placed in government are working with the Chinese to rob the country at
the expense of conservation Therefore, simultaneously pursuing militarised politics and militarised conservation has become anti-conservation in Uganda. The period when the National Resistance Movement governed Uganda is likely to emerge as the worst tragedy in the history of conservation in the
country. As Professor Rosaline Duffy surmised, we need to Talk About Militarisation of
Conservation (Duffy, 2017). Unfortunately, the intellectual and debating environment in
Uganda is virtually dead and is likely to decay and collapse with increasing commitment of
President Tibuhaburwa Museveni to power retention and power consolidation.

For God and My Country

Further Reading

Anselmo Matusse, Tafadzwa Mushonga (2025). Green Violence: Militarization of Natural
Resources. Oxford Bibliographies, 20 March 2025
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-
9780199766567-0308.xml Visited on 12 May 2025 at 07:56 am EAT.

Asongu, S.A., Ndour, C.T. Military Expenditure, Governance, and Environmental
Degradation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environ. Process. 10, 51 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-023-00662-7 Busein Samilu (2025). Inside UPDF Amendment Bill, 2025. Daily Monitor, May 13 2025, https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/inside-updf-amendment-bill-2025-5039186#story Visited on 13 May 2025 at 11:09 am EAT.

Cynthia Enloe, quoted in Marcus Schulzke, ‘Necessary and surplus militarisation: rethinking
civil–military interactions and their consequences’, European Journal of International
Security 3: 1, 2018, pp. 94–112 at p. 97, https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2017.10.

Dobelsky, Ezekiel, Christianne Zakour, Ellery Saluck and Navashna Gajathar (2025). The
Problem with Green Militarization: The need to explore peaceful alternative approaches to
wildlife conservation. Ecosystem for Peace,
2025https://www.ecosystemforpeace.org/compendium/the-problem-with-green-
militarization-the-need-to-explore-peaceful-alternative-approaches-to-wildlife-conservation
Visited on 12 March 07:51 am EAT.

Duffy, Rosaleen (2014). Waging a war to save biodiversity: the rise of militarized conservation.
International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) Vol. 90, No. 4 (July 2014),
pp. 819-834 (16 pages). Published By: Oxford University Press.

Duffy Rosaline (2017). We need to Talk About Militarisation of Conservation. Researchgate,
July 2017, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319528239_We_Need_to_Talk_About_Militarisatio
n_of_Conservation Visited on 13 May 2025 at 16:03 pm EAT.

Duffy, Rosaline and Francis Masse (?). Interrogating Military Thinking and Practices
Militarisation and Conservation. BIOSEC Militarisation and Conservation, University of
Sheffield, https://biosec.sites.sheffield.ac.uk/our-research/militarisation-and-
conservation#h.f1rhh9rhz4l9 Visited on 13 May 2025 at 13:58 pm EAT.

R Duffy, F Massé, E Smidt, E Marijnen, B Büscher, J Verweijen, M Ramutsindela, T Simlaie,
L Joanny, E Lunstrum (2019) Why we must question the militarisation of conservation.
Biological Conservation 05.02.2019.

Gustavo Garcia (2023). On Environmental Justice and Militarism. World Peace Foundation, 8
November 2023. https://worldpeacefoundation.org/blog/on-environmental-justice-and-
militarism/ Visited on 12 May 205 at 11:37 am EAT.

International Peace Bureau, Geneva (2002). The Military’s impact on the Environment.
International Peace Bureau, Geneva, August 2002. https://www.ipb.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/briefing-paper.pdf Visited on 12 May 2025 at 11:42 am EAT.

IUCN (2014). A Fraction of Global Military Spending Could Save the Planet’s Biodiversity,
says Expert. IUCN, 05 November 2014, https://iucn.org/content/a-fraction-global-military-
spending-could-save-planets-biodiversity-say-experts Visited on 13 May 2025 at 13:38 pm
EAT.

