Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve - Frontier-publications.co.uk

Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project 

Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 12 

Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Biological and socio-economic survey 

Karen L. Zwick (Ed.), Duncan Sivell, Rich Bamlett, Ian Devon, Julia 

Lloyd, Helen MacGregor, Lee Stewart 

Society for Environmental Exploration 

Frontier-Uganda 

Uganda Wildlife Authority 

Kampala 1998

Copyright © 1998 The Society for Environmental Exploration. 

Citation: Zwick, K.L. (Ed.), Sivell, D., Bamlett, R., Devon, I., Lloyd, J., MacGregor, H., and Stewart, L. 

1998. Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve: biological and socio-economic survey. Frontier-Uganda Wildlife 

Protected Areas Project Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 12. The Society for Environmental 

Exploration, London & Uganda Wildlife Authority, Kampala. 

Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project (formerly Game Reserves Project) 

Baseline Surveys Programme Report Series 

1. Semliki (Toro) Game Reserve: biological and socioeconomic 

L.K. Stubblefield (Ed.) 1994 

survey 

2. Ajai’s Game Reserve: biological and socio-economic survey L.K. Stubblefield (Ed.) 1995 

3. Katonga Game Reserve: biological survey C.L. Allan 1995 

4. Kyambura Game Reserve: biological and socio-economic C.L. Allan 1995 

survey 

5. Kigezi Game Reserve: biological and socio-economic survey C.L. Allan & J. McCaul 1996 

6. Bugungu Game Reserve: biological and socio-economic C.L. Allan (Ed.) 1996 

survey 

7. Semliki (Toro) Wildlife Reserve: biological and socioeconomic 

D. Sivell, T. Lee, & C.L. Allan 1997 

survey (II) 

8. Kibale National Park: grassland survey D. Sivell, T. Lee, & L. Stewart 1996 

9. Katonga Wildlife Reserve: biological and socio-economic K.L. Zwick (Ed.) 1997 

survey (II) 

10. Kyambura Wildlife Reserve: small fauna survey J. Lloyd 1997 

11. Queen Elizabeth National Park: small fauna survey J. Lloyd 1997 

12. Queen Elizabeth National Park: socio-economic survey of 

Kazinga fishing village 

*forthcoming 

K.L. Zwick 1998* 

Available from: 

The Society for Environmental Exploration 


77 Leonard Street, London, EC2A 4QS, UK PO Box 1505, Kampala, Uganda 

tel: + 44 171 613 2422 tel: + 256 41 270324 

fax: + 44 171 613 2992 fax: + 256 41 242298 (c/o IUCN Country Office) 

e-mail: enquiries@frontier.mailbox.co.uk 

e-mail: frontier@imul.com

Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve: biological and socio-economic survey 

i 

PREFACE 

The Society for Environmental Exploration 

The Society for Environmental Exploration is a non-profit making company limited by guarantee. The Society’s 

objectives are to advance field research into environmental issues and implement practical projects contributing 

to the conservation of natural resources. Projects organised by the Society are joint initiatives developed in 

collaboration with national research agencies in co-operating countries. The Society promotes co-operation 

between scientists and technical officers from collaborating institutions and counterparts in the UK and 

elsewhere. 

The Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) 

The Uganda Wildlife Authority is the parastatal organisation responsible for the management of Uganda’s 

Wildlife Protected Areas. The primary focus is on wildlife conservation with an emphasis on the development of 

strategies to generate sustainable income from wildlife resources. It was formed in July 1996 and takes over the 

duties of the former Game Department and Uganda National Parks. 

Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife, & Antiquities (MTWA) 

The Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife, & Antiquities is the government body responsible for wildlife affairs and 

managing Uganda’s wildlife resources both inside and outside Protected Areas. It is responsible for national 

wildlife policies. 


Frontier-Uganda undertakes project activities in Uganda on behalf of the Society for Environmental Exploration, 

in conjunction with Ugandan institutions and government bodies. Frontier-Uganda was initiated in 1991, and 

was originally involved with the tourism development project in Kibale Forest (now Kibale National Park), in 

conjunction with Makerere University. In 1993 Frontier-Uganda embarked on the Frontier-Uganda Game 

Reserves Project, based on a Memorandum of Understanding with the former Game Department. This project 

continues, in collaboration with UWA, as the Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project. The aim of the 

project is to assess the biological and socio-economic status of Uganda’s Wildlife Protected Areas and to assist 

with the development of management strategies. 

To date Frontier-Uganda has involved over 250 participants from both Ugandan and overseas institutions. 

Results of project activities are summarised in a series of reports published by the Society for Environmental 

Exploration. More formal scientific papers resulting from research are published in appropriate international 

journals to achieve wider dissemination of information. The activities of Frontier-Uganda are supervised by a 

Project Advisory Committee whose members at the time of writing are: 

Dr. Yacobo Moyini 

Acting Executive Director, UWA 

Mr. Arthur Mugisha 

Acting Deputy Director: Field Operations, UWA 

Mr. Samson Werikhe 

Research & EIA Co-ordinator, UWA 

Ms. Apophia Atukunda-Muhimbura Monitoring Co-ordinator, UWA 

Mr. Abdul Muwanika 

Planning Co-ordinator, UWA 

Mr. Moses Okua 

Commissioner for Wildlife, MTWA 

Dr. Panta Kasoma 

Director, Makerere University Institute of Environment & Natural Resources 

Ms. Rebecca Phillips 

Project Co-ordinator, Frontier-Uganda 

Ms. Karen Zwick 

Research Co-ordinator, Frontier-Uganda 

Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project January 1998 

Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13


ii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Acknowledgements are due to all of the Uganda Wildlife Authority staff, past and present, who supported this 

work, and in particular to Dr. Eric Edroma, the former Executive Director, and Mr. John Otekat, the former 

Deputy Director: Field Operations. The work would not have been possible without the efforts of Mr. Isaac 

Drani, the Chief Warden, and his staff in the field, and Mr. John Muwadi and his staff, to whom we are grateful. 

Acknowledgements are also due to Mr. Moses Okua, the Commissioner for Wildlife at the Ministry of Tourism, 

Wildlife, & Antiquities. 

Thanks to Eibleis Fanning, the director of The Society for Environmental Exploration. The society provided 

administrative and financial support for this work: additional administrative support was gratefully received from 

IUCN in Kampala and Mbale. Funding for essential equipment was very generously donated by the British High 

Commission, Kampala, Barclays Bank Uganda Limited, The Sheraton Hotel, Kampala, and Crown Bottlers 

Limited. Fuel was very generously donated by Total Uganda Limited, and Rank Xerox Uganda Limited very 

generously donated photocopying services. 

Thanks go to the staff at Makerere University for their supporting role. Ms Olivia Wanyana Maganyi identified 

the botanical specimens, Mr. Robert Kityo the small mammals, Mr. Mathius Behangana the herptiles, and Mr. 

Patrick Etyang the butterflies. 

In Karamoja, we are grateful for the support of Mr. Joshua Ojao, LCIII Chairman, Namalu S/C, and Mr. Kassim 

Chepkwongin, LCIII Chairman, Ngenge S/C, and of the people of the area, who made us so welcome. We 

appreciate the security provided by Captain Dan and the UPDF soldiers of the Napadet Army Camp. Thanks go 

to Ms. Mary Aguma for her help with the socio-economic survey, and to Ms. Helen de Jode of the Karamoja 

Wildlife Project for all her advice and guidance. 

Frontier-Uganda staff 

Rebecca Phillips Project Co-ordinator Duncan Sivell Research Co-ordinator UG964 

Miles Kemplay Camp leader UG964 Karen Zwick Research Co-ordinator UG972 

Cherie Montgomery Camp leader UG972 Socio-economics Co-ordinator UG964 

Mustapha Kiika Driver/Mechanic Lee Stewart Large Mammals Co-ordinator UG964 

Helen MacGregor Large Mammals Co-ordinator UG972 

Julia Lloyd Small Fauna Co-ordinator 

Rich Bamlett Assistant Research Officer UG972 

Ian Devon Assistant Research Officer UG972 

Research Assistants UG964 

Research Assistants UG972 

Tim Aikman Cherie Montgomery Phillip Baker Lorenz Kruksberg 

Christian Baars Teresa Petty Barb Edwards Catherine Morris 

Michelle Bird Kristi Skebo Harriet Festing Tom Morton 

Jon Brough Lucie Stephens Claire Gillanders David Parker 

Tom Buxton Zaba Walker Edward Harding Rupert Searle 

Soozee Clark Rob Westcott Jakob Heller Sarah Shimin 

Alison Compton Dave White Amber Herrell Duncan Speake 

Andy Donoghue Jen Hurd Dave Suchy 

Sara Galpin Frankie Jennings Mark Warner 

Lucy Gitere Alison Jenson Emily Wilson 

Wera Leujuk 

David Kemp 

Rangers 

Amaat Stephen (HR) Engatuny Sam Lokol Mark Ngorok Charles 

Abura Gabriel Iddi Wange Lokong Aloisu Nuru Hamed 

Achau Peter Kuria Richard Lokwakou Michael Ojakol Joseph 

Achuka Simon Peter Limasiya Frances Loumo Paul Okilim Sisto 

Adiakia Patrick Locomgim John Lowal Demiua Salimo Moses 

Aliat Ben Lodum Simon Peter Loyok John Tiyan Paul 

Apuun Jacob Logiel Paul Musas Fred Waswa Julius 

Chemaiko Maget Loit Mark Musoba Sam 

Chemonges Satya Lokol Edimon Naumya Fred 




iii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

A baseline biological and socio-economic survey of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve was 

conducted between October and December 1996 and April and June 1997. 

One hundred and forty-one species of flowering plant were identified, and four vegetation 

types were described: grassland and wooded grassland, which covers most of the reserve, 

riverine woodland, kopjes, and cultivated land. The vegetation is of enormous conservation 

value as it covers a large area and is essentially undisturbed. 

Thirty-one species of large mammals were identified, and distribution maps and information 

of habitat use is provided. There has been a drastic decline in the numbers of large mammals 

over the past 30 years, and most are still under severe threat from poaching. Over a third are 

of international conservation concern. 

Twelve species of small rodent, three species of shrew, five species of bat, and 11 species of 

reptile were identified. Further taxonomic work on specimens collected but not identified at 

the time of writing is likely to identify more species. 

Rapid and Participatory Rural Appraisal (R/PRA) methods were used in two primarily Sebei 

and two Pian villages. The main issues identified were insecurity and poor food security. In 

addition, the reserve was identified as an important source of many natural resources for the 

Pian in particular. Attitudes towards UWA and conservation are relatively positive, although 

the heavily armed Pian and the Pokot have the upper hand, and the major threat remains 

poaching. A potential conflict between development and conservation objectives is a 

resettlement project in the part of the Sebei CWA recommended for inclusion in a new 

National Park. 




iv 

CONTENTS 

PREFACE 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

i 

ii 

iii 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 

1.1 Aims 1 

1.2 Site description 2 

1.3 History and current situation 5 

1.4 References cited 7 

2.0 VEGETATION SURVEY (Karen L. Zwick) 8 

2.1 Summary 8 

2.2 Introduction 8 

2.2.1 Aims 8 

2.2.2 Previous studies 9 

2.3 Methods 11 

2.4 Results 12 

2.4.1 Checklist 13 

2.4.2 Vegetation/habitat types 17 

2.5 Discussion 18 

2.6 Conclusions 18 


3.0 LARGE MAMMAL SURVEY (Helen MacGregor & Karen L. Zwick) 20 

3.1 Summary 20 


3.2.1 Aims 20 




3.4.1 Checklist 23 

3.4.2 Distribution and habitat use 24 







v 

4.0 SMALL FAUNA SURVEY (Julia Lloyd) 32 



4.2.1 Aims 32 


4.3 Overview of methods 32 

4.4 Small rodents and shrews 33 

4.4.1 Introduction 33 

4.4.2 Aim 33 

4.4.3 Methods 33 

4.4.4 Results 34 

4.4.5 Discussion 36 

4.5 Bats 38 


4.5.2 Aim 38 




4.6 Reptiles 40 


4.6.2 Aim 40 




4.7 Amphibians 42 


4.7.2 Aim 42 



4.8 Butterflies 43 


4.8.2 Aim 43 








vi 

5.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY (Karen L. Zwick) 47 



5.2.1 Aims 47 

5.2.2 Community conservation and the 1996 wildlife statute 47 


5.2.4 People and history 48 


5.3.1 Rapid and Participatory Rural Appraisal 51 

5.3.2 Community and group meetings 52 


5.4.1 Chepsikunya and Seryoto 52 

5.4.2 Lopedot and Lomorimor 52 

5.4.3 Resource use 53 

5.4.4 Attitudes towards the reserve 53 




6.0 CONCLUSIONS 57 




vii 

FIGURES 

Figure 1.1 Location of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 2 

Figure 1.2 Protected Areas of Karamoja 3 

Figure 1.3 Topography and hydrology of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 4 

Figure 1.4 Southern Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 6 

Figure 2.1 1955-1960 vegetation of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve (Langdale-Brown 9 

et al., 1964) 

Figure 2.2 1989-1992 land cover of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve (Forest 10 

Department, 1996) 

Figure 2.3 Vegetation stratification and location of sampling plots in Pian-Upe 12 

Wildlife Reserve 

Figure 3.1 Habitat stratification and large mammal systematic belt transects 22 

sampling area in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Figure 3.2 Distribution of olive baboon in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 24 

Figure 3.3 Distribution of spotted hyena in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 25 

Figure 3.4 Distribution of aardvark in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 26 

Figure 3.5 Distribution of blue and common duiker in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 27 

Figure 3.6 Distribution of Gunther’s dik-dik in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 27 

Figure 3.7 Distribution of oribi in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 28 

Figure 3.8 Distribution of waterbuck in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 28 

Figure 3.9 Distribution of Bohor and mountain reedbuck in Pian-Upe Wildlife 29 

Reserve 

Figure 4.1 Location of small fauna sampling sites in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 33 

Figure 4.2 Species accumulation rate for small rodents captured in small mammal 36 

traps in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

TABLES 

Table 2.1 Checklist of the flowering plants of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 13 

Table 2.2 Habitats of the indigenous trees and shrubs of Pian-Upe Wildlife 17 


Table 3.1 Large mammal population estimates for Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 21 

Table 3.2 Habitat types (strata) and areas sampled in large mammal systematic 22 

belt transects in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Table 3.3 Checklist of the large mammals of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 23 

Table 4.1 Sampling intensity and capture rates for small rodents and shrews in 34 

Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Table 4.2 Checklist of the small rodents and shrews of Pian-Upe Wildlife 35 


Table 4.3 Checklist of the bats of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 39 

Table 4.4 Checklist of the reptiles of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 41 

Table 4.5 Diversity by taxon of the small fauna of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 44 



Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve: biological and socio-economic survey 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Uganda has an extremely rich and diverse biota (NEIC, 1994), which represents the 

intersection of no less than six biogeographic zones: the Guinea-Congolian, Sudanian, and 

Somalia-Masai regional centres of endemism, the Afromontane archipelago-like centre of 

endemism, the Guinea-Congolia-Sudania regional transition zone, and the Lake Victoria 

regional mosaic (White, 1983). Its moist tropical climate allows for high levels of primary 

productivity which promotes overall alpha diversity by allowing for greater niche 

differentiation, and its varied topography allows for high beta diversity (Whittaker, 1972). 

