Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve - Frontier-publications.co.uk
Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve - Frontier-publications.co.uk
Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve - Frontier-publications.co.uk
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 12<br />
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey<br />
Karen L. Zwick (Ed.), Duncan Sivell, Rich Bamlett, Ian Devon, Julia<br />
Lloyd, Helen MacGregor, Lee Stewart<br />
Society for Environmental Exploration<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda<br />
Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Authority<br />
Kampala 1998
Copyright © 1998 The Society for Environmental Exploration.<br />
Citation: Zwick, K.L. (Ed.), Sivell, D., Bamlett, R., Devon, I., Lloyd, J., MacGregor, H., and Stewart, L.<br />
1998. <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey. <strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong><br />
Protected Areas Project Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 12. The Society for Environmental<br />
Exploration, London & Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Authority, Kampala.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project (formerly Game <strong>Reserve</strong>s Project)<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report Series<br />
1. Semliki (Toro) Game <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socioe<strong>co</strong>nomic<br />
L.K. Stubblefield (Ed.) 1994<br />
survey<br />
2. Ajai’s Game <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey L.K. Stubblefield (Ed.) 1995<br />
3. Katonga Game <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological survey C.L. Allan 1995<br />
4. Kyambura Game <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic C.L. Allan 1995<br />
survey<br />
5. Kigezi Game <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey C.L. Allan & J. McCaul 1996<br />
6. Bugungu Game <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic C.L. Allan (Ed.) 1996<br />
survey<br />
7. Semliki (Toro) <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socioe<strong>co</strong>nomic<br />
D. Sivell, T. Lee, & C.L. Allan 1997<br />
survey (II)<br />
8. Kibale National Park: grassland survey D. Sivell, T. Lee, & L. Stewart 1996<br />
9. Katonga <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic K.L. Zwick (Ed.) 1997<br />
survey (II)<br />
10. Kyambura <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: small fauna survey J. Lloyd 1997<br />
11. Queen Elizabeth National Park: small fauna survey J. Lloyd 1997<br />
12. Queen Elizabeth National Park: socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey of<br />
Kazinga fishing village<br />
*forth<strong>co</strong>ming<br />
K.L. Zwick 1998*<br />
Available from:<br />
The Society for Environmental Exploration<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda<br />
77 Leonard Street, London, EC2A 4QS, UK PO Box 1505, Kampala, Uganda<br />
tel: + 44 171 613 2422 tel: + 256 41 270324<br />
fax: + 44 171 613 2992 fax: + 256 41 242298 (c/o IUCN Country Office)<br />
e-mail: enquiries@frontier.mailbox.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>uk</strong><br />
e-mail: frontier@imul.<strong>co</strong>m
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey<br />
i<br />
PREFACE<br />
The Society for Environmental Exploration<br />
The Society for Environmental Exploration is a non-profit making <strong>co</strong>mpany limited by guarantee. The Society’s<br />
objectives are to advance field research into environmental issues and implement practical projects <strong>co</strong>ntributing<br />
to the <strong>co</strong>nservation of natural resources. Projects organised by the Society are joint initiatives developed in<br />
<strong>co</strong>llaboration with national research agencies in <strong>co</strong>-operating <strong>co</strong>untries. The Society promotes <strong>co</strong>-operation<br />
between scientists and technical officers from <strong>co</strong>llaborating institutions and <strong>co</strong>unterparts in the UK and<br />
elsewhere.<br />
The Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Authority (UWA)<br />
The Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Authority is the parastatal organisation responsible for the management of Uganda’s<br />
<strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas. The primary focus is on wildlife <strong>co</strong>nservation with an emphasis on the development of<br />
strategies to generate sustainable in<strong>co</strong>me from wildlife resources. It was formed in July 1996 and takes over the<br />
duties of the former Game Department and Uganda National Parks.<br />
Ministry of Tourism, <strong>Wildlife</strong>, & Antiquities (MTWA)<br />
The Ministry of Tourism, <strong>Wildlife</strong>, & Antiquities is the government body responsible for wildlife affairs and<br />
managing Uganda’s wildlife resources both inside and outside Protected Areas. It is responsible for national<br />
wildlife policies.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda undertakes project activities in Uganda on behalf of the Society for Environmental Exploration,<br />
in <strong>co</strong>njunction with Ugandan institutions and government bodies. <strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda was initiated in 1991, and<br />
was originally involved with the tourism development project in Kibale Forest (now Kibale National Park), in<br />
<strong>co</strong>njunction with Makerere University. In 1993 <strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda embarked on the <strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda Game<br />
<strong>Reserve</strong>s Project, based on a Memorandum of Understanding with the former Game Department. This project<br />
<strong>co</strong>ntinues, in <strong>co</strong>llaboration with UWA, as the <strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project. The aim of the<br />
project is to assess the biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic status of Uganda’s <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas and to assist<br />
with the development of management strategies.<br />
To date <strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda has involved over 250 participants from both Ugandan and overseas institutions.<br />
Results of project activities are summarised in a series of reports published by the Society for Environmental<br />
Exploration. More formal scientific papers resulting from research are published in appropriate international<br />
journals to achieve wider dissemination of information. The activities of <strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda are supervised by a<br />
Project Advisory Committee whose members at the time of writing are:<br />
Dr. Ya<strong>co</strong>bo Moyini<br />
Acting Executive Director, UWA<br />
Mr. Arthur Mugisha<br />
Acting Deputy Director: Field Operations, UWA<br />
Mr. Samson Werikhe<br />
Research & EIA Co-ordinator, UWA<br />
Ms. Apophia At<strong>uk</strong>unda-Muhimbura Monitoring Co-ordinator, UWA<br />
Mr. Abdul Muwanika<br />
Planning Co-ordinator, UWA<br />
Mr. Moses Okua<br />
Commissioner for <strong>Wildlife</strong>, MTWA<br />
Dr. Panta Kasoma<br />
Director, Makerere University Institute of Environment & Natural Resources<br />
Ms. Rebecca Phillips<br />
Project Co-ordinator, <strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda<br />
Ms. Karen Zwick<br />
Research Co-ordinator, <strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey<br />
ii<br />
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<br />
Acknowledgements are due to all of the Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Authority staff, past and present, who supported this<br />
work, and in particular to Dr. Eric Edroma, the former Executive Director, and Mr. John Otekat, the former<br />
Deputy Director: Field Operations. The work would not have been possible without the efforts of Mr. Isaac<br />
Drani, the Chief Warden, and his staff in the field, and Mr. John Muwadi and his staff, to whom we are grateful.<br />
Acknowledgements are also due to Mr. Moses Okua, the Commissioner for <strong>Wildlife</strong> at the Ministry of Tourism,<br />
<strong>Wildlife</strong>, & Antiquities.<br />
Thanks to Eibleis Fanning, the director of The Society for Environmental Exploration. The society provided<br />
administrative and financial support for this work: additional administrative support was gratefully received from<br />
IUCN in Kampala and Mbale. Funding for essential equipment was very generously donated by the British High<br />
Commission, Kampala, Barclays Bank Uganda Limited, The Sheraton Hotel, Kampala, and Crown Bottlers<br />
Limited. Fuel was very generously donated by Total Uganda Limited, and Rank Xerox Uganda Limited very<br />
generously donated photo<strong>co</strong>pying services.<br />
Thanks go to the staff at Makerere University for their supporting role. Ms Olivia Wanyana Maganyi identified<br />
the botanical specimens, Mr. Robert Kityo the small mammals, Mr. Mathius Behangana the herptiles, and Mr.<br />
Patrick Etyang the butterflies.<br />
In Karamoja, we are grateful for the support of Mr. Joshua Ojao, LCIII Chairman, Namalu S/C, and Mr. Kassim<br />
Chepkwongin, LCIII Chairman, Ngenge S/C, and of the people of the area, who made us so wel<strong>co</strong>me. We<br />
appreciate the security provided by Captain Dan and the UPDF soldiers of the Napadet Army Camp. Thanks go<br />
to Ms. Mary Aguma for her help with the socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey, and to Ms. Helen de Jode of the Karamoja<br />
<strong>Wildlife</strong> Project for all her advice and guidance.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda staff<br />
Rebecca Phillips Project Co-ordinator Duncan Sivell Research Co-ordinator UG964<br />
Miles Kemplay Camp leader UG964 Karen Zwick Research Co-ordinator UG972<br />
Cherie Montgomery Camp leader UG972 Socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomics Co-ordinator UG964<br />