Ivan Mugyezi Ashaba (2021) Historical roots of militarised conservation: the case of Uganda,
Review of African Political Economy, 48:168, 276-288, DOI:
10.1080/03056244.2020.1828052

Ivan Mugyenzi Ashaba, Esther Marijnen, ‘We are soldiers now’: green militarism and
(foreign-assisted) military training in conservation, International Affairs, Volume 101, Issue
2, March 2025, Pages 565–582, https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae320

Judith Verweijen and Esther Marijnen. ‘The counterinsurgency/conservation nexus: guerrilla
livelihoods and the dynamics of conflict and violence in the Virunga National Park,
Democratic Republic of the Congo’, The Journal of Peasant Studies 45: 2, 2018, pp.
300–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1203307.

Kaya Mark (2025). War Fuels Ecocide: How Militarism Drives Environmental Destruction.
Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 2025,
https://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/news/2025/04/war-fuels-ecocide-how-militarism-drives-
environmental-destruction/ Visited on 13 May 2025 at 10:46 am EAT.

Kevin C. Dunn, ‘Contested state spaces: African national parks and the state’, European
Journal of International Relations 15: 3, 2009, pp. 423–46 at pp.
440–1, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066109338233.

Linda Njoroge (2025). Oweyegha-Afunaduula: What it means to liberate Justice from the
Military in Uganda. Ultimate News, February 3 2025,
https://ultimatenews.co.ug/2025/02/oweyegha-afunaduula-what-it-means-to-liberate-justice-
from-the-military-in-uganda/ Visited on 13 May 2025 at 10:36 am EAT

Lunstrum, E. (2014). Green Militarization: Anti-Poaching Efforts and the Spatial Contours of
Kruger National Park. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(4), 816–832.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.912545

Maano Ramutsindela, Frank Matose and Tafadzwa Mushonga, eds, The violence of
conservation in Africa: state, militarization and alternatives (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,
2022).

Manabendra Nath Bera (2025). Militarism: A Leading Cause of Environmental and Climate
Crise. International Union of Scientists, 28 April 2025
https://www.iuscientists.org/militarism-and-climate-crises/ Visited on 12 May 2025 at 12:18
pm EAT.

Mark Shaw and Julian Rademeyer, ‘A flawed war: rethinking “green militarisation” in the
Kruger National Park’, Politikon 43: 2, 2016, pp.
173–92, https://doi.org/10.1080/02589346.2016.1201379.

Marler TE. The intersection of a military culture and indigenous peoples in conservation
issues. Commun Integr Biol. 2013 Nov 1;6(6):e26665. doi: 10.4161/cib.26665. Epub 2013
Oct 8. PMID: 24567778; PMCID: PMC3925457.

McGerty, Fenella and Karl Dewey (2025). Global Defense Spending Soars to New High.
IISS, 12 February 2025, https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-
balance/2025/02/global-defence-spending-soars-to-new-high/ Visited on 13 May 2025 15:22
pm EAT

Moses Khisa and Sabastiano Rwengabo, ‘Militarism and the politics of Covid-19 response in
Uganda’, Armed Forces & Society 50: 4, 2024, pp.
1118–49, https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X231162848.

Nancy Lee Peluso, ‘Coercing conservation? The politics of state resource control’, Global
Environmental Change 3: 2, 1993, pp. 199–217, https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-
3780(93)90006-7

Niall McCann, ‘Attacks on “militarized conservation” are naive (commentary)’, Mongabay,
10 Oct. 2017, https://news.mongabay.com/2017/10/attacks-on-militarized-conservation-are-
naive-commentary.

Nico Edwards, Resisting green militarism: building movements for peace and eco-social
justice—revitalising debate on the global arms trade (Somerville, MA: World Peace
Foundation, 2023), https://worldpeacefoundation.org/publication/resisting-green-militarism-
building-movements-for-peace-and-eco-social-justice-resisting-green-militarism.