This diversity directly supports the 90% of the population (NEAP, 1993) who depend on 

natural resources for their day to day livelihoods. 

During the political turmoil of the 1970s and 80s there was next to no control on the 

harvesting of plants and animals, and many of the nation’s protected areas were encroached 

upon, eroding the rich natural resource base. In 1996 the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) 

was formed from the former Game Department and Uganda National Parks. It is responsible 

for the conservation of the nation’s wild animals and plants, and the management of Wildlife 

Protected Areas, including the production of management plans. The aims of the Frontier- 

Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project Baseline Surveys Programme are to assess the 

biological and socio-economic status of the nation’s Wildlife Protected Areas to assist UWA 

with the development of management strategies: the specific aims of this survey are outlined 

in section 1.1 below. 

1.1 Aims 

The survey of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve aims to: 

• collect baseline biological information on the vegetation, large mammals, and small fauna 

of the reserve; 

• collect baseline socio-economic information on the communities living around the 

reserve, including information on their attitudes towards and their impacts on the reserve; 

• contribute to existing knowledge at a national and international level; and 

• train self funding volunteer research assistants in biological and socio-economic survey 

techniques. 




1.2 Site description 

The reserve covers an area of 2,275 km 2 , and is Uganda’s second largest Protected Area (PA) 

after Murchison Falls National Park. It is located in Karamoja, in eastern Uganda between 

34°14’ and 34°48’E, and 01°32’ and 02°15’N (Fig. 1.1) in Moroto District, but is contiguous 

with Kapchorwa, Mbale, Kumi, and Soroti Districts. It is covered by the Lands & Surveys 

Department map sheets 35/3, 35/4, 44/1, 44/2, 44/3, 44/4, 45/1, 45/3, and 45/4 (Series Y732) 

at 1:50,000. 

Figure 1.1 Location of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 




The reserve is the southernmost of the Karamoja PAs. It is contiguous with Bokora Corridor 

Wildlife Reserve to the north, and overlaps with Napak and Kadam Forest Reserves to the 

north and east. To the north and east is the South Karamoja Community Wildlife Area 

(CWA) (formerly Controlled Hunting Area), to the south is the Sebei CWA and Mount Elgon 

National Park, and to the west the are the East and North Teso CWAs (Fig. 1.2). 

Figure 1.2 Protected Areas of Karamoja 




Most of the reserve is flat open grassland at approximately 1,100m scattered with occasional 

small rocky kopjes. Much of the plains is subject to seasonal waterlogging, although the only 

(mostly) permanent water course in the area is the Greek River which forms the southern 

boundary and flows into Lake Opeta to the west. The plains are overlooked by the high (2,537 

and 3,070m respectively) isolated volcanic outcrops of Napak and Kadam to the north and 

east, which are still largely forested (Fig. 1.3). 

Figure 1.3 Topography and hydrology of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 




Rainfall is between 1,000 and 1,250mm over most of the reserve, although it decreases to less 

than 875mm in the far north-east (Department of Lands & Surveys, 1967). The mean annual 

minimum temperature is between 15.0 and 17.5°C, and the mean annual maximum is over 

30°C (Lubwama, 1994). Soils are mostly vertisols, with eutrophic soils on volcanic ash 

around Napak and Kadam, and hydromorphic soils around Lake Opeta (Department of Lands 

& Surveys, 1967). 

The reserve is reached by road from Mbale, and the only ranger post is located at the reserve 

headquarters at Moruajore. Basic equipment such as uniforms, boots, arms, and ammunition 

is old and in short supply, and there is no working radio. The Warden In Charge has a vehicle, 

but it is rarely in use as fuel is not available. 

1.3 History and current situation 

In the 1950s and 60s the southern sector of what is now the reserve was reportedly one of the 

best wildlife areas in Africa, and in 1960 it was gazetted as the Debasian Animal Sanctuary. 

In 1964 this was expanded and gazetted as Pian-Upe Game Reserve, although the boundary 

was never demarcated on the ground, and the local Pian Karamojong were allowed to 

continue to graze and water their cattle within it (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996a). Since the 

1960s, however, when automatic weapons were introduced to traditional cattle raiding in 

Karamoja, the region has suffered from a breakdown in law and order and horrifying and 

chronic violence and insecurity. While this resulted in a decrease in cattle numbers which 

allowed the reversal of negative vegetation changes associated with overgrazing (Wilson, 

1985), it also caused the effective abandonment by the Game Department of all of the 

region’s reserves from the late 1970s onwards, leading to uncontrolled poaching and a 

dramatic decrease in wildlife (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996a). 

At the beginning of 1996, however, the Game Department posted new wardens to all of the 

region’s reserves, and recruited numerous local rangers. Community outreach and antipoaching 

programmes were initiated, with promising early results, and in Pian-Upe, the 

rehabilitation of the looted and vandalised infrastructure at Moruajore was begun. 

Unfortunately, though, financial difficulties within the new UWA in 1997 lead once again to 

the effective abandonment of the reserves, and a subsequent return to uncontrolled poaching. 

At the time of writing, there are wardens and rangers at Moruajore again, but they are 

severely under-resourced and limited in their effectiveness. Pian-Upe is not as heavily 

encroached as Bokora Corridor and Matheniko Wildlife Reserves to the north, although it is 

used for pasture and water by the Pian Karamojong, particularly in the dry season, and 

Lamprey & Michelmore (1996a) estimated there to have been almost 20,000 cattle present in 

October 1995. There has never been a management plan and there has been no official 

management for most of the past twenty years, although traditional practices such as seasonal 

burning, grazing, and hunting have been carried out by the local Pian Karamojong and Pokot. 




Aerial surveys conducted in 1995 and 1996 identified small but important numbers of 

wildlife still using the south of the reserve and the area just south of the Greek River in the 

Sebei CWA (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996ab), and the authors of these reports recommend 

that this area be upgraded to National Park status. This survey was intended to focus on this 

portion of the reserve, but, unfortunately, continuing insecurity caused considerable 

difficulties in implementing a ground survey. Despite postponing the second work phase to 

avoid the main cattle raiding season, the work was confined to the area around the road which 

could be reached from Moruajore, the Napadet army camp, or Chepsikunya, and the third 

work phase, regrettably, was cancelled. The vegetation, large mammal, and small fauna 

surveys were very limited in the area covered and habitats sampled, and as result of food 

security problems in the area during the second work phase, the socio-economic survey was 

terminated. Figure 1.4 depicts the important features of the south of the reserve. 

Figure 1.4 Southern Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 




1.4 References cited 

Department of Lands & Surveys. 1967. Uganda Atlas. Department of Lands & Surveys, 

Kampala. 

Lamprey, R.F. & Michelmore, F. 1996a. The Wildlife Protected Areas of Uganda: 

preliminary aerial survey results and their assessment plus initial recommendations. 

Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife & Antiquities, Kampala. 

Lamprey, R.F. & Michelmore, F. 1996b. Surveys of Uganda’s Wildlife Protected Areas: 

phase II surveys: May - June 1996. Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife & Antiquities, 

Kampala. 

Lubwama, H. 1994. Social studies atlas for Uganda. Macmillan (Uganda), Kampala. 

NEAP. 1993. National environment management policy framework. National Environment 

Action Plan Secretariat, Ministry of Natural Resources, Kampala. 

NEIC. 1994. State of the environment report for Uganda 1994. National Environment 

Information Centre, Kampala. 

White, F. 1983. The vegetation of Africa. UNESCO, Paris. 

Whittaker, R.H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21:213-251. 

Wilson, J.G. 1985. Resettlement in Karamoja. Photocopied paper, pp. 163-170. 




2.0 VEGETATION SURVEY (Karen L. Zwick) 

2.1 Summary 

A survey of the vegetation of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve was conducted between April and 

June 1997. The vegetation was stratified into broad physiognomic vegetation types, and 

within this, five 1ha plots were sampled. Preliminary identifications were made in the field 

and confirmed by a botanist at the Makerere University Herbarium. One hundred and fortyone 

species of flowering plant were identified. The woody plants, which represent 3.0% of 

the country’s diversity, are typical of savannah woodland or thickets. Four vegetation types 

were described: grassland and wooded grassland, which covers most of the reserve, riverine 

woodland, kopjes, and cultivated land. The vegetation of the reserve is of enormous 

conservation value as it covers a large area and is essentially undisturbed. However, it is 

potentially under threat from agricultural conversion, such as that south of the Greek River in 

the part of the Sebei CWA recommended for inclusion in a new National Park. 

2.2 Introduction 

2.2.1 Aims 

The vegetation survey aims to use standard and repeatable methods to: 

• describe both physiognomically and floristically the major vegetation types/habitats of the 

reserve; and 

• collect baseline data on the presence and distribution of flowering plants (Angiospermae), 

in order to compile a preliminary annotated checklist for the reserve. 




2.2.2 Previous studies 

The vegetation of Karamoja was mapped in detail by Wilson (1962) between 1955 and 1960 

as part of the Agriculture Department’s memoirs series on the vegetation of Uganda. These 

maps were summarised by Langdale-Brown et al. (1964) as shown in Figure 2.1. 

Figure 2.1 1955-1960 vegetation of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve (Langdale-Brown et al., 

1964) 

However, changing socio-economic factors have made this largely out of date (Wilson, 

1985). 




More recently the vegetation of the reserve was mapped from satellite imagery captured 

between 1989 and 1992 as part of the Forest Department’s National Biomass Study (Forest 

Department, 1996), which identified three land cover classes within the reserve, as shown in 

Figure 2.2. 

Figure 2.2 1989-1992 land cover of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve (Forest Department, 

1996) 




2.3 Methods 

The survey was conducted between April and June 1997. 

The reserve was stratified into broad physiognomic vegetation types using the available 

reference material and the 1:50,000 topographic maps. This stratification was also used as the 

basis for the large mammal and small fauna surveys. 

Volunteer research assistants were trained in basic navigation skills including the use of maps 

and compasses and the Global Positioning System (GPS), and learned to pace distances 

accurately. 

They were trained in the collection and preparation of botanical specimens, data recording, 

and in the use of appropriate field guides and keys: Coates Palgrave (1988), Eggeling & Dale 

(1951), Hamilton (1981), ICRAF (1992), Katende et al. (1995), and Noad & Birnie (1989) 

for woody plants, Haines & Lye (1983) for sedges and rushes, and Eggeling (1941), Harker 

(1961), and van Oudtshoorn (1992) for grasses. 

The sampling unit was a 100m x 100m (1ha) plot for woody plants and a 25m x 25m sub-plot 

within this for herbs and grasses. Within a stratum plots were located subjectively where the 

vegetation seemed most ‘typical’. Each plot was surveyed by a small team which recorded 

general information on the physiognomy of the vegetation. Every species in the plot was then 

listed and its percentage cover estimated in Braun-Blanquet classes (after Zandri & Viskanic, 

1992). 

Voucher specimens of every species or recognisable taxonomic unit (rtu) of flowering plant 

encountered were collected and pressed following Liesner (1990). They were then given 

preliminary field identifications where possible, and used as a basic working reference 

collection. At the end of the study period, the preliminary field identifications were confirmed 

by Ms Olivia Wanyana Maganyi at the Makerere University Herbarium. 

Opportunistic records of species not occurring in the plots were also made throughout the 

reserve. 




2.4 Results 

The reserve was stratified as shown in Figure 2.3. 

Figure 2.3 Vegetation stratification and location of sampling plots in Pian-Upe Wildlife 


The volunteer research assistants were able to use the GPS, and to follow and take bearings 

and pace distances accurately so that they could establish grid reference locations without the 

GPS when necessary. They used these skills in all aspects of the fieldwork. 

They were able to collect and prepare botanical specimens and record data, as well as to 

identify many of the specimens from the field guides and keys available, and recognise them 

in the field. 