Mustapha Kiika Driver/Mechanic Lee Stewart Large Mammals Co-ordinator UG964<br />
Helen MacGregor Large Mammals Co-ordinator UG972<br />
Julia Lloyd Small Fauna Co-ordinator<br />
Rich Bamlett Assistant Research Officer UG972<br />
Ian Devon Assistant Research Officer UG972<br />
Research Assistants UG964<br />
Research Assistants UG972<br />
Tim Aikman Cherie Montgomery Phillip Baker Lorenz Kr<strong>uk</strong>sberg<br />
Christian Baars Teresa Petty Barb Edwards Catherine Morris<br />
Michelle Bird Kristi Skebo Harriet Festing Tom Morton<br />
Jon Brough Lucie Stephens Claire Gillanders David Parker<br />
Tom Buxton Zaba Walker Edward Harding Rupert Searle<br />
Soozee Clark Rob West<strong>co</strong>tt Jakob Heller Sarah Shimin<br />
Alison Compton Dave White Amber Herrell Duncan Speake<br />
Andy Donoghue Jen Hurd Dave Suchy<br />
Sara Galpin Frankie Jennings Mark Warner<br />
Lucy Gitere Alison Jenson Emily Wilson<br />
Wera Leuj<strong>uk</strong><br />
David Kemp<br />
Rangers<br />
Amaat Stephen (HR) Engatuny Sam Lokol Mark Ngorok Charles<br />
Abura Gabriel Iddi Wange Lokong Aloisu Nuru Hamed<br />
Achau Peter Kuria Richard Lokwakou Michael Ojakol Joseph<br />
Ach<strong>uk</strong>a Simon Peter Limasiya Frances Loumo Paul Okilim Sisto<br />
Adiakia Patrick Lo<strong>co</strong>mgim John Lowal Demiua Salimo Moses<br />
Aliat Ben Lodum Simon Peter Loyok John Tiyan Paul<br />
Apuun Ja<strong>co</strong>b Logiel Paul Musas Fred Waswa Julius<br />
Chemaiko Maget Loit Mark Musoba Sam<br />
Chemonges Satya Lokol Edimon Naumya Fred<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey<br />
iii<br />
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />
A baseline biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> was<br />
<strong>co</strong>nducted between October and December 1996 and April and June 1997.<br />
One hundred and forty-one species of flowering plant were identified, and four vegetation<br />
types were described: grassland and wooded grassland, which <strong>co</strong>vers most of the reserve,<br />
riverine woodland, kopjes, and cultivated land. The vegetation is of enormous <strong>co</strong>nservation<br />
value as it <strong>co</strong>vers a large area and is essentially undisturbed.<br />
Thirty-one species of large mammals were identified, and distribution maps and information<br />
of habitat use is provided. There has been a drastic decline in the numbers of large mammals<br />
over the past 30 years, and most are still under severe threat from poaching. Over a third are<br />
of international <strong>co</strong>nservation <strong>co</strong>ncern.<br />
Twelve species of small rodent, three species of shrew, five species of bat, and 11 species of<br />
reptile were identified. Further taxonomic work on specimens <strong>co</strong>llected but not identified at<br />
the time of writing is likely to identify more species.<br />
Rapid and Participatory Rural Appraisal (R/PRA) methods were used in two primarily Sebei<br />
and two <strong>Pian</strong> villages. The main issues identified were insecurity and poor food security. In<br />
addition, the reserve was identified as an important source of many natural resources for the<br />
<strong>Pian</strong> in particular. Attitudes towards UWA and <strong>co</strong>nservation are relatively positive, although<br />
the heavily armed <strong>Pian</strong> and the Pokot have the upper hand, and the major threat remains<br />
poaching. A potential <strong>co</strong>nflict between development and <strong>co</strong>nservation objectives is a<br />
resettlement project in the part of the Sebei CWA re<strong>co</strong>mmended for inclusion in a new<br />
National Park.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey<br />
iv<br />
CONTENTS<br />
PREFACE<br />
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<br />
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />
i<br />
ii<br />
iii<br />
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1<br />
1.1 Aims 1<br />
1.2 Site description 2<br />
1.3 History and current situation 5<br />
1.4 References cited 7<br />
2.0 VEGETATION SURVEY (Karen L. Zwick) 8<br />
2.1 Summary 8<br />
2.2 Introduction 8<br />
2.2.1 Aims 8<br />
2.2.2 Previous studies 9<br />
2.3 Methods 11<br />
2.4 Results 12<br />
2.4.1 Checklist 13<br />
2.4.2 Vegetation/habitat types 17<br />
2.5 Discussion 18<br />
2.6 Conclusions 18<br />
2.7 References cited 19<br />
3.0 LARGE MAMMAL SURVEY (Helen MacGregor & Karen L. Zwick) 20<br />
3.1 Summary 20<br />
3.2 Introduction 20<br />
3.2.1 Aims 20<br />
3.2.2 Previous studies 20<br />
3.3 Methods 21<br />
3.4 Results 22<br />
3.4.1 Checklist 23<br />
3.4.2 Distribution and habitat use 24<br />
3.5 Discussion 29<br />
3.6 Conclusions 30<br />
3.7 References cited 31<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey<br />
v<br />
4.0 SMALL FAUNA SURVEY (Julia Lloyd) 32<br />
4.1 Summary 32<br />
4.2 Introduction 32<br />
4.2.1 Aims 32<br />
4.2.2 Previous studies 32<br />
4.3 Overview of methods 32<br />
4.4 Small rodents and shrews 33<br />
4.4.1 Introduction 33<br />
4.4.2 Aim 33<br />
4.4.3 Methods 33<br />
4.4.4 Results 34<br />
4.4.5 Discussion 36<br />
4.5 Bats 38<br />
4.5.1 Introduction 38<br />
4.5.2 Aim 38<br />
4.5.3 Methods 38<br />
4.5.4 Results 39<br />
4.5.5 Discussion 39<br />
4.6 Reptiles 40<br />
4.6.1 Introduction 40<br />
4.6.2 Aim 40<br />
4.6.3 Methods 40<br />
4.6.4 Results 41<br />
4.6.5 Discussion 42<br />
4.7 Amphibians 42<br />
4.7.1 Introduction 42<br />
4.7.2 Aim 42<br />
4.7.3 Methods 42<br />
4.7.4 Results 42<br />
4.8 Butterflies 43<br />
4.8.1 Introduction 43<br />
4.8.2 Aim 43<br />
4.8.3 Methods 43<br />
4.8.4 Results 43<br />
4.9 Conclusions 44<br />
4.10 References cited 45<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey<br />
vi<br />
5.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY (Karen L. Zwick) 47<br />
5.1 Summary 47<br />
5.2 Introduction 47<br />
5.2.1 Aims 47<br />
5.2.2 Community <strong>co</strong>nservation and the 1996 wildlife statute 47<br />
5.2.3 Previous studies 48<br />
5.2.4 People and history 48<br />
5.3 Methods 50<br />
5.3.1 Rapid and Participatory Rural Appraisal 51<br />
5.3.2 Community and group meetings 52<br />
5.4 Results 52<br />
5.4.1 Chepsikunya and Seryoto 52<br />
5.4.2 Lopedot and Lomorimor 52<br />
5.4.3 Resource use 53<br />
5.4.4 Attitudes towards the reserve 53<br />
5.5 Discussion 53<br />
5.6 Conclusions 54<br />
5.7 References cited 55<br />
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 57<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey<br />
vii<br />
FIGURES<br />
Figure 1.1 Location of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 2<br />
Figure 1.2 Protected Areas of Karamoja 3<br />
Figure 1.3 Topography and hydrology of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 4<br />
Figure 1.4 Southern <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 6<br />
Figure 2.1 1955-1960 vegetation of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> (Langdale-Brown 9<br />
et al., 1964)<br />
Figure 2.2 1989-1992 land <strong>co</strong>ver of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> (Forest 10<br />
Department, 1996)<br />
Figure 2.3 Vegetation stratification and location of sampling plots in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> 12<br />
<strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Figure 3.1 Habitat stratification and large mammal systematic belt transects 22<br />
sampling area in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Figure 3.2 Distribution of olive baboon in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 24<br />
Figure 3.3 Distribution of spotted hyena in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 25<br />
Figure 3.4 Distribution of aardvark in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 26<br />
Figure 3.5 Distribution of blue and <strong>co</strong>mmon duiker in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 27<br />
Figure 3.6 Distribution of Gunther’s dik-dik in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 27<br />
Figure 3.7 Distribution of oribi in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 28<br />
Figure 3.8 Distribution of waterbuck in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 28<br />
Figure 3.9 Distribution of Bohor and mountain reedbuck in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> 29<br />
<strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Figure 4.1 Location of small fauna sampling sites in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 33<br />
Figure 4.2 Species accumulation rate for small rodents captured in small mammal 36<br />
traps in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
TABLES<br />
Table 2.1 Checklist of the flowering plants of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 13<br />
Table 2.2 Habitats of the indigenous trees and shrubs of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> 17<br />
<strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Table 3.1 Large mammal population estimates for <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 21<br />
Table 3.2 Habitat types (strata) and areas sampled in large mammal systematic 22<br />
belt transects in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Table 3.3 Checklist of the large mammals of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 23<br />
Table 4.1 Sampling intensity and capture rates for small rodents and shrews in 34<br />
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Table 4.2 Checklist of the small rodents and shrews of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> 35<br />
<strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Table 4.3 Checklist of the bats of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 39<br />
Table 4.4 Checklist of the reptiles of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 41<br />
Table 4.5 Diversity by taxon of the small fauna of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> 44<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 1<br />
1.0 INTRODUCTION<br />
Uganda has an extremely rich and diverse biota (NEIC, 1994), which represents the<br />