Nico Edwards (2024). Resisting green militarism: Refusing Sustainable War -Collective
Action for Peace and Ecological Justice. World Peace Foundation, 26 February 2024.
https://worldpeacefoundation.org/blog/resisting-green-militarism-refusing-sustainable-war-
collective-action-for-peace-and-ecological-justice-2/ Visited on 12 May 2025 at 11:56 am
EAT.

Oweyegha-Afunaduula (2024). Military Conquest, Occupation and Penetration has Many
Consequences: Uganda in Perspective. MUWADO, December 8 2024,
https://muwado.com/military-invasion-conquest-occupation-and-penetration-has-many-
consequences-uganda-in-perspective/?v=2a0617accf8b Visited on 13 May 2025 at 10:19 am
EAT

Oweyegha-Afunaduula (2024). The Military Capture of Uganda’s Civic Space Yesterday and
Today. Uganda Today, March 25 2024 https://ugandatoday.co.ug/the-military-capture-of-
ugandas-civic-space-yesterday-and-today/ Visited on 13 May 2025 at 10:15 am EAT.

Oweyegha-Afunaduula (2025). Uganda: From Genocide to Ecocide to Ethnocide to
Intellectual Death. Uganda Radio Network, 20 January 2025,
https://ugandaradionetwork.com/s/uganda-from-genocide-to-ecocide-to-ethnocide-to-
intellectual-death/ Visited on 13 May 2025 at 10:52 am EAT.

Radwin, Maxwell (2024). Nations should redirect 1% of Military Spending towards
reforestation, Mexico proposes. Mongabay, 27 November 2024.
https://news.mongabay.com/2024/11/nations-should-redirect-1-of-military-spending-towards-
reforestation-mexico-proposes/ Visited on 13 May 2025 at 13:43 pm EAT.

Rick Zentelis and David Lindenmayer (2014). Bombing for Biodiversity—Enhancing
Conservation Values of Military Training Areas. Conservation Letter, Volume8, Issue4
July/August 2015 Pages 299-305
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12155 Visited on 12 May 2025 at 12
:09 pm EAT.

Rosaleen Duffy, Francis Massé, Emile Smidt, Esther Marijnen, Bram Büscher, JudithVerweij
en, Maano Ramutsindela, Trishant Simlai, Laure Joanny and Elizabeth Lunstrum (2019).
Why we must question militarisation of conservation. Biological Conservation Volume
232, April 2019, Pages 66-73.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320718313454 Visited on 12 May
2025 at 07:36 am EAT.

Samula, Hanifa (2024). Works, Security Take Lion’s Share of 2024/2025 National Budget.
The Cooperator, June 14 2024. The Cooperator, June 14 2024.

Works, security take lion’s share of 2024/2025 national budget

Visited on 13 May 2024 at 08:47 am EAT.

Sean Higgins (2024). Can Militarisation Coexist with Conservation? Great Salt Lake Says
Yes. Weber State University, Great Salt Lake Collaborative https://www.kuer.org/great-salt-
lake-collaborative Visited on 12 May 2025 at 12:48 pm EAT.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) (2025). Unprecedented Rise in
Global Military Expenditure as European and pending Surges. SIPRI, 28 April, 2025,
https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2025/unprecedented-rise-global-military-
expenditure-european-and-middle-east-spending-
surges#:~:text=Global%20military%20expenditure%20sees%20steepest,all%20increased%2
0their%20military%20expenditure Visited on 13 May 2025 at 15:07 pm EAT.

Tafadzwa Mushonga, ‘The militarisation of conservation and occupational violence in
Sikumi Forest Reserve, Zimbabwe’, Conservation & Society 19: 1, 2021, pp.
3–12, https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_20_5.

The Independent (2024). UPDF rebrands Spy Agency Name to DIS. The Independent, April
9 2024, https://www.independent.co.ug/updf-spy-agency-rebrands-its-name-to-dis/ Visited on
13 May 2025 at 10>01 am EAT.