Five plots were sampled as shown in Figure 2.3 




2.4.1 Checklist 

One hundred and forty-one species of flowering plant (from 31 families) were identified, as 

listed in Table 2.1. 

Table 2.1 Checklist of the flowering plants of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Specific name Local name (Karamojong) Growth Typical Habitat Abundance 

form habitat 

Family Acanthaceae 

Asystasia gangetica 

w 

Barleria diffusa mamanyitab, kysochet S c 

Justicia exigua 

w 

Justicia flava chepcumbi, chemongok, moboria S c 

Justicia sp. etoto w 

Ruellia patula nakepian k 

Ruellia sp. 

Family Anacardiaceae 

Lannea barteri etopojoemoru ST wo f r g 

Lannea humilis etopoue g 

Lannea schimperi engerengerwae ST wo g k 

Ozoroa insignis lokite S/ST wo ro t f k 

Ozoroa obovata ekajan g 

Ozoroa sp. 

Rhus longipes ekadetema S/ST df t f r g 

Rhus natalensis S/ST wo t f 

Sclerocarya caffra ekajikait k 

Family Apocynaceae 

Catharanthus roseus 

c 

Thetvia peruviana elikoi c 

Family Asclepiadaceae 

Leptadenia pyrotechnica songofa c 

Family Asparagaceae 

Asparagus buchannii esikarakiru g 

Asparagus flagellaris esikarakiru S g 

Family Balanitaceae 

Balanites aegyptiaca ekorete, chomiandat ST wo g s c g w W 

Balanites pedicillaris dungoit S/ST t sc g 

Family Bignonaceae 

Kigelia afrianca ST F s wo 

Family Capparidaceae 

Capparis tomentosa CS/ST t g r w 

Cleome monophylla 

w 

Family Celastraceae 

Maytenus senegalensis eteba ST g 

Maytenus senegalensis eteba ST k 

Pleurostylia africana ekuluny k 

Family Combretaceae 

Combretum collinum ekuluny, lotakui ST wo g k 

Combretum molle ekuyon ST wo g k 





form habitat 

Family Commelinaceae 

Commelina africana abutaechwe g w 

Commelina benghalensis 

g 

Commelina bracteosa kurarastit c 

Commelina erecta abutacue k 

Commelina latifolia 

w 

Commelina subulata 

g 

Commelina sp. abutacue w 

Cyanotis sp. lokimairio k 

Family Compositae 

Aspilia kotschyi 

c 

Aspilia latifolia 

g 

Bidens pilosa namjekong c 

Bidens sp. 

Erlangea cordifolia 

c 

Galinsoga parviflora lokapilak w 

Lactuca capensis chesamshed c 

Senecio sp. 

Sonchus oleraceus chepcheko, namjekong c 

Family Convolvulaceae 

Astripomoea malvacea aturot (sing.) ngatur (pl.) c 

Convolvulus sagittatus 

c 

Family Crassulaceae 

Kalanchoe lanceolata 

Family Cyperaceae 

Cyperus rotundus ekereriaut w F 

Spaerocyperus erinaceus ekereriaut k 

Family Euphorbiaceae 

Acalypha cilicata ajao, erengerang k, g 

Acalypha villicaulis ekumotum k F 

Bridelia schleroneura ekabobbolot, kuanpie S/ST wo t k 

Bridelia setenere emutwruy g 

Euphorbia candelabrum ST wo g ro 

Euphorbia glomerifera 

w 

Euphorbia sp. 

Fleuggea virosa S/ST f t ro w 

Phyllanthus maderaspatensis lokile 

w 

Family Leguminosae 

Acacia polyacantha ST wo t r w 

Acacia seyal eyelel, egiliep, ekaramuay T wo r g k w W 

Cassia obtusifolia chebawet WH/SS g c 

Cassia siamea kasiyat c 

Clitoria ternatea ekimimo, elonglong g k w W 

Crotalaria brevidens lotabab k 

Crotalaria pycnostachya 

c 

Crotalaria sp. ekwanga k 

Dichrostachys cinerea etirac S/ST wo t g 

Dolichos kilimandsharicus omareta w 

Entada abyssinica ekwakwaa ST wo g 

Indigofera ambelacensis sisitet c 

Indigofera arrecta erengerang WH f t g w 

Indigofera spicata sekekewet c 

Indigofera volkensii 

c g 

Indigofera sp. lokituonia k 





form habitat 

Family Leguminosae (cont.) 

Lonchocarpus laxiflorus ekorisat ST wo k 

Piliostigma thoningii ST wo t g 

Rhynchosia totta locikutai g 

Tephrosia linearis mamanyitab, sisitet, alukuray c g 

Tephrosia sp. 

Vigna parkeri locikutai w 

Family Loganaceae 

Strychnos sp. 

Family Malvaceae 

Abutilon hirtum cheptonget c 

Hibiscus aponeurus etoke k 

Hibiscus calyphylus 

w 

Hibiscus sp. 

Sida alba melechet c O 

Sida rhombifolia ekwanga S w 

Sida ternata abiruai w 

Family Meliaceae 

Pseudocedrela kotschyi ekorisat ST wo g 

Family Olaceae 

Ximenia caffra elamae S/ST wo k 

Family Poaceae 

Andropogon sp. 

Aristida adscensionis 

Bothriochloa insculpta adedede g O 

Brachiaria brizantha 

Brachiaria serrata 

Brachiaria sp. sabakwa c O 

Choris virgata 

Choris sp. 

Ctenium concinnum etidot g 

Cymbopogan pospischilii lotebe k w A 

Cymbopogon validus 

Cymbopogan sp. 

Cynodon sp. seretdridet c O 

Digitaria rivae ekaga g F 

Digitaria sp. 

Enneapon anchioides 

Eragrostis superba chemwawet c 

Eragrostis sp. 

Hyparrhenia dissoluta 

Hyparrhenia filipendula soliandet c O 

Hyparrhenia madaropoda erangerang g g F 

Hyparrhenia mobukensis g O 

Imperata cylindrica lobelai, lokipi g k A 

Panicum hochstetteri akobet w A 

Panicum maximum matiatondet c O 

Panicum sp. 

Pennisetum sphacelatum ekori-ekingok c 

Pennisetum sp. 

Rhyncelytrum repens 

Setaria holstii esiloit w A 

Setaria incrassata 

Setaria sphacelata esiloit g O 

Setaria sp. 





form habitat 

Family Rhamnaceae 

Ziziphus mauritiana ekaliye S/ST g g 

Family Rubaceae 

Pentas lanceolata 

Family Sapandaceae 

Pappea capensis esegesege S/ST wo ro k 

Family Simaroubaceae 

Harrisonia abyssinica ekere ST F g k 

Family Solanaceae 

Solanum albicaule 

w 

Solanum incanum lopotyat S c 

Family Tiliaceae 

Cochorus hochstetteri ebiruai k 

Grewia bicolor ekaliye S/ST wo k 

Triumfetta flavescens ekwanga g O 

Family Umbellifereae 

Steganotaenia araliacea elamoru ST wo k 

Family Verbenaceae 

Lantana trifolia S w 

Lantana sp. 

Family Vitaceae 

Cayratia ibuensis emoros k 

Cissus petiolata emoros k 

Nomenclature and taxonomy follow Howard (1994), Harker (1961), and the work of Olivia Wanyana Maganyi. 

Key 

Growth form (Howard, 1994) 

TT tall tree (>25m) SS sub-shrub WH woody herb 

ST short tree (


The indigenous trees and shrubs of the reserve are recorded in the FTEA from the habitats 

listed in Table 2.2 (many are recorded from more than one habitat). 

Table 2.2 Habitats of the indigenous trees and shrubs of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Habitat Number % 

Savannah woodland 21 72 

Bush/thicket 11 37 

Grassland 6 21 

Forest edge 6 21 

Riverine 5 17 

Rocky places 4 18 

Forest interior 2 7 

Dry scrub 1 3 

Dry forest 1 3 

Swamp 1 3 

Within each plot, species accumulation rates indicated that sampling in a 1ha plot was 

sufficient, but it is unlikely that the checklist is complete as not all vegetation types were 

sampled, and the more abundant physiognomic types are likely to contain several plant 

communities. 

2.4.2 Vegetation/habitat types 

Grassland and wooded grassland 

This vegetation type covers the flat plains which make up most of the reserve, and is by far 

the most common. Cover by woody plants, mostly compound- and broad-leaved species, is 

less than 20%, and usually less than 10%, and there is a dense (> 75% cover) herb layer 

(except immediately after fire!). The dominant tree species are Acacia seyal and Balanites 

aegyptica, with occasional Combretum collinum, C. molle, Harrisonia abyssinica, and 

Maytenus senegalensis. Typical herbs and small shrubs include Clitoria ternatea, Lannea 

spp. Rhus spp., and Triumfetta flavescens. The grass layer is dominated by Hyparrhenia spp, 

and Setaria spp., with occasional Adropogon sp. and Cymbopogon spp. The herb layer is 

burnt annually, but only lightly grazed in the south of the reserve. 

Riverine woodland 

This vegetation type occurs in a narrow band along the Greek River and its more permanent 

tributaries in the south of the reserve. There is diffuse but interlocking canopy (> 40% cover) 

10-15m in height, and a dense (> 75% cover) herb layer. It is also dominated by Acacia seyal 

and Balanites aegyptica, with A. polycantha. Typical herbs and shrubs include Capparis 

tomentosa, Clitoria ternatea, Fleuggea virosa, Indigofera spp., Lantana spp., and Sida spp. 

The grass layer is dominated by Setaria incrassata and S. holstii, with Cymbopogon 

pospischili and Panicum hochstetteri and abundant Cyperus rotundus. 

Kopjes 

This habitat type is scattered throughout the south of the plains, and consists of small, steepsided 

outcrops of rock. Over 50% of the area is bare rock with no vegetation cover. Small 

trees and shrubs grow in crevices and faults, and include a few Acacia spp. and Combretum 

spp., with Grewia bicolor, Harrisonia abyssinica, Lannea spp., Ozoroa insignis, Pappea 

capensis, and Ximenia caffra. There is almost no grass layer, although Imperata cylindrica 

forms small monospecific stands on flat patches in drainage lines. 




Cultivated land 

This habitat type lies to the south of the reserve between the Greek River and Chepsikunya, 

and around Seryoto, although there is some cultivated land within the reserve south-west of 

Namalu. Some parts have been ploughed mechanically, some have been hoed manually, and 

some are still uncleared grassland. Live fences of Thetvia peruviana have been planted, and 

there are a few Balanites aegyptica left standing, but cover by woody plants is less than 10%. 

There is a discontinuous layer of small shrubs, herbs, and grasses, which includes Cassia 

spp., Indigofera spp., Sida alba, and Solanum incanum, with Brachiaria sp., Cynodon sp., 

Hyparrhenia filipendula, and Panicum maximum. 

2.5 Discussion 

Wilson (1962) describes over seventy plant communities for the region, many of which have 

only small differences among them, but there is not a tight or obvious correlation between 

them and the vegetation types described here. His work was undertaken when cattle densities 

in the region were much higher, and he describes in detail cycles of vegetation change 

induced by overgrazing in which there was insufficient fuel for regular dry season burning 

leading to the encroachment by woody plants, and soil erosion and compaction leading to 

further loss of cover in the herb layer and the development of thickets. These negative 

changes, along with an increase in abundance of unpalatable species, made the vegetation less 

productive, which, under continued high grazing pressure, further hastened the changes 

(Wilson, 1985; Wilson, 1962). 

However, as a result of insecurity, between 1957 and 1980 the cattle population of Karamoja 

more than halved (Cisternino, 1985), and the grassland is once again subject to annual 

burning. At the same time, huge amounts of woody vegetation were manually removed by 

impoverished people reduced to producing charcoal to make a living, and this, coupled with 

the reduction in grazing pressure served to inadvertently and unexpectedly reverse many of 

the negative vegetation changes such that Wilson himself (1985) believes his maps of the 

1960s (1962 and Langdale-Brown et al., 1964) are largely out of date. 

2.6 Conclusions 

Some 3.0% of the country’s tree and shrub species were recorded in the reserve, despite the 

fact that it is primarily grassland, and sampling intensities were low. Further sampling is 

likely to identify even more species. Most of the indigenous trees and shrubs recorded are 

typical of savannah woodlands and thickets. The vegetation and habitats of the reserve are of 

enormous conservation value as they cover a large area and are essentially undisturbed, 

ironically, as a result of insecurity. Even under improved security conditions, however, there 

are fewer land use conflicts here than in most other parts of the country, and wildlife 

conservation and cattle keeping at moderate densities are intrinsically quite compatible. A 

potential threat is agricultural conversion, such as that south of the Greek River in the part of 

the Sebei CWA recommended for inclusion in a new National Park. 





Cisternino, M. 1985. Famine and food relief in Karamoja. Photocopied paper, pp. 155-161. 

Coates Palgrave, K. 1988. Trees of southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. 

Eggeling, W.J. 1941. An annotated list of the grasses of the Uganda Protectorate. 

Government Printer, Entebbe. 

Eggeling, W.J. & Dale, G.R. 1951. The indigenous trees of the Uganda Protectorate. 

University Press, Glasgow. 

Forest Department. 1996. National Biomass Study land cover stratification (vegetation). 

Forest Department, Kampala. 

Haines, R.W. & Lye, K.A. 1983. The sedges and rushes of East Africa. East African Natural 

History Society, Nairobi. 

Hamilton, A.C. 1981. A field guide to Ugandan forest trees. Uganda Society and Makerere 

University, Kampala. 

Harker, K.W. 1961. An illustrated guide to the grasses of Uganda. Government Printer, 

Entebbe. 