intersection of no less than six biogeographic zones: the Guinea-Congolian, Sudanian, and<br />
Somalia-Masai regional centres of endemism, the Afromontane archipelago-like centre of<br />
endemism, the Guinea-Congolia-Sudania regional transition zone, and the Lake Victoria<br />
regional mosaic (White, 1983). Its moist tropical climate allows for high levels of primary<br />
productivity which promotes overall alpha diversity by allowing for greater niche<br />
differentiation, and its varied topography allows for high beta diversity (Whittaker, 1972).<br />
This diversity directly supports the 90% of the population (NEAP, 1993) who depend on<br />
natural resources for their day to day livelihoods.<br />
During the political turmoil of the 1970s and 80s there was next to no <strong>co</strong>ntrol on the<br />
harvesting of plants and animals, and many of the nation’s protected areas were encroached<br />
upon, eroding the rich natural resource base. In 1996 the Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Authority (UWA)<br />
was formed from the former Game Department and Uganda National Parks. It is responsible<br />
for the <strong>co</strong>nservation of the nation’s wild animals and plants, and the management of <strong>Wildlife</strong><br />
Protected Areas, including the production of management plans. The aims of the <strong>Frontier</strong>-<br />
Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project Baseline Surveys Programme are to assess the<br />
biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic status of the nation’s <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas to assist UWA<br />
with the development of management strategies: the specific aims of this survey are outlined<br />
in section 1.1 below.<br />
1.1 Aims<br />
The survey of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> aims to:<br />
• <strong>co</strong>llect baseline biological information on the vegetation, large mammals, and small fauna<br />
of the reserve;<br />
• <strong>co</strong>llect baseline socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic information on the <strong>co</strong>mmunities living around the<br />
reserve, including information on their attitudes towards and their impacts on the reserve;<br />
• <strong>co</strong>ntribute to existing knowledge at a national and international level; and<br />
• train self funding volunteer research assistants in biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey<br />
techniques.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 2<br />
1.2 Site description<br />
The reserve <strong>co</strong>vers an area of 2,275 km 2 , and is Uganda’s se<strong>co</strong>nd largest Protected Area (PA)<br />
after Murchison Falls National Park. It is located in Karamoja, in eastern Uganda between<br />
34°14’ and 34°48’E, and 01°32’ and 02°15’N (Fig. 1.1) in Moroto District, but is <strong>co</strong>ntiguous<br />
with Kapchorwa, Mbale, Kumi, and Soroti Districts. It is <strong>co</strong>vered by the Lands & Surveys<br />
Department map sheets 35/3, 35/4, 44/1, 44/2, 44/3, 44/4, 45/1, 45/3, and 45/4 (Series Y732)<br />
at 1:50,000.<br />
Figure 1.1 Location of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 3<br />
The reserve is the southernmost of the Karamoja PAs. It is <strong>co</strong>ntiguous with Bokora Corridor<br />
<strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> to the north, and overlaps with Napak and Kadam Forest <strong>Reserve</strong>s to the<br />
north and east. To the north and east is the South Karamoja Community <strong>Wildlife</strong> Area<br />
(CWA) (formerly Controlled Hunting Area), to the south is the Sebei CWA and Mount Elgon<br />
National Park, and to the west the are the East and North Teso CWAs (Fig. 1.2).<br />
Figure 1.2 Protected Areas of Karamoja<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 4<br />
Most of the reserve is flat open grassland at approximately 1,100m scattered with occasional<br />
small rocky kopjes. Much of the plains is subject to seasonal waterlogging, although the only<br />
(mostly) permanent water <strong>co</strong>urse in the area is the Greek River which forms the southern<br />
boundary and flows into Lake Opeta to the west. The plains are overlooked by the high (2,537<br />
and 3,070m respectively) isolated volcanic outcrops of Napak and Kadam to the north and<br />
east, which are still largely forested (Fig. 1.3).<br />
Figure 1.3 Topography and hydrology of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 5<br />
Rainfall is between 1,000 and 1,250mm over most of the reserve, although it decreases to less<br />
than 875mm in the far north-east (Department of Lands & Surveys, 1967). The mean annual<br />
minimum temperature is between 15.0 and 17.5°C, and the mean annual maximum is over<br />
30°C (Lubwama, 1994). Soils are mostly vertisols, with eutrophic soils on volcanic ash<br />
around Napak and Kadam, and hydromorphic soils around Lake Opeta (Department of Lands<br />
& Surveys, 1967).<br />
The reserve is reached by road from Mbale, and the only ranger post is located at the reserve<br />
headquarters at Moruajore. Basic equipment such as uniforms, boots, arms, and ammunition<br />
is old and in short supply, and there is no working radio. The Warden In Charge has a vehicle,<br />
but it is rarely in use as fuel is not available.<br />
1.3 History and current situation<br />
In the 1950s and 60s the southern sector of what is now the reserve was reportedly one of the<br />
best wildlife areas in Africa, and in 1960 it was gazetted as the Debasian Animal Sanctuary.<br />
In 1964 this was expanded and gazetted as <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> Game <strong>Reserve</strong>, although the boundary<br />
was never demarcated on the ground, and the local <strong>Pian</strong> Karamojong were allowed to<br />
<strong>co</strong>ntinue to graze and water their cattle within it (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996a). Since the<br />
1960s, however, when automatic weapons were introduced to traditional cattle raiding in<br />
Karamoja, the region has suffered from a breakdown in law and order and horrifying and<br />
chronic violence and insecurity. While this resulted in a decrease in cattle numbers which<br />
allowed the reversal of negative vegetation changes associated with overgrazing (Wilson,<br />
1985), it also caused the effective abandonment by the Game Department of all of the<br />
region’s reserves from the late 1970s onwards, leading to un<strong>co</strong>ntrolled poaching and a<br />
dramatic decrease in wildlife (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996a).<br />
At the beginning of 1996, however, the Game Department posted new wardens to all of the<br />
region’s reserves, and recruited numerous local rangers. Community outreach and antipoaching<br />
programmes were initiated, with promising early results, and in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong>, the<br />
rehabilitation of the looted and vandalised infrastructure at Moruajore was begun.<br />
Unfortunately, though, financial difficulties within the new UWA in 1997 lead once again to<br />
the effective abandonment of the reserves, and a subsequent return to un<strong>co</strong>ntrolled poaching.<br />
At the time of writing, there are wardens and rangers at Moruajore again, but they are<br />
severely under-resourced and limited in their effectiveness. <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> is not as heavily<br />
encroached as Bokora Corridor and Matheniko <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>s to the north, although it is<br />
used for pasture and water by the <strong>Pian</strong> Karamojong, particularly in the dry season, and<br />
Lamprey & Michelmore (1996a) estimated there to have been almost 20,000 cattle present in<br />
October 1995. There has never been a management plan and there has been no official<br />
management for most of the past twenty years, although traditional practices such as seasonal<br />
burning, grazing, and hunting have been carried out by the local <strong>Pian</strong> Karamojong and Pokot.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 6<br />
Aerial surveys <strong>co</strong>nducted in 1995 and 1996 identified small but important numbers of<br />
wildlife still using the south of the reserve and the area just south of the Greek River in the<br />
Sebei CWA (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996ab), and the authors of these reports re<strong>co</strong>mmend<br />
that this area be upgraded to National Park status. This survey was intended to focus on this<br />
portion of the reserve, but, unfortunately, <strong>co</strong>ntinuing insecurity caused <strong>co</strong>nsiderable<br />
difficulties in implementing a ground survey. Despite postponing the se<strong>co</strong>nd work phase to<br />
avoid the main cattle raiding season, the work was <strong>co</strong>nfined to the area around the road which<br />
<strong>co</strong>uld be reached from Moruajore, the Napadet army camp, or Chepsikunya, and the third<br />
work phase, regrettably, was cancelled. The vegetation, large mammal, and small fauna<br />
surveys were very limited in the area <strong>co</strong>vered and habitats sampled, and as result of food<br />
security problems in the area during the se<strong>co</strong>nd work phase, the socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey was<br />
terminated. Figure 1.4 depicts the important features of the south of the reserve.<br />
Figure 1.4 Southern <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 7<br />
1.4 References cited<br />
Department of Lands & Surveys. 1967. Uganda Atlas. Department of Lands & Surveys,<br />
Kampala.<br />
Lamprey, R.F. & Michelmore, F. 1996a. The <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas of Uganda:<br />
preliminary aerial survey results and their assessment plus initial re<strong>co</strong>mmendations.<br />
Ministry of Tourism, <strong>Wildlife</strong> & Antiquities, Kampala.<br />
Lamprey, R.F. & Michelmore, F. 1996b. Surveys of Uganda’s <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas:<br />