Howard, P.C. 1994. An annotated checklist of Uganda’s indigenous trees and shrubs. Forest 

Department, Kampala. 

ICRAF. 1992. A selection of useful trees and shrubs for Kenya: notes on their identification, 

propagation, and management for use by farming and pastoral communities. 

International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi. 

Katende, A.B., Birnie, A., & Tengnäs, B. 1995. Useful trees and shrubs for Uganda: 

identification, propagation, and management for agricultural and pastoral 

communities. Regional Soil Conservation Unit, Nairobi. 

Langdale-Brown, I., Omaston, H.A., & Wilson, J.G. 1964. The vegetation of Uganda and its 

bearing on land use. Government Printer, Entebbe. 

Liesner, R. 1990. Field techniques used by Missouri Botanical Garden. Missouri Botanical 

Garden, St Louis, Missouri. 

Noad, T.C. & Birnie, A. 1989. Trees of Kenya. T.C. Noad & A. Birnie, Nairobi 

Polhill, R.M., Milne-Redhead, E., Turrill, W.B., & Hubbard, C.E. 1954 & following. Flora of 

Tropical East Africa (in many parts). Crown Agents, London, & A.A. Balkema, 

Rotterdam. 

van Oudtshoorn, F.P. 1992. Guide to the grasses of South Africa. Briza Publikasies Cc, 

Arcadia, South Africa. 

Wilson, J.G. 1962. The vegetation of Karamoja District, Northern Province of Uganda. 

Memoirs of the Research Division Series 2 - Vegetation, Number 5. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Uganda Protectorate, Kampala. 


Zandri, E. & Viskanic, P. 1992. Vegetation survey and mapping in the Queen Elizabeth 

National Park, Kyambura Game Reserve, and Kigezi Game Reserve. Uganda National 

Parks, Kampala. 




3.0 LARGE MAMMAL SURVEY (Helen MacGregor & Karen L. Zwick) 

3.1 Summary 

A survey of the large mammals of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve was conducted between 

October and December 1996 and April and June 1997. The reserve was stratified into habitat 

types, and within this, 201 1km UTM grid squares were sampled at an intensity of 10%. 

Thirty-one species of large mammal were identified, representing 24% of the country’s 

diversity, and distribution maps and information on habitat use is presented. There has been a 

drastic decline in the numbers of large mammals over the past 30 years, and most are still 

under severe threat from poaching. Over a third are of international conservation concern, 

while others, such as zebra, are of national conservation interest. 


3.2.1 Aims 

The large mammal survey aims to use standard and repeatable methods to: 

• collect baseline data on the presence, distribution, and habitat use of the large mammal 

fauna of the reserve. 

These data, obtained through ground survey techniques, will complement the 1995/6 aerial 

surveys of the reserve (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996ab). 


Aerial surveys of the reserve’s large mammal fauna were conducted in 1995 and 1996 (dry 

and wet season) (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996ab), in 1983 (Eltringham et al., 1992; 

Eltringham & Malpas, 1993) and in 1968 (Game Department, cited in Lamprey & 

Michelmore, 1996a) (Table 3.1). As is typical of the PAs of Uganda there has been a broad 

and massive decline in numbers since records were first made. The remaining populations are 

concentrated in the south of the reserve and the area just south of the Greek River in the Sebei 

CWA, partly due to the presence of relatively permanent water, and partly because this area 

forms a buffer between the Pian Karamojong to the north and the Pokot to the east, and is 

thus subject to lower levels of poaching (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996ab). 




Table 3.1 Large mammal population estimates for Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Vernacular name 

Specific name 

April Oct May 

1968 1 1983 2 1995 3 1996 4 

Olive baboon Papio anubis - 73 - 176 

Plains zebra Equus burchelli 2,336 *643 402 - 

Warthog Phacochoerus africanus 5 - 12 25 

Giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis 899 109 10 - 

Hartebeest Alcelaphus buselaphus 1,025 309 408 88 

Topi Damaliscus lunatus 1,945 743 12 189 

Grant’s gazelle Gazella granti 102 - 36 - 

African buffalo Syncerus caffer 40 - 515 214 

Common eland Taurotragus oryx 1,598 - 10 - 

Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus - - 204 13 

Common duiker Sylvicapra grimmia - - 156 176 

Roan antelope Hippotragus equinus 387 254 15 151 

Oribi Ourebia ourebi - 91 - 

Waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus 127 *15 - - 

Kob Kobus kob 136 109 144 76 

Bohor reedbuck Redunca redunca 400 417 995 2,961 

Nomenclature and taxonomy follow Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994). 

Key 

1 Game Department, cited in Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996a 

2 Eltringham & Malpas, 1993, except *Eltringham et al., 1992 

3 Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996a 

4 Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996b 

3.3 Methods 

The survey was conducted in two phases from September to December 1996 and April to 

June 1997. 

Volunteer research assistants were trained in basic navigation skills (see section 2.3). They 

were then trained in data recording and the identification of both the animals they were likely 

to encounter using Dorst & Dandelot (1972) and Kingdon (1974ab; 1977; 1979; 1982ab) and 

their signs using Stuart & Stuart (1994), Liebenberg (1990), and Walker (1988). 

Direct records were made when an animal was actually seen by an observer (an observation), 

and indirect records when there was evidence that an animal had visited the site, but was not 

actually seen by the observer (e.g., dung, footprints, holes or scratchings, remains of a dead 

animal, etc.). All footprints were sketched and measured, and all dung samples collected and 

brought back to the base camp, where a basic working reference collection was established. 

The reserve was first stratified into habitat types. Small teams led by a member of staff then 

walked through each 1km UTM grid square systematically collecting information on the 

presence of large mammals within a 100m wide belt transect, giving a sampling intensity of 

10%. 

Opportunistic records were also made throughout the reserve. 




3.4 Results 

The volunteer research assistants were able navigate accurately, and were able to record data, 

as well as to identify animals and their signs from the field guides available, and recognise 

them in the field. 

The reserve was stratified as shown in Figure 3.1. A total of 201 1km UTM grid squares were 

sampled at an intensity of 10%, as shown in Figure 3.1 and Table 3.2. 

Figure 3.1 Habitat stratification and large mammal systematic belt transects sampling 

area in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Table 3.2 Habitat types (strata) and areas sampled in large mammal systematic belt 

transects in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Habitat type No. of 1km UTM grid squares sampled (at 10%) 

Grassland 135 

Bushland - 

Woodland 20 

Kopjes 23 

Cultivated land 23 

TOTAL 201 




3.4.1 Checklist 

Thirty-one species of large mammal (from nine orders and 14 families) were identified, as 

listed Table 3.3. 

Table 3.3 Checklist of the large mammals of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Vernacular name Specific name Record type/ Conservation Habitat 

abundance status 

Order Primates 

Family Cercopithecidae: old world monkeys 

Vervet monkey Cercopithecus aethiops R w 

Patas monkey Erythrocebus patas R w 

Olive baboon Papio anubis C g k w 

Order Carnivora 

Family Canidae: dogs, jackals, & foxes 

Jackal sp. Canis sp. ID g 

Family Viverridae: civets & genets 

East African civet Civettictis civetta ID g 

Family Herpestidae: mongooses 

White-tailed mongoose Ichneumia albicauda R g 

Family Hyaenidae: aardwolf & hyenas 

Spotted hyena Crocuta crocuta O LR/cd g w 

Family Felidae: cats 

Serval Felis serval R g c 

African wild cat Felis silvestris ID g 

Leopard Panthera pardus ID g c w 

Order Perissodactyla 

Family Equidae: horses & zebra 

Plains zebra Equus burchelli ID g w 

Order Hyracoidea 

Family Procaviidae: hyraxes 

Yellow-spotted rock hyrax Heterohyrax brucei O k 

Order Tubulidentata 

Family Orycteropodidae: aardvark 

Aardvark/ant bear Orycteropus afer ID g c w 

Order Artiodactyla 

Family Suidae: pigs 

Warthog Phacochoerus africanus ID g w 

Bushpig Potamochoerus porcus ID g c 

Family Bovidae: horned ungulates 

Topi Damaliscus lunatus R LR/cd g c 

African buffalo Syncerus caffer ID LR/cd g c w 

Common eland Taurotragus oryx R LR/cd g w 

Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus ID w 

Blue duiker Cephalophus monticola C g k c w 

Common duiker Sylvicapra grimmia C g k c w 

Gunther’s dik-dik Madoqua guentheri O g c w 

Klipspringer Oroetragus oroetragus R LR/cd k 

Oribi Ourebia ourebi A LR/cd g k c w 

Waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus ID LR/cd g c w 

Uganda kob Kobus kob R LR/cd g w 

Bohor reedbuck Redunca redunca O LR/cd g k c w 

Mountain reedbuck Redunca fulvorufula O LR/cd g k c w 




Vernacular name Specific name Record type/ Conservation Habitat 

abundance status 

Order Rodentia 

Family Hystricidae: porcupines 

Crested porcupine Hystrix cristata ID LR/nt g c 

Order Lagomorpha 

Family Leporidae: hares 

Hare sp. Lepus sp. R g 

Order Insectivora 

Family Erinaceidae: hedgehogs 

Four-toed hedgehog Atelerix albiventris R g 


Key 

Record type/abundance 

ID indirect records only 

R rare: direct records made once or twice; few indirect records 

O occasional: direct records made once or twice; many indirect records 

C common: over five direct records 

A abundant: over ten direct records 

Conservation status (Baillie & Groombridge, 1996) 

LR Low Risk cd conservation dependent nt near threatened 

Habitat 

g grassland k kopjes c cultivated land 

w woodland 

3.4.2 Distribution and habitat use 

Primates 

Vervet and patas monkeys were observed in riverine woodland near the Greek River in small 

groups. Baboon troops of up to 40 individuals were observed near the Greek River, in and 

around the Napadet hills, and on small kopjes near Moruajore (Fig. 3.2). 

Figure 3.2 Distribution of olive baboon in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 




Carnivores 

Jackal spoor was recorded near Moruajore, which is too far from human habitation for it have 

been confused with the spoor of a domestic dog. Civet spoor was also recorded nearby, and a 

single white-tailed mongoose was observed at the ranger post. A single hyena was observed 

late at night at the ranger post: they were often heard calling at night, and their spoor was 

widely distributed (Fig. 3.3), with fresh tracks on the road almost every morning. 

Figure 3.3 Distribution of spotted hyena in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Single servals were observed near Moruajore and near Chepsikunya, and wild cat spoor was 

recorded near Moruajore. Leopard spoor was recorded on the road and in riverine woodland 

near the Greek River, and a kill (a reedbuck) was found in a tree near Chepsikunya. 

Zebra 

Zebra spoor was recorded in grassland and riverine woodland near the Greek River. 

Hyrax 

Hyraxes were observed in the Napadet hills. 




Aardvark 

Aardvark holes were widely distributed (Fig. 3.4) 

Figure 3.4 Distribution of aardvark in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Pigs 

Warthog spoor was recorded in grassland and riverine woodland near the Greek River, with 

bushpig spoor in grassland and cultivated land south of the reserve in the CWA. 

Bovids 

A single topi was observed west of the Napadet army camp, and spoor was recorded in 

grassland around the Napadet hills and in cultivated land south of the reserve in the CWA, 

although it is possible that the spoor was that of hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus). Buffalo 

spoor was recorded in grassland near the Nabukut hills and west of the Napadet army camp, 

as well as in riverine woodland near the Greek River and cultivated land south of the reserve 

in the CWA. On one occasion approximately ten eland were observed in grassland east of the 

Napadet hills, and on another a group of approximately 60 were observed in wooded 

grassland even further east, although spoor was recorded only a few times. On one occasion a 

single bushbuck was heard by rangers near the Greek River, but this was the only record of 

this species. Blue duiker were widely distributed (Fig. 3.5), and were often observed at close 

range when flushed. Common duiker were observed somewhat less frequently, but were also 

widespread (Fig. 3.5), and also often observed at close range. 




Figure 3.5 Distribution of blue and common duiker in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Single dik-dik were observed in grassland, although spoor was also recorded in riverine 

woodland and cultivated land (Fig. 3.6). 

Figure 3.6 Distribution of Gunther’s dik-dik in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

A single klipspringer was observed in the Napadet hills, but no spoor was recorded. Oribi 

were by far the most frequently observed species, making up 81% of the direct records made 

during the systematic belt transects, and were widely distributed (Fig. 3.7). 




Figure 3.7 Distribution of oribi in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Waterbuck spoor was widely distributed (Fig. 3.8). 

Figure 3.8 Distribution of waterbuck in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Single kob were observed in woodland near the Greek River and in grassland. Both 

observations were brief and of distant animals, so the sub-species was not determined. Bohor 

reedbuck were observed occasionally in small groups throughout the reserve, and mountain 

reedbuck were observed in groups of five or six in the Napadet hills and surrounding 

grassland. Their spoor, which could not always be distinguished with confidence, was widely 

distributed (Fig. 3.9). 




Figure 3.9 Distribution of Bohor and mountain reedbuck in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Porcupines, hares, and hedgehogs 

Porcupine quills were recorded in grassland near Moruajore and in cultivated land south of 

the reserve in the CWA. A single hare and a single hedgehog were observed in grassland near 

Moruajore. 


No records were made of Grant’s (Bright’s) gazelle (Gazella granti (brighti)) or roan 

antelope (Hippotragus equinus): Lamprey & Michelmore (1996ab) recorded gazelle in the 

west of the reserve in October 1995 and roan south of Kadam in both October 1995 and May 

1996. No records were made of hartebeest, which Lamprey & Michelmore (1996ab) recorded 

near Kadam in October 1995 and in the north of the reserve (i.e., outside this survey’s 

sampling area) in May 1996, although it is possible that spoor attributed to topi, which was 

observed, may in fact have been that of hartebeest. A single indirect record was made of 

giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) in November 1996, but it was of remains of an animal that 

had been dead for several years. Reports from rangers and local people indicate that the 

giraffe recorded by Lamprey & Michelmore (1996a) south of Kadam in October 1995 have 

been poached. No direct records were made of zebra, warthog, buffalo, and bushbuck, and for 

none of these were there many indirect records either. 

This survey made direct records of several small antelope not recorded by Lamprey & 

Michelmore (1996ab), including blue duiker, dik-dik, klipspringer, and mountain reedbuck, 

as well as numerous indirect records of waterbuck. Direct records were also made of small or 

nocturnal species not likely to be recorded from the air, such as vervet and patas monkey, 

mongoose, hyena, serval, hyrax, hare, and hedgehog. 




There has been a drastic decline in the numbers of large mammals within the reserve over the 

past 30 years, including the eradication of species such as lion (Panthera leo), elephant 

(Loxodonta africana), black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis), and probably giraffe, and animal 

densities are currently so low that in over 2,500 person days spent in the reserve, only oribi 

were observed on more than a few occasions. 


Although not abundant, the reserve still has a diverse large mammal fauna, which includes 

almost a quarter (24%) of the country’s large mammals species. Over a third (35%) of the 

species recorded are listed as ‘conservation dependent’ or ‘near threatened’ in the 1996 Red 

List (Baillie & Groombridge, 1996), while others, such as zebra, are of national conservation 

interest. Many are of high tourist interest, although they are at low densities and tend to be 

very shy. 

However, they continue to be under severe threat from poaching by hungry people armed 

with automatic weapons. Although this poaching is opportunistic, because local people are 

armed at all times, is just as devastating as if it were systematic. Because valuable species are 

already so few in numbers, almost every animal encountered is fired upon, and usually killed, 

as was observed in broad daylight on more than one occasion during the second phase of the 

survey. Reducing the level of poaching will require a strong UWA presence and considerable 

community outreach and law enforcement activities, but until the wider issues of insecurity 

and food security in the region are addressed and resolved, it is unlikely to be eliminated. 

Ironically, however, absolutely terrible insecurity in the south of the reserve has allowed the 

wildlife here some respite from poaching compared with elsewhere in the region, as the area 

is effectively a no-man’s land between the Pian Karamojong and the Pokot, and is thus 

subject to lower levels of poaching. 

Opportunities for generating revenue from tourism are limited as there are no roads or other 

facilities within the reserve, the small numbers of animals are very shy, and the area is too 

insecure. At current population levels even small harvests are unlikely to be sustainable, 

precluding any formal harvesting scheme from providing legal benefits to local people in the 

near future. 

However, the reserve covers a large area, and the vegetation and habitats are essentially 

undisturbed, and if given adequate protection, many of the current small populations may 

recover and be viable in the long term. There are fewer land use conflicts here than in most 

other parts of the country, and wildlife conservation and cattle keeping at moderate densities 

are intrinsically quite compatible. In time, if populations are allowed to increase, the potential 

exists for both tourism and sustainable harvesting schemes 





Baillie, J. & Groombridge, B. (Eds.) 1996. 1996 IUCN Red list of threatened animals. IUCN, 

Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge. 

Davies G. & Vanden Berghe E. 1994. Checklist of the mammals of East Africa. East African 

Natural History Society, Nairobi. 

Dorst, J. & Dandelot, P. 1972. A field guide to the larger mammals of Africa. Collins, 

London. 

Eltringham, S.K. & Malpas, R.C. 1993. The conservation status of Uganda’s Game and 

Forest Reserves in 1982 and 1983. Afr. J. Ecol. 31:91-105. 

Eltringham, S.K., Malpas, R.C., & Tindigarukayo, J. 1992. The conservation status of 

Uganda’s Game and Forest Reserves in 1982-3. Uganda Institute of Ecology, Mweya. 

Kingdon, J. 1974a. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. I. University 

of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Kingdon, J. 1974b. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. II, Part B 

(Hares and rodents). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Kingdon, J. 1977. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. III, Part A 

(Carnivores). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Kingdon, J. 1979. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. III, Part B 

(Large mammals). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Kingdon, J. 1982a. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. III, Part C 

(Bovids). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Kingdon, J. 1982b. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. III, Part D 

(Bovids). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 






Kampala. 

Liebenberg, L. 1990. A field guide to the animal tracks of southern Africa. David Philip 

Publishers, Clairemont, South Africa. 

Stuart, C. & Stuart, T. 1994. A field guide to the tracks and signs of southern and East 

African wildlife. Southern Book Publishers, Cape Town. 

Walker, C. 1988. Signs of the wild: a field guide to the spoor and signs of the mammals of 

southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. 




4.0 SMALL FAUNA SURVEY (Julia Lloyd) 

4.1 Summary 

A survey of the fauna: small rodents; shrews; bats; reptiles; amphibians; and butterflies of 

Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve was conducted between October and December 1996 and April 

and June 1997. Standard and repeatable methods were used at six sampling sites. Preliminary 

identifications of the small fauna were made in the field, and confirmed by taxonomists at 

Makerere University. Twelve species of small rodent, three species of shrew, five species of 

bat, and 11 species of reptile were identified, representing 7.9% of the country’s diversity for 

these taxa. Further taxonomic work on specimens collected but not identified at the time of 

writing is likely to identify more species. 


4.2.1 Aims 

The small fauna survey aims to use standard and repeatable methods to: 

• collect baseline data on the presence of selected taxa of small fauna: small rodents; 

shrews; bats; reptiles; amphibians; and butterflies within the reserve; 

Specimens are curated at the Zoology Museum at Makerere University. Tissue (DNA) 

samples from snakes are submitted to the Institute of Population Biology at the University of 

Copenhagen. 


There are no previous studies of the small fauna of the reserve, although the small rodents, 

shrews, and butterflies of Napak and Kadam Forest Reserves were surveyed as part of the 

Forest Department’s Biodiversity Inventory Programme. Small rodents, shrews, bats, reptiles, 

and butterflies were surveyed throughout Karamoja by Pomeroy & Tushabe (1996) but they 

did not sample within the reserve, and their field data were not available at the time of 

writing. 

4.3 Overview of methods 

The survey was conducted in two phases from October to December 1996 and April to June 

1997. 

Volunteer research assistants were trained in appropriate animal capture and handling 

techniques, data recording, and in the use of appropriate field guides and keys. 

Small fauna from six taxonomic groups: small rodents; shrews; bats; reptiles; amphibians; 

and butterflies were surveyed using standard and repeatable methods. These groups were 

chosen for their ease of capture, preservation and identification. Furthermore they are likely 

to be indicators of overall diversity and habitat quality. Preliminary species identification was 

carried out in the field, and voucher specimens were taken of each species for confirmation of 

identification by taxonomists from the Department of Zoology, Makerere University. 




Small fauna were sampled at the sites depicted in Figure 4.1. Opportunistic records were also 

made throughout the reserve. 

Figure 4.1 Location of small fauna sampling sites in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Where possible, typical habitat preferences were determined for each species to enable 

interpretation of ecological relationships, and the East African countries (Kenya, Uganda and 

Tanzania) from which each has previously been recorded noted. Also, where known, the 

conservation status of each species is presented, although the status of many East African 

species is unknown as a result of little or poor information regarding distributions and habitat 

preferences (Bakamwesiga & Pomeroy, 1997). 

For mammals, where possible, the number of species captured was plotted against sampling 

effort to show species accumulation rates. This provides an indication of whether the 

documentation of diversity for each taxon is likely to be exhausted with respect to the 

sampling technique. 

4.4 Small rodents and shrews 

4.4.1 Introduction 

For a country of its size, Uganda possesses an ‘unusually rich rodent fauna’ (Delany, 1975) 

and is the third richest African country in shrew species (Nicoll & Rathbun, 1990). Small 

mammals play important ecological roles as prey species, seed dispersers and seed predators 

(Rabinowitz, 1993). They have an impact on humans as several species of rodents live in 

houses, potentially bringing disease, whereas others are pests of stored products (Delany & 

Happold, 1979). 

4.4.2 Aim 

To survey and document the small rodent and shrew diversity of the reserve. 

4.4.3 Methods 

Small mammal traps were used to sample diurnal, crepuscular, and nocturnal small 

mammals. Small snap traps (10.2 x 4.6cm), large Sherman (38 x 12 x 10cm), small Sherman 

(23 x 9 x 8cm) and Trip Traps (27 x 7 x 6cm; Proctor Bros. Ltd.) were placed in suitable 

habitats (e.g. at the bases of trees, under rocks, on branches) to target terrestrial and arboreal 

species. Traps were baited with a paste of peanuts, sweet banana, margarine, and maize flour 

and were checked twice daily. 




A line of pitfall traps was used to catch ground dwelling fauna not likely to be captured by the 

other traps. A row of ten buckets (34cm diameter, 35cm deep) was sunk to ground level at 5m 

intervals. Plastic sheeting was run vertically along the bucket row across the middle of each 

bucket to guide passing animals into the traps. Traps were checked twice daily. 

Animals captured opportunistically were also recorded. 

Field identification was carried out using Delany (1975) and Kingdon (1974ab). Voucher 

specimens were sent for confirmation of identification to Robert Kityo at the Department of 

Zoology, Makerere University. 

4.4.4 Results 

Small mammal traps and lines of pitfall traps were set the sites depicted in Figure 4.1. 

Sampling intensity and capture rates are shown in Table 4.1. 

Table 4.1 Sampling intensity and capture rates for small rodents and shrews in Pian- 

Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Sampling intensity Captures 

Capture rate 

(no. traps x no. nights) 

Small mammal traps 2,461 87 3.5% 

Pitfall traps 340 12 3.5/100 trap nights 

TOTAL - 99 - 




Twelve species of rodent (from three families) and three species of shrew were identified, as 

listed in Table 4.2. 

Table 4.2 Checklist of the small rodents and shrews of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Vernacular name Specific name Typical Range Status 

habitat 

Order Insectivora 

Family Soricidae: shrews 

Hildegarde’s musk shrew Crocidura hildegardeae f m c KUT DD 

Dwarf musk shrew C. nanilla s KU LR (LC) 

Climbing forest shrew Sylvisorex megalura m KUT DD 

Order Rodentia 

Family Cricetidae: Cricetid rats 

Southern pouched rat Saccostomus campestris s T DD 

Family Muridae: mice & rats 

Sahel spiny mouse Acomys cineraceus - U DD 

Grey spiny mouse A. percivali - KU DD 

Northern bush rat Aethomys hindei g s KUT LR (LC) 

Nile grass rat Arvicanthis niloticus g c KUT LR (LC) 

Barbary striped grass rat Lemniscomys barbarus g KUT DD 

Common striped grass rat L. striatus s g c h KUT LR (LC) 

N. savannah multimammate rat Mastomys hildebrandtii h c KUT LR (LC) 

Pygmy mouse sp. Mus sp. - - - 

African meadow rat Myomys fumatus s g KUT LR (LC) 

Rudd’s mouse Uranomys rudi - KU DD 

Family Myoxidae: dormice 

African common dormouse Graphiurus murinus w s h KUT LR (LC) 


Typical habitat from Delany (1975), Nicoll & Rathbun (1990), Kingdon (1974ab), and Rosevear (1969). 

Key 

Typical habitat 

f forest interior g grassland m moist 

fe forest edge s savannah c cultivation 

w woodland sw swamp h human habitation 

Range (East African countries from which the species is recorded by Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994)) 

K Kenya U Uganda T Tanzania 

Status (from Kityo, 1996) 

LR Low Risk LC Least Concern DD Data Deficient NE Not Evaluated 




The species accumulation rate for small rodents and shrews captured in small mammal traps 

is shown in Figure 4.2. 

Figure 4.2 Species accumulation rate for small rodents captured in small mammal traps 

in Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Number of species 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 

Sampling effort (trap nights) 

Unfortunately some shrew specimens remain unidentified at the time of writing, and thus 

species accumulation rates for shrews cannot be shown. There were insufficient data for the 

species accumulation rate for small rodents captured in pitfall traps to be shown. 

4.4.5 Discussion 

Figure 4.2 suggests that the collection of small rodents using this sampling technique is near 

completion in the habitats sampled. Sampling in additional habitats is likely to reveal further 

species. 

Shrews 

Crocidura hildegardeae is known to be widely distributed in the moister parts of East Africa 

(Kingdon, 1974a). 

Crocidura nanilla has been recorded in northern Uganda and northern Kenya (Kingdon, 

1974a), with more recent records from south-western Uganda (Dickenson & Kityo, 1996; 

Lloyd, 1997). 

Sylvisorex megalura occurs in moist localities at medium altitudes. It is recorded west to 

Niger and south to the Limpopo (Kingdon, 1974a). 

Cricetid rats 

Saccostomus campestris occurs in various savannah habitats, particularly in areas subject to 

regular burning. It feeds on Acacia pods, and makes it burrows near streams and rivers, which 

was where it was recorded in the reserve. It is distributed throughout East and southern Africa 

(Kingdon, 1974b), although this may be the first record for Uganda. 




Mice and rats 

Acomys are found in the drier parts of Africa, where they shelter in rocky crevices, termite 

mounds, cracked soil, or other rodents’ burrows (Kingdon 1974b). 

Aethomys hindei is a grassland species, common in cultivated areas. Its diet consists of grass 

seeds and crops such as yam, cassava and sweet potato (Kingdon, 1974b). 