phase II surveys: May - June 1996. Ministry of Tourism, <strong>Wildlife</strong> & Antiquities,<br />
Kampala.<br />
Lubwama, H. 1994. Social studies atlas for Uganda. Macmillan (Uganda), Kampala.<br />
NEAP. 1993. National environment management policy framework. National Environment<br />
Action Plan Secretariat, Ministry of Natural Resources, Kampala.<br />
NEIC. 1994. State of the environment report for Uganda 1994. National Environment<br />
Information Centre, Kampala.<br />
White, F. 1983. The vegetation of Africa. UNESCO, Paris.<br />
Whittaker, R.H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21:213-251.<br />
Wilson, J.G. 1985. Resettlement in Karamoja. Photo<strong>co</strong>pied paper, pp. 163-170.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 8<br />
2.0 VEGETATION SURVEY (Karen L. Zwick)<br />
2.1 Summary<br />
A survey of the vegetation of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> was <strong>co</strong>nducted between April and<br />
June 1997. The vegetation was stratified into broad physiognomic vegetation types, and<br />
within this, five 1ha plots were sampled. Preliminary identifications were made in the field<br />
and <strong>co</strong>nfirmed by a botanist at the Makerere University Herbarium. One hundred and fortyone<br />
species of flowering plant were identified. The woody plants, which represent 3.0% of<br />
the <strong>co</strong>untry’s diversity, are typical of savannah woodland or thickets. Four vegetation types<br />
were described: grassland and wooded grassland, which <strong>co</strong>vers most of the reserve, riverine<br />
woodland, kopjes, and cultivated land. The vegetation of the reserve is of enormous<br />
<strong>co</strong>nservation value as it <strong>co</strong>vers a large area and is essentially undisturbed. However, it is<br />
potentially under threat from agricultural <strong>co</strong>nversion, such as that south of the Greek River in<br />
the part of the Sebei CWA re<strong>co</strong>mmended for inclusion in a new National Park.<br />
2.2 Introduction<br />
2.2.1 Aims<br />
The vegetation survey aims to use standard and repeatable methods to:<br />
• describe both physiognomically and floristically the major vegetation types/habitats of the<br />
reserve; and<br />
• <strong>co</strong>llect baseline data on the presence and distribution of flowering plants (Angiospermae),<br />
in order to <strong>co</strong>mpile a preliminary annotated checklist for the reserve.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 9<br />
2.2.2 Previous studies<br />
The vegetation of Karamoja was mapped in detail by Wilson (1962) between 1955 and 1960<br />
as part of the Agriculture Department’s memoirs series on the vegetation of Uganda. These<br />
maps were summarised by Langdale-Brown et al. (1964) as shown in Figure 2.1.<br />
Figure 2.1 1955-1960 vegetation of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> (Langdale-Brown et al.,<br />
1964)<br />
However, changing socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic factors have made this largely out of date (Wilson,<br />
1985).<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 10<br />
More recently the vegetation of the reserve was mapped from satellite imagery captured<br />
between 1989 and 1992 as part of the Forest Department’s National Biomass Study (Forest<br />
Department, 1996), which identified three land <strong>co</strong>ver classes within the reserve, as shown in<br />
Figure 2.2.<br />
Figure 2.2 1989-1992 land <strong>co</strong>ver of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> (Forest Department,<br />
1996)<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 11<br />
2.3 Methods<br />
The survey was <strong>co</strong>nducted between April and June 1997.<br />
The reserve was stratified into broad physiognomic vegetation types using the available<br />
reference material and the 1:50,000 topographic maps. This stratification was also used as the<br />
basis for the large mammal and small fauna surveys.<br />
Volunteer research assistants were trained in basic navigation skills including the use of maps<br />
and <strong>co</strong>mpasses and the Global Positioning System (GPS), and learned to pace distances<br />
accurately.<br />
They were trained in the <strong>co</strong>llection and preparation of botanical specimens, data re<strong>co</strong>rding,<br />
and in the use of appropriate field guides and keys: Coates Palgrave (1988), Eggeling & Dale<br />
(1951), Hamilton (1981), ICRAF (1992), Katende et al. (1995), and Noad & Birnie (1989)<br />
for woody plants, Haines & Lye (1983) for sedges and rushes, and Eggeling (1941), Harker<br />
(1961), and van Oudtshoorn (1992) for grasses.<br />
The sampling unit was a 100m x 100m (1ha) plot for woody plants and a 25m x 25m sub-plot<br />
within this for herbs and grasses. Within a stratum plots were located subjectively where the<br />
vegetation seemed most ‘typical’. Each plot was surveyed by a small team which re<strong>co</strong>rded<br />
general information on the physiognomy of the vegetation. Every species in the plot was then<br />
listed and its percentage <strong>co</strong>ver estimated in Braun-Blanquet classes (after Zandri & Viskanic,<br />
1992).<br />
Voucher specimens of every species or re<strong>co</strong>gnisable taxonomic unit (rtu) of flowering plant<br />
en<strong>co</strong>untered were <strong>co</strong>llected and pressed following Liesner (1990). They were then given<br />
preliminary field identifications where possible, and used as a basic working reference<br />
<strong>co</strong>llection. At the end of the study period, the preliminary field identifications were <strong>co</strong>nfirmed<br />
by Ms Olivia Wanyana Maganyi at the Makerere University Herbarium.<br />
Opportunistic re<strong>co</strong>rds of species not occurring in the plots were also made throughout the<br />
reserve.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 12<br />
2.4 Results<br />
The reserve was stratified as shown in Figure 2.3.<br />
Figure 2.3 Vegetation stratification and location of sampling plots in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong><br />
<strong>Reserve</strong><br />
The volunteer research assistants were able to use the GPS, and to follow and take bearings<br />
and pace distances accurately so that they <strong>co</strong>uld establish grid reference locations without the<br />
GPS when necessary. They used these skills in all aspects of the fieldwork.<br />
They were able to <strong>co</strong>llect and prepare botanical specimens and re<strong>co</strong>rd data, as well as to<br />
identify many of the specimens from the field guides and keys available, and re<strong>co</strong>gnise them<br />
in the field.<br />
Five plots were sampled as shown in Figure 2.3<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 13<br />
2.4.1 Checklist<br />
One hundred and forty-one species of flowering plant (from 31 families) were identified, as<br />
listed in Table 2.1.<br />
Table 2.1 Checklist of the flowering plants of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Specific name Local name (Karamojong) Growth Typical Habitat Abundance<br />
form habitat<br />
Family Acanthaceae<br />
Asystasia gangetica<br />
w<br />
Barleria diffusa mamanyitab, kysochet S c<br />
Justicia exigua<br />
w<br />
Justicia flava chepcumbi, chemongok, moboria S c<br />
Justicia sp. etoto w<br />
Ruellia patula nakepian k<br />
Ruellia sp.<br />
Family Anacardiaceae<br />
Lannea barteri etopojoemoru ST wo f r g<br />
Lannea humilis etopoue g<br />
Lannea schimperi engerengerwae ST wo g k<br />
Ozoroa insignis lokite S/ST wo ro t f k<br />
Ozoroa obovata ekajan g<br />
Ozoroa sp.<br />
Rhus longipes ekadetema S/ST df t f r g<br />
Rhus natalensis S/ST wo t f<br />
Sclerocarya caffra ekajikait k<br />
Family Apocynaceae<br />
Catharanthus roseus<br />
c<br />
Thetvia peruviana elikoi c<br />
Family Asclepiadaceae<br />
Leptadenia pyrotechnica songofa c<br />
Family Asparagaceae<br />
Asparagus buchannii esikarakiru g<br />
Asparagus flagellaris esikarakiru S g<br />
Family Balanitaceae<br />
Balanites aegyptiaca ekorete, chomiandat ST wo g s c g w W<br />
Balanites pedicillaris dungoit S/ST t sc g<br />
Family Bignonaceae<br />
Kigelia afrianca ST F s wo<br />
Family Capparidaceae<br />
Capparis tomentosa CS/ST t g r w<br />
Cleome monophylla<br />
w<br />
Family Celastraceae<br />
Maytenus senegalensis eteba ST g<br />
Maytenus senegalensis eteba ST k<br />
Pleurostylia africana ekuluny k<br />
Family Combretaceae<br />
Combretum <strong>co</strong>llinum ekuluny, lotakui ST wo g k<br />
Combretum molle ekuyon ST wo g k<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 14<br />
Specific name Local name (Karamojong) Growth Typical Habitat Abundance<br />
form habitat<br />
Family Commelinaceae<br />
Commelina africana abutaechwe g w<br />
Commelina benghalensis<br />
g<br />
Commelina bracteosa kurarastit c<br />
Commelina erecta abutacue k<br />
Commelina latifolia<br />
w<br />
Commelina subulata<br />
g<br />
Commelina sp. abutacue w<br />
Cyanotis sp. lokimairio k<br />
Family Compositae<br />
Aspilia kotschyi<br />
c<br />
Aspilia latifolia<br />
g<br />
Bidens pilosa namjekong c<br />
Bidens sp.<br />
Erlangea <strong>co</strong>rdifolia<br />
c<br />
Galinsoga parviflora lokapilak w<br />
Lactuca capensis chesamshed c<br />
Senecio sp.<br />
Sonchus oleraceus chepcheko, namjekong c<br />
Family Convolvulaceae<br />
Astripomoea malvacea aturot (sing.) ngatur (pl.) c<br />
Convolvulus sagittatus<br />
c<br />
Family Crassulaceae<br />
Kalanchoe lanceolata<br />
Family Cyperaceae<br />
Cyperus rotundus ekereriaut w F<br />
Spaerocyperus erinaceus ekereriaut k<br />
Family Euphorbiaceae<br />
Acalypha cilicata ajao, erengerang k, g<br />
Acalypha villicaulis ekumotum k F<br />
Bridelia schleroneura ekabobbolot, kuanpie S/ST wo t k<br />
Bridelia setenere emutwruy g<br />
Euphorbia candelabrum ST wo g ro<br />
Euphorbia glomerifera<br />
w<br />
Euphorbia sp.<br />
Fleuggea virosa S/ST f t ro w<br />
Phyllanthus maderaspatensis lokile<br />
w<br />
Family Leguminosae<br />