Arvicanthis niloticus is a common and dominant grassland species, but is also associated with 

cultivated areas (Kingdon, 1974b). 

The herbivorous Lemniscomys striatus is one of the larger of the zebra mice. It is a dominant 

and successful species occupying a wide variety of grassy habitats and areas of human 

habitation, eating seeds and crops (Kingdon, 1974b; Rosevear, 1969). L. barbarus is typical 

of dry savannahs and steppes. Where L. barbarus and L. striatus co-exist, the former tends to 

live in scrubby areas where there is rapid run-off, while the latter lives in moister drainage 

lines where there is more dense vegetation (Kingdon, 1974b). 

Mastomys hildebrandtii was captured in grassland. Multimammate rats are ubiquitous in 

Africa as they are closely associated with human activity, usually living near houses and 

fields (Kingdon, 1974b). 

Africa’s smallest rodents, Mus, have been recorded in a range of habitats (Kingdon, 1974b). 

This species complex is currently being analysed to distinguish between five possible species 

in Uganda (Robert Kityo, pers. comm.). 

The insectivorous Uranomys ruddi is recorded from savannah in scattered locations from 

West, Central and East Africa (Kingdon, 1974b). 

Dormice 

The arboreal Graphiurus murinus occurs in all types of savannah and is common around 

houses and fields (Delany, 1975). It was recorded near the ranger post at Moruajore. 

The small rodents and shrews identified at the time of writing are typical of the locality and 

habitat types. Half are classed as ‘Data Deficient’ in the Ugandan context (Kityo, 1996). 




4.5 Bats 


Macrochiropterans (macro bats) play an important role as pollinators and seed dispersers for 

tropical plants including many useful to humans, and in some areas may be key species in the 

maintenance of natural vegetation (IUCN, 1992). Microchiropterans (micro bats) feed on 

insects (Kingdon, 1974b) which helps to control disease. 

4.5.2 Aim 

To survey and document the bat diversity of the reserve. 

4.5.3 Methods 

Mist nets were set across suitable flight paths. Different species hunt at different altitudes 

(Kingdon, 1974a) so the nets were set at various heights up to 10m to maximise the number 

of species captured. Different species also hunt at different times of night (Kingdon, 1974a) 

so the nets were observed constantly between dusk (1900 hours) and dawn (0600 hours). 

Bats captured opportunistically were also recorded. 

Field identification was carried out using Happold & Happold (1989), Kingdon (1974a) and 

Meester & Setzer (1971). Voucher specimens were sent for confirmation of identification to 

Robert Kityo at the Department of Zoology, Makerere University. 




4.5.4 Results 

Mist nets were set at the sites depicted in Figure 4.1. Sampling intensity was 8,316 metrehours. 

Six bats were captured giving a capture rate of 0.1/100 metre-hours. Two species of 

macro bat and three species of micro bat (from three families) were identified, as listed in 

Table 4.3. 

Table 4.3 Checklist of the bats of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Vernacular name Specific name Typical 

Range 

Status 

habitat 

Order Macrochiroptera 

Family Pteropodidae: fruit bats 

Subfamily Pteropodinae 

Little epauletted fruit bat Epomophorus labiatus fe w s c KUT DD 

Pygmy epauletted fruit bat E. minimus fe w s c KUT DD 

Order Microchiroptera 

Family Nycteridae: slit-faced bats 

Hairy slit-faced bat Nycteris hispida varied h KUT LR (LC) 

Family Vespertilionidae: vesper bats 

African giant house bat Scotophilus nigrita f w s KT DD 

Family Molossidae: free-tailed bats 

Little free-tailed bat Chaerophon pumila h KUT LR (LC) 


Typical habitat from Kingdon (1974a). 

Key 

Typical Habitat 




Range (East African countries from which the species is recorded by Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994)) 


Status (from Kityo, 1996) 


There are insufficient data for the species accumulation rate to be shown. 


In dense vegetation bats are channelled along flight paths and mist nets strung across them are 

hard to detect amongst the vegetation. In the open habitats of the reserve, however, capture 

rates are low as bats were not restricted to flight paths and are more likely to detect and avoid 

the mist nets. Sampling in additional habitats is likely to reveal further species. 

Macro bats 

Epomophorine bats are exclusively African, and have radiated into eight species, with 

Epomophorus exhibiting several ‘size classes’ (Kingdon, 1974a). The Epomophorus gambius 

complex includes the smallest size class, E. labiatus and the lower middle size class, E. 

minimus. 




Micro bats 

The range of forms within the micro bats is greater than any other taxon of mammals (Delany 

& Happold, 1979). Eight families are represented in East Africa (Davies & Vanden Berghe, 

1994), three of which were represented in the reserve. 

Nycterid bats roost in papyrus crowns, holes, termite mounds, and buildings, and exploit the 

food sources of reedbeds, thickets, and dense undergrowth (Kingdon, 1974a). Nycteris 

hispida was recorded from roofs at the ranger post at Moruajore. 

Scotophilus nigrita was recorded by the Greek River. It has also been recorded in Katonga 

Wildlife Reserve (Lloyd, 1997), but these are among the first known specimens of this 

species for Uganda (Robert Kityo, pers. comm.). It is classed as ‘Low Risk: near threatened’ 

in the 1996 Red List, although it is not listed for Uganda (Baillie & Groombridge, 1996), and 

Kityo (1996) classes it as ‘Data Deficient’ in the Ugandan context. 

Chaerophon pumila is a widely distributed species, familiar through having colonised roofs 

in almost every African town (Kingdon, 1974a). 

The bats are typical of the locality and habitat types. Three are classed as ‘Data Deficient’ in 

the Ugandan context (Kityo, 1996). 

4.6 Reptiles 


Reptiles have not been comprehensively studied in Uganda (Mathius Behangana, pers. 

comm.), and the status of the majority of East African reptiles has not yet been evaluated. 

Reptiles have an important role in the ecosystem, many consuming insects and vermin that 

may carry diseases. 

4.6.2 Aim 

To survey and document the reptile diversity of the reserve. 

4.6.3 Methods 

Lines of pitfall traps were established to catch ground dwelling fauna (see section 4.4.3). 

Reptiles were also captured opportunistically by hand, except for potentially poisonous 

snakes. 

Field identification of reptiles was carried out using Broadley & Howell (1991), Branch 

(1988) and Hedges (1983). Voucher specimens were sent for confirmation of identification to 

Mathius Behangana at the Department of Zoology, Makerere University. 




4.6.4 Results 

Lines of pitfall traps were set at the sites depicted in Figure 4.1. Sampling intensity was 340 

trap nights. Fifteen reptiles were captured, giving a capture rate of 4.4/100 trap nights. Four 

reptiles were captured opportunistically. Eight species of lizard (from four families) and three 

species of snake (from two families) were identified, as listed in Table 4.4. 

Table 4.4 Checklist of the reptiles of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Vernacular name Specific name Typical 

habitat 

Range 

Order Sauria 

Family Gekkonidae: geckos 

Chevron-throated dwarf gecko Lygodactylus gutturalis - KUT NE 

Family Scincidae: skinks 

NE 

Subfamily Scincinae 

Burrowing skink sp. Scelotes sp. - - - 

Subfamily Lygosomatinae 

Rainbow skink Mabuya quinquetaeniata KUT NE 

Common stripped skink M. striata - KUT NE 

Family Agamidae: agamas 

Common agama Agama agama KUT NE 

Family Chamaeleonidae: chameleons 

Chameleon sp. Chamaeleo sp. - - - 

Family Lacertidae 

Scrub-lizard sp. 

Nucrus sp. 

Family Varanidae: monitors 

SE savannah monitor lizard Varanus albigularis - KUT NE 

Order Serpentes 

Family Boidae: pythons & boas 

Subfamily Pythoninae 

African rock python Python sebae s KUT NE 

Subfamily Viperinae 

Puff adder Bitis arietans s KUT NE 

Family Colubridae: colubrid snakes 

Subfamily Lamprophiinae 

Water snake sp. Lycodonomorphus sp. - - - 

Nomenclature and taxonomy follow Broadley & Howell (1991). 

Typical habitat from Branch (1988) and Broadley & Howell (1991). 

Key 

Habitat 




Range (East African countries from which the species is recorded by Howell (undated)) 


Status (Mathius Behangana, pers. comm.) 


Status 

Unfortunately, some specimens remain unidentified at the time of writing. Sampling in 

additional habitats is likely to reveal further species. 





Lizards 

Skinks were the most commonly recorded reptile. Mabuya become accustomed to human 

activity quickly, and are common in areas of human habitation (Capula, 1989). 

Snakes 

Python sebae, Africa’s largest snake, is understandably feared by local people, being the only 

snake to consider humans edible (Branch, 1988). 

Bitis arietans, Africa’s most poisonous snake, is also widely feared (Hedges, 1983). 

The reptiles are typical of the locality and habitat types. None have been evaluated with 

regard to conservation status. 

4.7 Amphibians 


Amphibians have not been comprehensively studied in Uganda (Mathius Behangana, pers. 

comm.), and the status of the majority of East African amphibians has not yet been evaluated. 

Amphibians are ecologically important, being predators of insects, some of which are pests to 

crops or vectors of disease. Amphibians are also now recognised as sensitive environmental 

indicators: impact on their habitat is reflected by a change in abundance and diversity in a 

short time (Behangana, 1995). 

4.7.2 Aim 

To survey and document the amphibian diversity of the reserve. 

4.7.3 Methods 

Lines of pitfall traps were established to catch ground dwelling fauna (see section 4.4.3). 

Amphibians were also collected opportunistically by hand, particularly when calling in the 

evenings. 

Field identification was carried out using Schiøtz (1975) and Stewart (1967). Voucher 

specimens were sent for confirmation of identification to Mathius Behangana at the 

Department of Zoology, Makerere University. 

4.7.4 Results 

Lines of pitfall traps were set at the sites depicted in Figure 4.1. Sampling intensity was 340 

trap nights. Unfortunately, all of the specimens remain unidentified at the time of writing. 




4.8 Butterflies 


Perhaps the most widely appreciated butterflies are the swallowtails, birdwings and their 

allies, Papilionidae, which have recently received substantial conservation attention. 

Members of this family occur in association with most vegetation types, with many species 

having very precise environmental requirements. Therefore, some butterflies have 

considerable potential for use as indicator species as their incidence and abundance reflect 

small degrees of habitat change (Collins & Morris, 1985). Moreover, butterflies are not only 

of conservation value, but are also attractive to tourists. 

4.8.2 Aim 

To survey and document the butterfly diversity of the reserve with reference to habitat type. 

4.8.3 Methods 

Five fine mesh Blendon traps were baited with a variety of rotting fruits including banana, 

pawpaw and pineapple. The nets were hung from trees at heights between 0.5 and 1m above 

the ground. Hand held sweep nets were used to collect species of butterflies not captured in 

the Blendon traps. 

Field identification of butterflies was carried out using Migdoll (1992). Voucher specimens 

were sent for confirmation of identification to Patrick Etyang at the Department of Zoology, 

Makerere University. 

4.8.4 Results 

Butterfly traps were set at the sites depicted in Figure 4.1. Sweep netting was carried out there 

and opportunistically throughout the reserve. Unfortunately, all of the specimens remain 

unidentified at the time of writing. 





The reserve has a diverse small fauna which comprises over 7.9% of the country’s small 

rodents, shrews, bats, and reptiles as shown in Table 4.5. 

Table 4.5 Diversity by taxon of the small fauna of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve 

Taxon 

No. of species 

No. of species 

% 

recorded in PUWR recorded in Uganda 

Small rodents 12 74 † 16.2 

Shrews >3 35 † >8.6 

Bats 5 90 † 5.6 

Reptiles >11 191 ‡ >5.8 

TOTAL >31 390 >7.9 

† 

Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994) 

‡ 

Pomeroy & Tushabe (1996) 

Although species accumulation rates indicate that collection of small rodents is near 

completion in the habitats sampled, both further field work and taxonomic work on 

specimens already collected is likely to identify more species. The small fauna identified at 

the time of writing is typical of the locality and the grassland, riverine woodland, and kopje 

habitats of the reserve, or is associated with human presence and cultivation. 

Endemism is low in Uganda (IUCN, 1986) due to the overlap of biogeographic zones and no 

endemics were recorded. No species of particular conservation concern were recorded, 

although the conservation status of many species is yet to be assessed. 





Baillie, J. & Groombridge, B. (Eds.) 1996. 1996 IUCN Red list of threatened animals. IUCN, 

Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge. 

Bakamwesiga, H. & Pomeroy, D. 1997. The seventh Regional Biodiversity Meeting. 

Makerere University Institute of Environment & Natural Resources, Kampala. 

Behangana, M. 1995. The status of amphibians in Rwenzori Mountains, western Uganda. 

M.Sc. thesis. Makerere University, Kampala. 

Branch, B. 1988 A field guide to the snakes and other reptiles of southern Africa. New 

Holland Publ. Ltd., Cape Town. 

Broadley, D.G. & Howell, K.M. 1991. Syntarsus - a check list of the reptiles of Tanzania, 

with synoptic keys. National Museum & Monuments of Zimbabwe, Bulawayo. 

Capula, M. 1989. Guide to the reptiles and amphibians of the world. Simon & Schuster Inc., 

New York. 

Collins, N.M. & Morris, M.G. 1985. Threatened swallowtail butterflies of the world: the 

IUCN Red Data Book. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 

Davies, G. & Vanden Berghe, E. 1994. Checklist of the mammals of East Africa. East 

African Natural History Society, Nairobi. 

Delany, M.J. 1975. The rodents of Uganda. Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), 

London. 