Acacia polyacantha ST wo t r w<br />
Acacia seyal eyelel, egiliep, ekaramuay T wo r g k w W<br />
Cassia obtusifolia chebawet WH/SS g c<br />
Cassia siamea kasiyat c<br />
Clitoria ternatea ekimimo, elonglong g k w W<br />
Crotalaria brevidens lotabab k<br />
Crotalaria pycnostachya<br />
c<br />
Crotalaria sp. ekwanga k<br />
Dichrostachys cinerea etirac S/ST wo t g<br />
Dolichos kilimandsharicus omareta w<br />
Entada abyssinica ekwakwaa ST wo g<br />
Indigofera ambelacensis sisitet c<br />
Indigofera arrecta erengerang WH f t g w<br />
Indigofera spicata sekekewet c<br />
Indigofera volkensii<br />
c g<br />
Indigofera sp. lokituonia k<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 15<br />
Specific name Local name (Karamojong) Growth Typical Habitat Abundance<br />
form habitat<br />
Family Leguminosae (<strong>co</strong>nt.)<br />
Lonchocarpus laxiflorus ekorisat ST wo k<br />
Piliostigma thoningii ST wo t g<br />
Rhynchosia totta locikutai g<br />
Tephrosia linearis mamanyitab, sisitet, al<strong>uk</strong>uray c g<br />
Tephrosia sp.<br />
Vigna parkeri locikutai w<br />
Family Loganaceae<br />
Strychnos sp.<br />
Family Malvaceae<br />
Abutilon hirtum cheptonget c<br />
Hibiscus aponeurus etoke k<br />
Hibiscus calyphylus<br />
w<br />
Hibiscus sp.<br />
Sida alba melechet c O<br />
Sida rhombifolia ekwanga S w<br />
Sida ternata abiruai w<br />
Family Meliaceae<br />
Pseudocedrela kotschyi ekorisat ST wo g<br />
Family Olaceae<br />
Ximenia caffra elamae S/ST wo k<br />
Family Poaceae<br />
Andropogon sp.<br />
Aristida adscensionis<br />
Bothriochloa insculpta adedede g O<br />
Brachiaria brizantha<br />
Brachiaria serrata<br />
Brachiaria sp. sabakwa c O<br />
Choris virgata<br />
Choris sp.<br />
Ctenium <strong>co</strong>ncinnum etidot g<br />
Cymbopogan pospischilii lotebe k w A<br />
Cymbopogon validus<br />
Cymbopogan sp.<br />
Cynodon sp. seretdridet c O<br />
Digitaria rivae ekaga g F<br />
Digitaria sp.<br />
Enneapon anchioides<br />
Eragrostis superba chemwawet c<br />
Eragrostis sp.<br />
Hyparrhenia dissoluta<br />
Hyparrhenia filipendula soliandet c O<br />
Hyparrhenia madaropoda erangerang g g F<br />
Hyparrhenia mob<strong>uk</strong>ensis g O<br />
Imperata cylindrica lobelai, lokipi g k A<br />
Panicum hochstetteri akobet w A<br />
Panicum maximum matiatondet c O<br />
Panicum sp.<br />
Pennisetum sphacelatum ekori-ekingok c<br />
Pennisetum sp.<br />
Rhyncelytrum repens<br />
Setaria holstii esiloit w A<br />
Setaria incrassata<br />
Setaria sphacelata esiloit g O<br />
Setaria sp.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 16<br />
Specific name Local name (Karamojong) Growth Typical Habitat Abundance<br />
form habitat<br />
Family Rhamnaceae<br />
Ziziphus mauritiana ekaliye S/ST g g<br />
Family Rubaceae<br />
Pentas lanceolata<br />
Family Sapandaceae<br />
Pappea capensis esegesege S/ST wo ro k<br />
Family Simaroubaceae<br />
Harrisonia abyssinica ekere ST F g k<br />
Family Solanaceae<br />
Solanum albicaule<br />
w<br />
Solanum incanum lopotyat S c<br />
Family Tiliaceae<br />
Cochorus hochstetteri ebiruai k<br />
Grewia bi<strong>co</strong>lor ekaliye S/ST wo k<br />
Triumfetta flavescens ekwanga g O<br />
Family Umbellifereae<br />
Steganotaenia araliacea elamoru ST wo k<br />
Family Verbenaceae<br />
Lantana trifolia S w<br />
Lantana sp.<br />
Family Vitaceae<br />
Cayratia ibuensis emoros k<br />
Cissus petiolata emoros k<br />
Nomenclature and taxonomy follow Howard (1994), Harker (1961), and the work of Olivia Wanyana Maganyi.<br />
Key<br />
Growth form (Howard, 1994)<br />
TT tall tree (>25m) SS sub-shrub WH woody herb<br />
ST short tree (
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 17<br />
The indigenous trees and shrubs of the reserve are re<strong>co</strong>rded in the FTEA from the habitats<br />
listed in Table 2.2 (many are re<strong>co</strong>rded from more than one habitat).<br />
Table 2.2 Habitats of the indigenous trees and shrubs of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Habitat Number %<br />
Savannah woodland 21 72<br />
Bush/thicket 11 37<br />
Grassland 6 21<br />
Forest edge 6 21<br />
Riverine 5 17<br />
Rocky places 4 18<br />
Forest interior 2 7<br />
Dry scrub 1 3<br />
Dry forest 1 3<br />
Swamp 1 3<br />
Within each plot, species accumulation rates indicated that sampling in a 1ha plot was<br />
sufficient, but it is unlikely that the checklist is <strong>co</strong>mplete as not all vegetation types were<br />
sampled, and the more abundant physiognomic types are likely to <strong>co</strong>ntain several plant<br />
<strong>co</strong>mmunities.<br />
2.4.2 Vegetation/habitat types<br />
Grassland and wooded grassland<br />
This vegetation type <strong>co</strong>vers the flat plains which make up most of the reserve, and is by far<br />
the most <strong>co</strong>mmon. Cover by woody plants, mostly <strong>co</strong>mpound- and broad-leaved species, is<br />
less than 20%, and usually less than 10%, and there is a dense (> 75% <strong>co</strong>ver) herb layer<br />
(except immediately after fire!). The dominant tree species are Acacia seyal and Balanites<br />
aegyptica, with occasional Combretum <strong>co</strong>llinum, C. molle, Harrisonia abyssinica, and<br />
Maytenus senegalensis. Typical herbs and small shrubs include Clitoria ternatea, Lannea<br />
spp. Rhus spp., and Triumfetta flavescens. The grass layer is dominated by Hyparrhenia spp,<br />
and Setaria spp., with occasional Adropogon sp. and Cymbopogon spp. The herb layer is<br />
burnt annually, but only lightly grazed in the south of the reserve.<br />
Riverine woodland<br />
This vegetation type occurs in a narrow band along the Greek River and its more permanent<br />
tributaries in the south of the reserve. There is diffuse but interlocking canopy (> 40% <strong>co</strong>ver)<br />
10-15m in height, and a dense (> 75% <strong>co</strong>ver) herb layer. It is also dominated by Acacia seyal<br />
and Balanites aegyptica, with A. polycantha. Typical herbs and shrubs include Capparis<br />
tomentosa, Clitoria ternatea, Fleuggea virosa, Indigofera spp., Lantana spp., and Sida spp.<br />
The grass layer is dominated by Setaria incrassata and S. holstii, with Cymbopogon<br />
pospischili and Panicum hochstetteri and abundant Cyperus rotundus.<br />
Kopjes<br />
This habitat type is scattered throughout the south of the plains, and <strong>co</strong>nsists of small, steepsided<br />
outcrops of rock. Over 50% of the area is bare rock with no vegetation <strong>co</strong>ver. Small<br />
trees and shrubs grow in crevices and faults, and include a few Acacia spp. and Combretum<br />
spp., with Grewia bi<strong>co</strong>lor, Harrisonia abyssinica, Lannea spp., Ozoroa insignis, Pappea<br />
capensis, and Ximenia caffra. There is almost no grass layer, although Imperata cylindrica<br />
forms small monospecific stands on flat patches in drainage lines.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 18<br />
Cultivated land<br />
This habitat type lies to the south of the reserve between the Greek River and Chepsikunya,<br />
and around Seryoto, although there is some cultivated land within the reserve south-west of<br />
Namalu. Some parts have been ploughed mechanically, some have been hoed manually, and<br />
some are still uncleared grassland. Live fences of Thetvia peruviana have been planted, and<br />
there are a few Balanites aegyptica left standing, but <strong>co</strong>ver by woody plants is less than 10%.<br />
There is a dis<strong>co</strong>ntinuous layer of small shrubs, herbs, and grasses, which includes Cassia<br />
spp., Indigofera spp., Sida alba, and Solanum incanum, with Brachiaria sp., Cynodon sp.,<br />
Hyparrhenia filipendula, and Panicum maximum.<br />
2.5 Discussion<br />
Wilson (1962) describes over seventy plant <strong>co</strong>mmunities for the region, many of which have<br />
only small differences among them, but there is not a tight or obvious <strong>co</strong>rrelation between<br />
them and the vegetation types described here. His work was undertaken when cattle densities<br />
in the region were much higher, and he describes in detail cycles of vegetation change<br />
induced by overgrazing in which there was insufficient fuel for regular dry season burning<br />
leading to the encroachment by woody plants, and soil erosion and <strong>co</strong>mpaction leading to<br />
further loss of <strong>co</strong>ver in the herb layer and the development of thickets. These negative<br />
changes, along with an increase in abundance of unpalatable species, made the vegetation less<br />
productive, which, under <strong>co</strong>ntinued high grazing pressure, further hastened the changes<br />
(Wilson, 1985; Wilson, 1962).<br />
However, as a result of insecurity, between 1957 and 1980 the cattle population of Karamoja<br />
more than halved (Cisternino, 1985), and the grassland is once again subject to annual<br />
burning. At the same time, huge amounts of woody vegetation were manually removed by<br />
impoverished people reduced to producing char<strong>co</strong>al to make a living, and this, <strong>co</strong>upled with<br />
the reduction in grazing pressure served to inadvertently and unexpectedly reverse many of<br />
the negative vegetation changes such that Wilson himself (1985) believes his maps of the<br />
1960s (1962 and Langdale-Brown et al., 1964) are largely out of date.<br />
2.6 Conclusions<br />
Some 3.0% of the <strong>co</strong>untry’s tree and shrub species were re<strong>co</strong>rded in the reserve, despite the<br />
fact that it is primarily grassland, and sampling intensities were low. Further sampling is<br />
likely to identify even more species. Most of the indigenous trees and shrubs re<strong>co</strong>rded are<br />
typical of savannah woodlands and thickets. The vegetation and habitats of the reserve are of<br />
enormous <strong>co</strong>nservation value as they <strong>co</strong>ver a large area and are essentially undisturbed,<br />
ironically, as a result of insecurity. Even under improved security <strong>co</strong>nditions, however, there<br />
are fewer land use <strong>co</strong>nflicts here than in most other parts of the <strong>co</strong>untry, and wildlife<br />
<strong>co</strong>nservation and cattle keeping at moderate densities are intrinsically quite <strong>co</strong>mpatible. A<br />
potential threat is agricultural <strong>co</strong>nversion, such as that south of the Greek River in the part of<br />
the Sebei CWA re<strong>co</strong>mmended for inclusion in a new National Park.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 19<br />
2.7 References cited<br />
Cisternino, M. 1985. Famine and food relief in Karamoja. Photo<strong>co</strong>pied paper, pp. 155-161.<br />
Coates Palgrave, K. 1988. Trees of southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.<br />
Eggeling, W.J. 1941. An annotated list of the grasses of the Uganda Protectorate.<br />
Government Printer, Entebbe.<br />
Eggeling, W.J. & Dale, G.R. 1951. The indigenous trees of the Uganda Protectorate.<br />
University Press, Glasgow.<br />
Forest Department. 1996. National Biomass Study land <strong>co</strong>ver stratification (vegetation).<br />
Forest Department, Kampala.<br />
Haines, R.W. & Lye, K.A. 1983. The sedges and rushes of East Africa. East African Natural<br />
History Society, Nairobi.<br />
Hamilton, A.C. 1981. A field guide to Ugandan forest trees. Uganda Society and Makerere<br />
University, Kampala.<br />
Harker, K.W. 1961. An illustrated guide to the grasses of Uganda. Government Printer,<br />
Entebbe.<br />
Howard, P.C. 1994. An annotated checklist of Uganda’s indigenous trees and shrubs. Forest<br />
Department, Kampala.<br />
ICRAF. 1992. A selection of useful trees and shrubs for Kenya: notes on their identification,<br />
propagation, and management for use by farming and pastoral <strong>co</strong>mmunities.<br />
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi.<br />
Katende, A.B., Birnie, A., & Tengnäs, B. 1995. Useful trees and shrubs for Uganda:<br />
identification, propagation, and management for agricultural and pastoral<br />
<strong>co</strong>mmunities. Regional Soil Conservation Unit, Nairobi.<br />
Langdale-Brown, I., Omaston, H.A., & Wilson, J.G. 1964. The vegetation of Uganda and its<br />
bearing on land use. Government Printer, Entebbe.<br />
Liesner, R. 1990. Field techniques used by Missouri Botanical Garden. Missouri Botanical<br />
Garden, St Louis, Missouri.<br />
Noad, T.C. & Birnie, A. 1989. Trees of Kenya. T.C. Noad & A. Birnie, Nairobi<br />
Polhill, R.M., Milne-Redhead, E., Turrill, W.B., & Hubbard, C.E. 1954 & following. Flora of<br />
Tropical East Africa (in many parts). Crown Agents, London, & A.A. Balkema,<br />
Rotterdam.<br />
van Oudtshoorn, F.P. 1992. Guide to the grasses of South Africa. Briza Publikasies Cc,<br />
Arcadia, South Africa.<br />
Wilson, J.G. 1962. The vegetation of Karamoja District, Northern Province of Uganda.<br />
Memoirs of the Research Division Series 2 - Vegetation, Number 5. Dept. of<br />
Agriculture, Uganda Protectorate, Kampala.<br />
Wilson, J.G. 1985. Resettlement in Karamoja. Photo<strong>co</strong>pied paper, pp. 163-170.<br />
Zandri, E. & Viskanic, P. 1992. Vegetation survey and mapping in the Queen Elizabeth<br />
National Park, Kyambura Game <strong>Reserve</strong>, and Kigezi Game <strong>Reserve</strong>. Uganda National<br />
Parks, Kampala.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 20<br />
3.0 LARGE MAMMAL SURVEY (Helen MacGregor & Karen L. Zwick)<br />
3.1 Summary<br />
A survey of the large mammals of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> was <strong>co</strong>nducted between<br />
October and December 1996 and April and June 1997. The reserve was stratified into habitat<br />
types, and within this, 201 1km UTM grid squares were sampled at an intensity of 10%.<br />
Thirty-one species of large mammal were identified, representing 24% of the <strong>co</strong>untry’s<br />
diversity, and distribution maps and information on habitat use is presented. There has been a<br />
drastic decline in the numbers of large mammals over the past 30 years, and most are still<br />
under severe threat from poaching. Over a third are of international <strong>co</strong>nservation <strong>co</strong>ncern,<br />
while others, such as zebra, are of national <strong>co</strong>nservation interest.<br />
3.2 Introduction<br />
3.2.1 Aims<br />
The large mammal survey aims to use standard and repeatable methods to:<br />
• <strong>co</strong>llect baseline data on the presence, distribution, and habitat use of the large mammal<br />
fauna of the reserve.<br />
These data, obtained through ground survey techniques, will <strong>co</strong>mplement the 1995/6 aerial<br />
surveys of the reserve (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996ab).<br />
3.2.2 Previous studies<br />
Aerial surveys of the reserve’s large mammal fauna were <strong>co</strong>nducted in 1995 and 1996 (dry<br />
and wet season) (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996ab), in 1983 (Eltringham et al., 1992;<br />
Eltringham & Malpas, 1993) and in 1968 (Game Department, cited in Lamprey &<br />
Michelmore, 1996a) (Table 3.1). As is typical of the PAs of Uganda there has been a broad<br />
and massive decline in numbers since re<strong>co</strong>rds were first made. The remaining populations are<br />
<strong>co</strong>ncentrated in the south of the reserve and the area just south of the Greek River in the Sebei<br />
CWA, partly due to the presence of relatively permanent water, and partly because this area<br />
forms a buffer between the <strong>Pian</strong> Karamojong to the north and the Pokot to the east, and is<br />
thus subject to lower levels of poaching (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996ab).<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 21<br />
Table 3.1 Large mammal population estimates for <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Vernacular name<br />
Specific name<br />
April Oct May<br />
1968 1 1983 2 1995 3 1996 4<br />
Olive baboon Papio anubis - 73 - 176<br />
Plains zebra Equus burchelli 2,336 *643 402 -<br />
Warthog Pha<strong>co</strong>choerus africanus 5 - 12 25<br />
Giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis 899 109 10 -<br />
Hartebeest Alcelaphus buselaphus 1,025 309 408 88<br />
Topi Damaliscus lunatus 1,945 743 12 189<br />
Grant’s gazelle Gazella granti 102 - 36 -<br />
African buffalo Syncerus caffer 40 - 515 214<br />
Common eland Taurotragus oryx 1,598 - 10 -<br />
Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus - - 204 13<br />
Common duiker Sylvicapra grimmia - - 156 176<br />
Roan antelope Hippotragus equinus 387 254 15 151<br />
Oribi Ourebia ourebi - 91 - <br />
Waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus 127 *15 - -<br />
Kob Kobus kob 136 109 144 76<br />
Bohor reedbuck Redunca redunca 400 417 995 2,961<br />
Nomenclature and taxonomy follow Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994).<br />
Key<br />
1 Game Department, cited in Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996a<br />
2 Eltringham & Malpas, 1993, except *Eltringham et al., 1992<br />
3 Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996a<br />
4 Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996b<br />
3.3 Methods<br />
The survey was <strong>co</strong>nducted in two phases from September to December 1996 and April to<br />
June 1997.<br />
Volunteer research assistants were trained in basic navigation skills (see section 2.3). They<br />
were then trained in data re<strong>co</strong>rding and the identification of both the animals they were likely<br />
to en<strong>co</strong>unter using Dorst & Dandelot (1972) and Kingdon (1974ab; 1977; 1979; 1982ab) and<br />
their signs using Stuart & Stuart (1994), Liebenberg (1990), and Walker (1988).<br />
Direct re<strong>co</strong>rds were made when an animal was actually seen by an observer (an observation),<br />
and indirect re<strong>co</strong>rds when there was evidence that an animal had visited the site, but was not<br />
actually seen by the observer (e.g., dung, footprints, holes or scratchings, remains of a dead<br />
animal, etc.). All footprints were sketched and measured, and all dung samples <strong>co</strong>llected and<br />
brought back to the base camp, where a basic working reference <strong>co</strong>llection was established.<br />
The reserve was first stratified into habitat types. Small teams led by a member of staff then<br />
walked through each 1km UTM grid square systematically <strong>co</strong>llecting information on the<br />
presence of large mammals within a 100m wide belt transect, giving a sampling intensity of<br />
10%.<br />
Opportunistic re<strong>co</strong>rds were also made throughout the reserve.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 22<br />
3.4 Results<br />
The volunteer research assistants were able navigate accurately, and were able to re<strong>co</strong>rd data,<br />
as well as to identify animals and their signs from the field guides available, and re<strong>co</strong>gnise<br />
them in the field.<br />
The reserve was stratified as shown in Figure 3.1. A total of 201 1km UTM grid squares were<br />
sampled at an intensity of 10%, as shown in Figure 3.1 and Table 3.2.<br />
Figure 3.1 Habitat stratification and large mammal systematic belt transects sampling<br />
area in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Table 3.2 Habitat types (strata) and areas sampled in large mammal systematic belt<br />
transects in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Habitat type No. of 1km UTM grid squares sampled (at 10%)<br />
Grassland 135<br />
Bushland -<br />
Woodland 20<br />
Kopjes 23<br />
Cultivated land 23<br />
TOTAL 201<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 23<br />
3.4.1 Checklist<br />
Thirty-one species of large mammal (from nine orders and 14 families) were identified, as<br />
listed Table 3.3.<br />
Table 3.3 Checklist of the large mammals of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Vernacular name Specific name Re<strong>co</strong>rd type/ Conservation Habitat<br />
abundance status<br />
Order Primates<br />
Family Cer<strong>co</strong>pithecidae: old world monkeys<br />