Delany, M.J. & Happold, D.C.D. 1979. Ecology of African mammals. Longman Group Ltd., 

London. 

Dickenson, C. & Kityo, R.M. 1996. Small mammals. In: T. Davenport, P.C. Howard, & R. 

Matthews (Eds.), Mujuzi, Ssesse Islands, and Jubiya Forest Reserves: biodiversity 

report. Biodiversity Inventory Programme Report No. 23, Forest Department, 

Kampala. 

Happold, D.C.D. & Happold, M. 1989. The bats (Chiroptera) of Malawi, Central Africa: 

checklist and keys for identification. Nyala 142:89-112. 

Hedges, N.G. 1983. Reptiles and amphibians of East Africa. Kenya Literature Bureau, 

Nairobi. 

Howell, K.M. (undated). Draft checklist of East African reptiles. Unpublished paper. 

IUCN. 1986. Review of the protected areas system in the Afrotropical realm. IUCN, Gland, 

Switzerland. 

IUCN. 1992. Old world fruit bats: an action plan for their conservation. IUCN, Gland, 

Switzerland. 

Kingdon, J. 1974a. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. II, Part A 

(Insectivores and bats). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Kingdon, J. 1974b. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. II, Part B 

(Hares and rodents). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Kityo, R.M. 1996. Draft red data list for Ugandan mammals. Unpublished paper. 




Lloyd. J. 1997. Small fauna survey. In: K.L. Zwick (Ed.), Katonga Wildlife Reserve: 

biological and socio-economic survey (II). Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas 

Project Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9. The Society for Environmental 

Exploration, London & Uganda Wildlife Authority, Kampala. 

Meester, J. & Setzer, H.W. 1971. The mammals of Africa: an identification manual. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 

Migdoll, I. 1992. Field guide to the butterflies of southern Africa. New Holland Publ. Ltd., 

London. 

Nicoll, M.E. & Rathbun, G.B. 1990. African Insectivora and elephant shrews: an action plan 

for their conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 

Pomeroy, D. & Tushabe, H. 1996. Biodiversity of Karamoja: Part One: ground surveys, 

results and analyses. Makerere University Institute of Environment & Natural 

Resources, Kampala. 

Rabinowitz, A. 1993. Wildlife field research and conservation training manual. The Wildlife 

Conservation Society, Conservation International, New York. 

Rosevear, D. 1969. The rodents of West Africa. Trustees of the British Museum (Natural 

History), London. 

Schiøtz, A. 1975. The treefrogs of eastern Africa. Steenstrupia, Copenhagen. 

Stewart, M. 1967. Amphibians of Malawi. State University of New York Press, Albany, New 

York. 

Personal Communications 

Mathius Behangana (MSc), Dept. of Zoology, Makerere University, PO Box 7062, Kampala. 

Robert Kityo (MSc), Dept. of Zoology, Makerere University, PO Box 7062, Kampala. 




5.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY (Karen L. Zwick) 

5.1 Summary 

A brief socio-economic survey of the communities living around the Pian-Upe Wildlife 

Reserve was conducted in November and December 1996. Rapid and Participatory Rural 

Appraisal (R/PRA) methods were used in two primarily Sebei villages, Chepsikunya and 

Seryoto, and two Pian villages, Lopedot and Lomorimor. The main issues identified were 

insecurity and poor food security. In addition, the reserve was identified as an important 

source of many natural resources for the Pian in particular. Attitudes towards UWA and 

conservation are relatively positive, although the Pian and the Pokot have the upper hand, and 

the major threat remains poaching. A potential conflict between development and 

conservation objectives is a resettlement project in the part of the Sebei CWA recommended 

for inclusion in a new National Park. 


5.2.1 Aims 

The socio-economic survey aims to: 

• collect baseline sociological and economic data on the communities living around the 

reserve; 

• collect data on the use of the reserve’s natural resources by local people; and 

• investigate attitudes towards and awareness of the reserve and conservation issues. 

5.2.2 Community conservation and the 1996 wildlife statute 

There is growing recognition that although traditional-style exclusive protected areas can be a 

vital part of a national conservation strategy, on their own they are largely failing to conserve 

wild animals and plants adequately throughout the world, and perhaps most so in Africa 

(Makombe, 1994). Such protected areas allow for very restricted, if any, human use of the 

natural resources within them, and the restrictions are targeted at the rural people living in the 

immediate vicinity, who are often very poor. The costs of these restrictions to these people 

are often unbearable, and in much of Africa, rural life within the law is just not possible 

(Pangeti, 1992). The realisation that wild animals and plants will continue to be utilised, 

either legally or illegally, has lead to a shift in focus away from protected areas defended from 

a country’s own citizens by paramilitary law enforcement organisations to the development of 

multiple resource use areas, where a range of sustainable uses of the natural resources are 

permitted with a view to balancing conservation objectives with the day to day and 

development needs of local communities. 

Fraser Stewart (1992) recognised that local participation was critical to sustainable PA 

management and conservation in Uganda, and, while ownership of all wildlife is still vested 

in the state, the 1996 wildlife statute makes extensive provisions for wildlife use rights for 

both individuals and communities. Although a defensive and protectionist ethic still pervades 

among the old guard, newly recruited UWA wardens are committed to the management of 

protected areas to benefit local communities, and every PA now has at least one warden 

dedicated to community conservation. 





There are no previous studies specifically of the peoples of the reserve and its immediate 

environs or their use of natural resources. Karamojong society has been described in detail by 

Dyson-Hudson (1966), Cisternino (1979), and Novelli (1988) among others, and Ocan (1994) 

describes many of the current problems of the region, while Wilson (1962) briefly describes 

various uses of the plants of the region. 

5.2.4 People and history 

The reserve is surrounded by five ethnic groups: the Pian Karamojong to the north and east, 

the Pokot to the south-east, the Sebei to the south, the Iteso to the west, and the Tepes high on 

Napak and Kadam. All are nilotic or nilo-hamitic in origin (Nzita & Mbaga, 1995; Ocan, 

1994). 

Rainfall around the reserve is not as low as it is further north and east in Karamoja, but it is 

both highly variable and unpredictable in its spatial and temporal distribution. All of these 

peoples are traditionally primarily subsistence pastoralists or agro-pastoralists, whose survival 

strategies rely on moving their herds in space and time to find the pasture and water they need 

to maximise productivity. The Pokot are nomadic; entire families move wherever there is 

pasture and water. The Pian practice transhumance; the men move west with their cattle 

through the reserve towards Lake Opeta as the dry season progresses, while the women and 

children remain in permanent settlements in the east. The more benign climate to the west in 

Teso reduces the need for mobility, and many people there are settled, as are the Sebei and 

the Tepes, who in recent times have had their cattle raided by the more heavily armed and 

warlike Pian, other Karamojong, and Pokot, and who now must cultivate in order to survive 

(Ocan, 1994; Nzita & Mbaga, 1995; KWMP, 1996). 

The agricultural potential of the area around the reserve is limited to annual crops, except for 

Napak, Kadam, and a small fertile and well watered area at the base of Kadam, near Namalu, 

where some perennial crops can be grown (Wilson, 1962). The traditional staple foods are 

sorghum, finger millet, and bulrush millet, although new crops have been introduced more 

recently, reducing the impact of disease and pest attack. However, the wet (growing) season 

is very short and the dry season very severe, with minor droughts approximately every third 

year, and major ones approximately once a decade so a survival strategy based on cultivation 

alone is a risky one. In recent times, however, many of the people of the area have been 

forced to take this option as the number of cattle has declined, and those remaining have 

fallen into the hands a few powerful warlords (Wilson, 1985; Knutsson, 1985). 

Cattle densities in and around the reserve (mostly Pian) reached their highest in the early 

1960s as a result of the loss of Pian and other Karamojong grazing lands through decisions 

made by the colonial administration, coupled with increases in numbers due to the advent of 

modern veterinary medicine and the indiscriminate construction of artificial watering points. 

The cattle exceeded the capacity of the vegetation to support them sustainably, especially 

around the new watering points and in areas where dispersal was curtailed by veterinary 

cordons. The overgrazing led to changes in the vegetation, which became less productive and 

less able to protect the soil from erosion, which further reduced productivity. It also reduced 

the standing biomass such that there was insufficient fuel for regular dry season burning, 

which further served to hasten the induced negative vegetation changes (Alnwick, 1985; 

Wilson, 1985; Wilson, 1962). 




The number of cattle owned is the most important thing to most pastoralists, who to rely on 

them for their intermediate products (milk and blood) rather than their terminal products for 

subsistence, and for whom they act as a mobile store of wealth in an uncertain environment, 

most commonly exchanged for brides, but also for grain in times of need. Because of this, 

and because pasture is held in common, no individual Pian would consider limiting the 

number of cattle he owned, and thus numbers continued to grow while the capacity of the 

vegetation to support them decreased. Eventually this led to trespass of cattle into 

neighbouring areas, which led to increased violence, in the form of raiding, between groups 

(Alnwick, 1985; Wilson, 1962). 

Traditionally, raiding had served to restock herds after disaster and redistribute wealth, so that 

most families had enough cattle for subsistence purposes, and checks were made on the 

wealth of any one individual. It also allowed young men to accumulate the cattle necessary 

for marriage, and served to identify allegiances. The advent of modern weaponry, which came 

to raiding in Karamoja in 1959, changed all this. Some control was kept on the situation until 

Idi Amin came to power in 1971, when law and order effectively broke down throughout the 

country. In Karamoja, human lives were lost in unprecedented numbers, and the balance of 

power between groups was altered dramatically (Cisternino, 1985; Wilson, 1985). The Sebei 

and Iteso peoples neighbouring Karamoja lost all of their livestock to the Pian, other 

Karamojong, and Pokot, and many fled the border areas and turned to cultivation (Nzita & 

Mbaga, 1995). The Tepes too lost all of their livestock, but remained in the mountains, 

unable to escape. Around the reserve, relations between the Pian and Pokot, which had never 

been good, deteriorated further (Ocan, 1994; Wilson, 1985). Cattle numbers dropped quickly 

as a result of the violence, and as veterinary medicine became unavailable and artificial 

watering points fell into disrepair. In 1979 Amin’s retreating army and the advancing 

Tanzanian forces killed huge numbers of cattle and wildlife before Amin’s troops left the 

armoury at Moroto open, releasing some 2,000 more automatic weapons for use in raids. 

Rather than being a source of security, cattle could now be stolen or scattered at any time, and 

the majority of Pian and Pokot families soon found themselves without access to their main 

source of food, and were forced to rely on cultivation (Wilson, 1985; Ocan, 1994). 

The unreliability of cultivation as a survival strategy in Karamoja was made worse during the 

1970s as insecurity limited the area that could be planted and often resulted in seed being 

stolen or destroyed. Because of the risk of raiding, all of the cattle of those families which 

still had them were taken with the men (and guns) in the dry season, leaving the women and 

children with no access to milk and blood. When crops failed, those families with cattle were 

unable to find buyers, and those with money unable to find grain for sale, due to a complete 

breakdown in commerce in the country. Between 1964 and 1979 food relief was distributed 

in Karamoja in ten out of the 16 years (Alnwick, 1985), and in 1980 poor rains, in addition to 

the existing problems, led to severe famine: despite international aid, approximately 50,000 

people died of starvation in the region (Biellik & Henderson, 1985). 




Between 1957 and 1980, while the human population of Karamoja doubled, its cattle 

population more than halved (Cisternino, 1985). This reduction of grazing pressure, coupled 

with the removal of huge amounts of woody vegetation by impoverished people reduced to 

producing charcoal to make a living served to inadvertently and unexpectedly reverse the 

negative vegetation changes of the recent past (Wilson, 1985). However, guns and the 

associated violence remain an important part of contemporary life, leaving 80-90% of the 

people without cattle, their traditional source of subsistence (Knutsson, 1985). The cultivation 

upon which these people have been forced to rely is as precarious as ever, and the food 

security situation remains poor. Traditional society is under threat as the authority of elders is 

undermined by young warlords, and the situation is widely perceived to be that of a crisis, 

with the land unable to sustain its peoples, and violence rife (Ocan, 1994). In 1990 a 

development plan for the region was produced; it’s short term goal is to meet the basic 

biological demands of people and cattle (UNSO, 1990). 

The region remains very underdeveloped however, with the average income in Karamoja just 

20% of that of the rest of Uganda (UNSO, 1990), and minimal opportunities for formal sector 

employment. Government services are minimal: for example, Moroto and Kotido districts are 

respectively ranked last and third last in the country in terms of primary schools per capita, 

and second last and last respectively in terms of secondary schools per capita (Rwabwoogo, 

1995), with only 30% of school aged children actually enrolled in 1983 (Cisternino, 1985). 

Literacy rates are just 18% for men and 5% for women (Dodge, 1986). 

The reserve is primarily used for pasture and water by the Pian, particularly in the dry season, 

although there are some settlements near Napak in the north and an area of cultivation west of 

Namalu which encroach (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996ab). Underdevelopment and the 

traditional lifestyles of most of the peoples living around the reserve mean that many rely 

heavily on the natural resources around them for fuel, construction materials, materials for 

utensils, traditional medicines, wild collected foods, etc. (KWMP, 1996). Almost 150 uses 

for wild plants were documented by Wilson (1962), and over fifty described by local Pian in 

villages near Namalu (KWMP, 1996), although the impact of this use has not been evaluated. 

In addition, a wide variety of wildlife is hunted for meat and other products, primarily by the 

Pian (KWMP, 1996) and the widespread use of automatic weapons by often hungry people 

has had obvious effects on the wildlife resources of the area, although local communities still 

suffer from crop damage and livestock loss by wildlife (KWMP, 1996). 