Vervet monkey Cer<strong>co</strong>pithecus aethiops R w<br />
Patas monkey Erythrocebus patas R w<br />
Olive baboon Papio anubis C g k w<br />
Order Carnivora<br />
Family Canidae: dogs, jackals, & foxes<br />
Jackal sp. Canis sp. ID g<br />
Family Viverridae: civets & genets<br />
East African civet Civettictis civetta ID g<br />
Family Herpestidae: mongooses<br />
White-tailed mongoose Ichneumia albicauda R g<br />
Family Hyaenidae: aardwolf & hyenas<br />
Spotted hyena Crocuta crocuta O LR/cd g w<br />
Family Felidae: cats<br />
Serval Felis serval R g c<br />
African wild cat Felis silvestris ID g<br />
Leopard Panthera pardus ID g c w<br />
Order Perissodactyla<br />
Family Equidae: horses & zebra<br />
Plains zebra Equus burchelli ID g w<br />
Order Hyra<strong>co</strong>idea<br />
Family Procaviidae: hyraxes<br />
Yellow-spotted rock hyrax Heterohyrax brucei O k<br />
Order Tubulidentata<br />
Family Orycteropodidae: aardvark<br />
Aardvark/ant bear Orycteropus afer ID g c w<br />
Order Artiodactyla<br />
Family Suidae: pigs<br />
Warthog Pha<strong>co</strong>choerus africanus ID g w<br />
Bushpig Potamochoerus porcus ID g c<br />
Family Bovidae: horned ungulates<br />
Topi Damaliscus lunatus R LR/cd g c<br />
African buffalo Syncerus caffer ID LR/cd g c w<br />
Common eland Taurotragus oryx R LR/cd g w<br />
Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus ID w<br />
Blue duiker Cephalophus monti<strong>co</strong>la C g k c w<br />
Common duiker Sylvicapra grimmia C g k c w<br />
Gunther’s dik-dik Madoqua guentheri O g c w<br />
Klipspringer Oroetragus oroetragus R LR/cd k<br />
Oribi Ourebia ourebi A LR/cd g k c w<br />
Waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus ID LR/cd g c w<br />
Uganda kob Kobus kob R LR/cd g w<br />
Bohor reedbuck Redunca redunca O LR/cd g k c w<br />
Mountain reedbuck Redunca fulvorufula O LR/cd g k c w<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 24<br />
Vernacular name Specific name Re<strong>co</strong>rd type/ Conservation Habitat<br />
abundance status<br />
Order Rodentia<br />
Family Hystricidae: porcupines<br />
Crested porcupine Hystrix cristata ID LR/nt g c<br />
Order Lagomorpha<br />
Family Leporidae: hares<br />
Hare sp. Lepus sp. R g<br />
Order Insectivora<br />
Family Erinaceidae: hedgehogs<br />
Four-toed hedgehog Atelerix albiventris R g<br />
Nomenclature and taxonomy follow Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994).<br />
Key<br />
Re<strong>co</strong>rd type/abundance<br />
ID indirect re<strong>co</strong>rds only<br />
R rare: direct re<strong>co</strong>rds made once or twice; few indirect re<strong>co</strong>rds<br />
O occasional: direct re<strong>co</strong>rds made once or twice; many indirect re<strong>co</strong>rds<br />
C <strong>co</strong>mmon: over five direct re<strong>co</strong>rds<br />
A abundant: over ten direct re<strong>co</strong>rds<br />
Conservation status (Baillie & Groombridge, 1996)<br />
LR Low Risk cd <strong>co</strong>nservation dependent nt near threatened<br />
Habitat<br />
g grassland k kopjes c cultivated land<br />
w woodland<br />
3.4.2 Distribution and habitat use<br />
Primates<br />
Vervet and patas monkeys were observed in riverine woodland near the Greek River in small<br />
groups. Baboon troops of up to 40 individuals were observed near the Greek River, in and<br />
around the Napadet hills, and on small kopjes near Moruajore (Fig. 3.2).<br />
Figure 3.2 Distribution of olive baboon in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 25<br />
Carnivores<br />
Jackal spoor was re<strong>co</strong>rded near Moruajore, which is too far from human habitation for it have<br />
been <strong>co</strong>nfused with the spoor of a domestic dog. Civet spoor was also re<strong>co</strong>rded nearby, and a<br />
single white-tailed mongoose was observed at the ranger post. A single hyena was observed<br />
late at night at the ranger post: they were often heard calling at night, and their spoor was<br />
widely distributed (Fig. 3.3), with fresh tracks on the road almost every morning.<br />
Figure 3.3 Distribution of spotted hyena in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Single servals were observed near Moruajore and near Chepsikunya, and wild cat spoor was<br />
re<strong>co</strong>rded near Moruajore. Leopard spoor was re<strong>co</strong>rded on the road and in riverine woodland<br />
near the Greek River, and a kill (a reedbuck) was found in a tree near Chepsikunya.<br />
Zebra<br />
Zebra spoor was re<strong>co</strong>rded in grassland and riverine woodland near the Greek River.<br />
Hyrax<br />
Hyraxes were observed in the Napadet hills.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 26<br />
Aardvark<br />
Aardvark holes were widely distributed (Fig. 3.4)<br />
Figure 3.4 Distribution of aardvark in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Pigs<br />
Warthog spoor was re<strong>co</strong>rded in grassland and riverine woodland near the Greek River, with<br />
bushpig spoor in grassland and cultivated land south of the reserve in the CWA.<br />
Bovids<br />
A single topi was observed west of the Napadet army camp, and spoor was re<strong>co</strong>rded in<br />
grassland around the Napadet hills and in cultivated land south of the reserve in the CWA,<br />
although it is possible that the spoor was that of hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus). Buffalo<br />
spoor was re<strong>co</strong>rded in grassland near the Nab<strong>uk</strong>ut hills and west of the Napadet army camp,<br />
as well as in riverine woodland near the Greek River and cultivated land south of the reserve<br />
in the CWA. On one occasion approximately ten eland were observed in grassland east of the<br />
Napadet hills, and on another a group of approximately 60 were observed in wooded<br />
grassland even further east, although spoor was re<strong>co</strong>rded only a few times. On one occasion a<br />
single bushbuck was heard by rangers near the Greek River, but this was the only re<strong>co</strong>rd of<br />
this species. Blue duiker were widely distributed (Fig. 3.5), and were often observed at close<br />
range when flushed. Common duiker were observed somewhat less frequently, but were also<br />
widespread (Fig. 3.5), and also often observed at close range.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 27<br />
Figure 3.5 Distribution of blue and <strong>co</strong>mmon duiker in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Single dik-dik were observed in grassland, although spoor was also re<strong>co</strong>rded in riverine<br />
woodland and cultivated land (Fig. 3.6).<br />
Figure 3.6 Distribution of Gunther’s dik-dik in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
A single klipspringer was observed in the Napadet hills, but no spoor was re<strong>co</strong>rded. Oribi<br />
were by far the most frequently observed species, making up 81% of the direct re<strong>co</strong>rds made<br />
during the systematic belt transects, and were widely distributed (Fig. 3.7).<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 28<br />
Figure 3.7 Distribution of oribi in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Waterbuck spoor was widely distributed (Fig. 3.8).<br />
Figure 3.8 Distribution of waterbuck in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Single kob were observed in woodland near the Greek River and in grassland. Both<br />
observations were brief and of distant animals, so the sub-species was not determined. Bohor<br />
reedbuck were observed occasionally in small groups throughout the reserve, and mountain<br />
reedbuck were observed in groups of five or six in the Napadet hills and surrounding<br />
grassland. Their spoor, which <strong>co</strong>uld not always be distinguished with <strong>co</strong>nfidence, was widely<br />
distributed (Fig. 3.9).<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 29<br />
Figure 3.9 Distribution of Bohor and mountain reedbuck in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Porcupines, hares, and hedgehogs<br />
Porcupine quills were re<strong>co</strong>rded in grassland near Moruajore and in cultivated land south of<br />
the reserve in the CWA. A single hare and a single hedgehog were observed in grassland near<br />
Moruajore.<br />
3.5 Discussion<br />
No re<strong>co</strong>rds were made of Grant’s (Bright’s) gazelle (Gazella granti (brighti)) or roan<br />
antelope (Hippotragus equinus): Lamprey & Michelmore (1996ab) re<strong>co</strong>rded gazelle in the<br />
west of the reserve in October 1995 and roan south of Kadam in both October 1995 and May<br />
1996. No re<strong>co</strong>rds were made of hartebeest, which Lamprey & Michelmore (1996ab) re<strong>co</strong>rded<br />
near Kadam in October 1995 and in the north of the reserve (i.e., outside this survey’s<br />
sampling area) in May 1996, although it is possible that spoor attributed to topi, which was<br />
observed, may in fact have been that of hartebeest. A single indirect re<strong>co</strong>rd was made of<br />
giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) in November 1996, but it was of remains of an animal that<br />
had been dead for several years. Reports from rangers and local people indicate that the<br />
giraffe re<strong>co</strong>rded by Lamprey & Michelmore (1996a) south of Kadam in October 1995 have<br />
been poached. No direct re<strong>co</strong>rds were made of zebra, warthog, buffalo, and bushbuck, and for<br />
none of these were there many indirect re<strong>co</strong>rds either.<br />
This survey made direct re<strong>co</strong>rds of several small antelope not re<strong>co</strong>rded by Lamprey &<br />
Michelmore (1996ab), including blue duiker, dik-dik, klipspringer, and mountain reedbuck,<br />
as well as numerous indirect re<strong>co</strong>rds of waterbuck. Direct re<strong>co</strong>rds were also made of small or<br />
nocturnal species not likely to be re<strong>co</strong>rded from the air, such as vervet and patas monkey,<br />
mongoose, hyena, serval, hyrax, hare, and hedgehog.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 30<br />