5.3 Methods 

The survey was conducted in November and December 1996. 

The reserve falls within the jurisdiction of the Karamoja Wildlife Management Project 

(KWMP), and thus the current survey was undertaken in conjunction with it, as well as with 

the reserve’s Community Conservation Warden (CCW). Preliminary background discussions 

were held with the CCW and locally recruited Community Conservation Rangers (CCRs) to 

establish priorities and refine the focus of the survey. 

The survey focused on the communities closest to Moruajore where people were most 

familiar with the reserve staff. Local people CCRs from the communities visited were used as 

translators, and the volunteer research assistants were trained in the methods used as the 

survey progressed, and guided by the Socio-economics Co-ordinator. 




5.3.1 Rapid and Participatory Rural Appraisal 

The methods of appraisal employed in this survey follow the general approaches and methods 

grouped under the headings of Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) and Participatory Rural 

Appraisal (PRA), as developed by organisations such as the Institute of Development Studies 

and the International Institute for the Environment and Development. 

RRA developed from both a dissatisfaction with more traditional techniques of investigating 

rural life, such as questionnaires and surveys, which tend to be tedious and unreliable, and a 

desire to tap into indigenous technical knowledge to increase the efficiency with which 

development professionals and others could acquire this information. It seeks to enable 

outsiders to gain information and insight from rural people themselves about rural conditions. 

This information is then taken away for analysis and presentation (Chambers, 1992). 

PRA is based on RRA and other fields, and seeks to move beyond RRA. PRA draws on the 

philosophies of activist participatory research, which seeks to enhance self awareness and self 

confidence and thus empower people by allowing them to conduct their own analyses of their 

own reality. It absorbed techniques such as transect walking, informal mapping, and 

diagramming from agro-ecosystems analysis, and from applied anthropology it absorbed the 

importance of attitude, behaviour, and rapport, as well as the ideas of the etic - the mental 

frame, categories, and world view of the outsider - and the emic - those of the insider. In 

contrast to RRA, PRA seeks not to elicit information for use by an outsider but to stimulate 

community awareness, with the outsider’s role being that of a catalyst which starts a process 

off but lets it follow its own course. The investigation, analysis, and presentation of 

information is by rural people themselves (Chambers, 1992). 

Both RRA and PRA stress the importance of listening and learning directly from rural people 

themselves, of seeking out the opinions of those who might otherwise go unheard, of using 

flexible, open-ended methodologies and being receptive to improvisation, and of self 

awareness and constant self criticism on the part of the outsider (Chambers, 1992). RRA 

tends to be used in academic work for learning by outsiders who require information for some 

purpose of their own. PRA tends to be used by development workers who seek to empower 

the rural people with whom they are working, and the information collected remains with the 

community, and is used to create an action plan. In practise, of course, there is a continuum 

between the two extremes. 

This survey was just that, a survey, in which the information collected was taken away for 

analysis by an outsider. No specific actions were planned to follow on from this work, and 

ongoing conflicts of interest between the people under survey and UWA, the commissioning 

institution, preclude any real empowerment: as such the appraisal was not truly participatory. 

However, given the existing situation of suspicion and mistrust of government and outside 

authority, the patience and honesty inherent in participatory approaches seemed the best way 

to develop mutual trust and respect (Mason & Danso, 1995). 




5.3.2 Community and group meetings 

These were arranged in advance through community leaders and usually took place under a 

shade tree in the centre of the village. Discussion was facilitated by the Socio-economics Coordinator, 

who also introduced Frontier-Uganda and explained the aims and methods of the 

entire survey programme. To avoid creating false expectations, care was also taken to explain 

what Frontier-Uganda could not do. Participation was sought from all sectors of the 

community, particularly women, and the community was encouraged to ask questions of the 

survey team and CCW. At the end of each meeting the CCW took some time to explain and 

interpret the new wildlife statute. 

Although the survey aims remained consistent, discussions were open-ended and community 

led: topics covered included lifestyles and subsistence activities, including problems 

associated with these, general problems and development issues, the use of natural resources 

in and around the reserve, and attitudes towards and awareness of the reserve and 

conservation issues. Elders and long-term residents were asked to provide historical context 

by outlining the history of the settlement and describing trends in natural resources, and maps 

of local features and natural resources of importance were constructed. Using a variety of 

techniques allowed triangulation to check the consistency of the information provided. 

5.4 Results 

Four communities were visited: two primarily Sebei villages, Chepsikunya and Seryoto, to 

the south of the reserve on the main road to Mbale, and two Pian villages, Lopedot and 

Lomorimor, near Namalu, where the KWMP had earlier held a three day PRA exercise 

(KWMP, 1996). Unfortunately, as result of food security problems in the area during the 

second work phase, the socio-economic survey was terminated early and little more than 

introductory work was completed. 

5.4.1 Chepsikunya and Seryoto 

The major issue identified in Chepsikunya and Seryoto was the insecurity, which had resulted 

in the Sebei people moving away from the area and switching from pastoralism to cultivation 

and charcoal production as a consequence of losing all of their cattle to the Pian and Pokot. 

People had only recently returned to the area under the protection of the army and were still 

apprehensive. They were being assisted by an OED funded resettlement project which was 

rehabilitating local government buildings and infrastructure and assisting with ground 

breaking and plowing, but despite this, in the absence of cattle, food security was still a 

concern, as crops were often damaged by wildlife and sometimes failed. Food security 

problems were made worse by the loss of small stock to wildlife. Charcoal production was a 

major source of revenue for many residents: although there was some concern over the 

sustainability of this, most people felt they had no other options in the short term. 

5.4.2 Lopedot and Lomorimor 

The major issue identified in Lopedot and Lomorimor was also the insecurity, which had 

caused loss of life and cattle. Along with crop damage and livestock loss by wildlife, the loss 

of cattle contributed to food security problems, which were a concern. There was also anxiety 

about the presence of the survey team itself, and fears about loss of land or access to it. 




5.4.3 Resource use 

Use of the reserve varies by ethnic group. Because the Sebei to the south fear the Pian and the 

Pokot, and because the natural resources around them are relatively unexploited, they rarely 

enter the reserve, although they are aware of resources within it such as honey and fish. 

Discussions with the CCW and CCRs revealed that the Iteso people to the west and the Tepes 

on Napak and Kadam do not often enter the reserve either, again because they fear the Pian 

and the Pokot. The Tepes, who are not wanted on the plains by the Pian and other 

Karamojong, are under pressure from the Forest Department to move out of the Forest 

Reserves, but thus far the FD has shown less resolve than the Karamojong, and so they 

remain in the mountains. The Pokot use the reserve primarily as a raiding corridor, keeping 

their cattle outside the reserve to the east, as confirmed by Lamprey & Michelmore (1996ab). 

However, while travelling through the reserve on raids both they and the Pian kill 

considerable numbers of wildlife for meat. 

The Pian used the reserve the most intensively, primarily for pasture and water for their cattle, 

but also for a number of other resources, including fuelwood, poles, thatching grass, binding 

fibres, fencing materials, materials for utensils, traditional medicines, and wild collected 

foods, including honey and fish, as well as wildlife for meat and other products. Fuelwood, 

thatching grass, traditional medicines, honey, fish, and bush meat and other animal products 

were all exploited for sale (revenue generation) as well as for domestic use (see also KWMP, 

1996). 

5.4.4 Attitudes towards the reserve 

Attitudes towards the UWA staff and their initial return to Moruajore were generally very 

positive. People hoped that their presence would improve security, and that they would be 

able to assist in controlling problem animals and vermin. However, people felt that the 

rangers needed to be more heavily armed to be really effective against cattle raiders and 

poachers. As long as it could be kept out of villages (!), most people had positive attitudes 

towards wildlife, and Pian elders recounted how in the past their cattle used to graze with 

wildlife, and how this was a good thing, because the wildlife ‘took half the diseases’. 


Insecurity and food security impact directly on the possibilities for both development and 

conservation in and around the reserve. Under current conditions it is almost impossible for 

local people to plan for the future or to take control of their own destinies, although a strong 

UWA presence could make a difference. While all are in favour of the theory of community 

conservation, implementing it in a situation where the components of the ‘community’ are 

virtually at war with one another will prove challenging… 





The reserve is still of undoubted conservation value, and for the Pian in particular it is an 

important source of resources, not only for domestic use, but also for sale, particularly in 

times of hardship. Although attitudes towards UWA and conservation are relatively positive, 

it is clear that the Pian and Pokot have the upper hand, and the major threat remains the 

continued use of automatic weapons by hungry people against wildlife. Until the issues of 

insecurity and food security (which are both results and causes of each other) are addressed 

and resolved, its value will continue to decline, and opportunities for development will be 

few. A potential conflict between development and conservation objectives is the OED 

funded resettlement project in the part of the Sebei CWA recommended for inclusion in a 

new National Park. 





Alnwick, D.J. 1985. The 1980 famine in Karamoja. Photocopied paper, pp. 127-144. 

Biellik, R.J. & Henderson, P.L. 1985. Mortality, nutritional status and diet during the famine 

in Karamoja, Uganda, 1980. Photocopied paper, pp. 145-154. 

Chambers, R. 1992. Rural appraisal: rapid, relaxed, and participatory. Institute of 

Development Studies Discussion Paper 311. Institute of Development Studies, 

Brighton. 

Cisternino, M. 1979. Karamoja: the human zoo. Ph.D. thesis, University of Swansea. 

Cisternino, M. 1985. Famine and food relief in Karamoja. Photocopied paper, pp. 155-161. 

Dodge, C.P. 1986. Health Services. Photocopied paper. 

Dyson-Hudson, N. 1966. Karamojong politics. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 

Fraser Stewart, J.W. 1992. Integrated local rural communities with Protected Area 

management in Uganda. Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife & Antiquities, Kampala & 

Food & Agriculture Organisation, Rome. 

Knutsson, K. 1985. Preparedness for disaster operations. Photocopied paper, pp. 183-189. 

KWMP. 1996. The abandoned cows: resource use and conflict around Pian-Upe Wildlife 

Reserve: Participatory Rural Appraisal report. Karamoja Wildlife Management 

Project, Moroto. 






Kampala. 

Makombe, K. (Ed.) 1994. Sharing the land: wildlife, people and development in Africa. 

IUCN Regional Office for Southern Africa in association with IUCN Sustainable Use 

of Wildlife Programme, Harare. 

Mason, J.J., & Danso, E.Y. 1995. PRA for people and parks: the case of Mole National Park, 

Ghana. International Institute for the Environment and Development Sustainable 

Agriculture Programme PLA Notes No. 22 pp. 76-79. International Institute for 

Environment and Development, London. 

Novelli, B. 1988. Aspects of Karamojong ethnosociology. Museum Comboniam No. 44, 

Comboni Missionaries, Verona. 

Nzita, R. & Mbaga, N. 1995. Peoples and cultures of Uganda. Fountain, Kampala. 

Ocan, C. 1994. Pastoral crisis and social change in Karamoja. In: M. Mamdani & J. Oloka- 

Onyango (Eds.), Uganda: studies in living conditions, popular movements, and 

constitutionalism, Journal für Entwicklungspolitik, Vienna. 

Pangeti, G.N. 1992. Community participation in rural development and natural resource 

conservation. In: T. Matiza & H.N. Chabwela (Eds.), Wetlands conservation 

conference for southern Africa. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 




Rwabwoogo, M.O. 1995. Uganda districts information handbook. Fountain, Kampala. 

UNSO. 1990. Karamoja Development Plan. UNSO/UGA/89/X 53. Government Printer, 

Entebbe. 

Wilson, J.G. 1962. The vegetation of Karamoja District, Northern Province of Uganda. 

Memoirs of the Research Division Series 2 - Vegetation, Number 5. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Uganda Protectorate, Kampala. 





6.0 CONCLUSIONS 

Despite limited sampling, the reserve was found to have a rich and diverse flora and fauna, 

largely typical of the locality and vegetation and habitat types. These are of enormous 

conservation value as they cover a large area and are essentially undisturbed, ironically, as a 

result of insecurity. The large mammal fauna includes almost a quarter (24%) of the country’s 

large mammal species, over a third (35%) of which are listed as ‘conservation dependent’ or 

‘near threatened’ in the 1996 Red List while others, such as zebra, are of national 

conservation interest. 

The main issues facing local communities are insecurity and poor food security, which 

directly impact on the possibilities for both development and conservation. In particular, 

insecurity and poor food security continue to pose a major threat to the large mammal fauna, 

as poaching by hungry people armed with automatic weapons is widespread. Reducing it will 

require a strong UWA presence and considerable community outreach and law enforcement 

activities, but until the wider problems of the region are addressed and resolved, it is unlikely 

to be eliminated. Paradoxically, however, absolutely terrible insecurity in the south of the 

reserve has allowed the wildlife here some respite from poaching compared with elsewhere in 

the region, as the area is effectively a no man’s land between the Pian Karamojong and the 

Pokot, and is thus subject to lower levels of poaching. 

Under improved security conditions many of the current small populations of large mammals 

may recover and be viable in the long term. There are fewer land use conflicts here than in 

most other parts of the country, and wildlife conservation and cattle keeping at moderate 

densities are intrinsically quite compatible. In time, if populations are allowed to increase, the 

potential exists for both tourism and sustainable harvesting schemes. Attitudes towards UWA 

and conservation are relatively positive, although it is clear that the more heavily armed Pian 

and Pokot have the upper hand. A potential threat, however, is agricultural conversion, such 

as the OED funded resettlement project south of the Greek River in the part of the Sebei 

CWA recommended for inclusion in a new National Park.

Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve - Frontier-publications.co.uk

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?