There has been a drastic decline in the numbers of large mammals within the reserve over the<br />
past 30 years, including the eradication of species such as lion (Panthera leo), elephant<br />
(Loxodonta africana), black rhinoceros (Diceros bi<strong>co</strong>rnis), and probably giraffe, and animal<br />
densities are currently so low that in over 2,500 person days spent in the reserve, only oribi<br />
were observed on more than a few occasions.<br />
3.6 Conclusions<br />
Although not abundant, the reserve still has a diverse large mammal fauna, which includes<br />
almost a quarter (24%) of the <strong>co</strong>untry’s large mammals species. Over a third (35%) of the<br />
species re<strong>co</strong>rded are listed as ‘<strong>co</strong>nservation dependent’ or ‘near threatened’ in the 1996 Red<br />
List (Baillie & Groombridge, 1996), while others, such as zebra, are of national <strong>co</strong>nservation<br />
interest. Many are of high tourist interest, although they are at low densities and tend to be<br />
very shy.<br />
However, they <strong>co</strong>ntinue to be under severe threat from poaching by hungry people armed<br />
with automatic weapons. Although this poaching is opportunistic, because local people are<br />
armed at all times, is just as devastating as if it were systematic. Because valuable species are<br />
already so few in numbers, almost every animal en<strong>co</strong>untered is fired upon, and usually killed,<br />
as was observed in broad daylight on more than one occasion during the se<strong>co</strong>nd phase of the<br />
survey. Reducing the level of poaching will require a strong UWA presence and <strong>co</strong>nsiderable<br />
<strong>co</strong>mmunity outreach and law enforcement activities, but until the wider issues of insecurity<br />
and food security in the region are addressed and resolved, it is unlikely to be eliminated.<br />
Ironically, however, absolutely terrible insecurity in the south of the reserve has allowed the<br />
wildlife here some respite from poaching <strong>co</strong>mpared with elsewhere in the region, as the area<br />
is effectively a no-man’s land between the <strong>Pian</strong> Karamojong and the Pokot, and is thus<br />
subject to lower levels of poaching.<br />
Opportunities for generating revenue from tourism are limited as there are no roads or other<br />
facilities within the reserve, the small numbers of animals are very shy, and the area is too<br />
insecure. At current population levels even small harvests are unlikely to be sustainable,<br />
precluding any formal harvesting scheme from providing legal benefits to local people in the<br />
near future.<br />
However, the reserve <strong>co</strong>vers a large area, and the vegetation and habitats are essentially<br />
undisturbed, and if given adequate protection, many of the current small populations may<br />
re<strong>co</strong>ver and be viable in the long term. There are fewer land use <strong>co</strong>nflicts here than in most<br />
other parts of the <strong>co</strong>untry, and wildlife <strong>co</strong>nservation and cattle keeping at moderate densities<br />
are intrinsically quite <strong>co</strong>mpatible. In time, if populations are allowed to increase, the potential<br />
exists for both tourism and sustainable harvesting schemes<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 31<br />
3.7 References cited<br />
Baillie, J. & Groombridge, B. (Eds.) 1996. 1996 IUCN Red list of threatened animals. IUCN,<br />
Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge.<br />
Davies G. & Vanden Berghe E. 1994. Checklist of the mammals of East Africa. East African<br />
Natural History Society, Nairobi.<br />
Dorst, J. & Dandelot, P. 1972. A field guide to the larger mammals of Africa. Collins,<br />
London.<br />
Eltringham, S.K. & Malpas, R.C. 1993. The <strong>co</strong>nservation status of Uganda’s Game and<br />
Forest <strong>Reserve</strong>s in 1982 and 1983. Afr. J. E<strong>co</strong>l. 31:91-105.<br />
Eltringham, S.K., Malpas, R.C., & Tindigar<strong>uk</strong>ayo, J. 1992. The <strong>co</strong>nservation status of<br />
Uganda’s Game and Forest <strong>Reserve</strong>s in 1982-3. Uganda Institute of E<strong>co</strong>logy, Mweya.<br />
Kingdon, J. 1974a. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. I. University<br />
of Chicago Press, Chicago.<br />
Kingdon, J. 1974b. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. II, Part B<br />
(Hares and rodents). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.<br />
Kingdon, J. 1977. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. III, Part A<br />
(Carnivores). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.<br />
Kingdon, J. 1979. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. III, Part B<br />
(Large mammals). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.<br />
Kingdon, J. 1982a. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. III, Part C<br />
(Bovids). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.<br />
Kingdon, J. 1982b. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. III, Part D<br />
(Bovids). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.<br />
Lamprey, R.F. & Michelmore, F. 1996a. The <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas of Uganda:<br />
preliminary aerial survey results and their assessment plus initial re<strong>co</strong>mmendations.<br />
Ministry of Tourism, <strong>Wildlife</strong> & Antiquities, Kampala.<br />
Lamprey, R.F. & Michelmore, F. 1996b. Surveys of Uganda’s <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas:<br />
phase II surveys: May - June 1996. Ministry of Tourism, <strong>Wildlife</strong> & Antiquities,<br />
Kampala.<br />
Liebenberg, L. 1990. A field guide to the animal tracks of southern Africa. David Philip<br />
Publishers, Clairemont, South Africa.<br />
Stuart, C. & Stuart, T. 1994. A field guide to the tracks and signs of southern and East<br />
African wildlife. Southern Book Publishers, Cape Town.<br />
Walker, C. 1988. Signs of the wild: a field guide to the spoor and signs of the mammals of<br />
southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 32<br />
4.0 SMALL FAUNA SURVEY (Julia Lloyd)<br />
4.1 Summary<br />
A survey of the fauna: small rodents; shrews; bats; reptiles; amphibians; and butterflies of<br />
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> was <strong>co</strong>nducted between October and December 1996 and April<br />
and June 1997. Standard and repeatable methods were used at six sampling sites. Preliminary<br />
identifications of the small fauna were made in the field, and <strong>co</strong>nfirmed by taxonomists at<br />
Makerere University. Twelve species of small rodent, three species of shrew, five species of<br />
bat, and 11 species of reptile were identified, representing 7.9% of the <strong>co</strong>untry’s diversity for<br />
these taxa. Further taxonomic work on specimens <strong>co</strong>llected but not identified at the time of<br />
writing is likely to identify more species.<br />
4.2 Introduction<br />
4.2.1 Aims<br />
The small fauna survey aims to use standard and repeatable methods to:<br />
• <strong>co</strong>llect baseline data on the presence of selected taxa of small fauna: small rodents;<br />
shrews; bats; reptiles; amphibians; and butterflies within the reserve;<br />
Specimens are curated at the Zoology Museum at Makerere University. Tissue (DNA)<br />
samples from snakes are submitted to the Institute of Population Biology at the University of<br />
Copenhagen.<br />
4.2.2 Previous studies<br />
There are no previous studies of the small fauna of the reserve, although the small rodents,<br />
shrews, and butterflies of Napak and Kadam Forest <strong>Reserve</strong>s were surveyed as part of the<br />
Forest Department’s Biodiversity Inventory Programme. Small rodents, shrews, bats, reptiles,<br />
and butterflies were surveyed throughout Karamoja by Pomeroy & Tushabe (1996) but they<br />
did not sample within the reserve, and their field data were not available at the time of<br />
writing.<br />
4.3 Overview of methods<br />
The survey was <strong>co</strong>nducted in two phases from October to December 1996 and April to June<br />
1997.<br />
Volunteer research assistants were trained in appropriate animal capture and handling<br />
techniques, data re<strong>co</strong>rding, and in the use of appropriate field guides and keys.<br />
Small fauna from six taxonomic groups: small rodents; shrews; bats; reptiles; amphibians;<br />
and butterflies were surveyed using standard and repeatable methods. These groups were<br />
chosen for their ease of capture, preservation and identification. Furthermore they are likely<br />
to be indicators of overall diversity and habitat quality. Preliminary species identification was<br />
carried out in the field, and voucher specimens were taken of each species for <strong>co</strong>nfirmation of<br />
identification by taxonomists from the Department of Zoology, Makerere University.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 33<br />
Small fauna were sampled at the sites depicted in Figure 4.1. Opportunistic re<strong>co</strong>rds were also<br />
made throughout the reserve.<br />
Figure 4.1 Location of small fauna sampling sites in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Where possible, typical habitat preferences were determined for each species to enable<br />
interpretation of e<strong>co</strong>logical relationships, and the East African <strong>co</strong>untries (Kenya, Uganda and<br />
Tanzania) from which each has previously been re<strong>co</strong>rded noted. Also, where known, the<br />
<strong>co</strong>nservation status of each species is presented, although the status of many East African<br />
species is unknown as a result of little or poor information regarding distributions and habitat<br />
preferences (Bakamwesiga & Pomeroy, 1997).<br />
For mammals, where possible, the number of species captured was plotted against sampling<br />
effort to show species accumulation rates. This provides an indication of whether the<br />
documentation of diversity for each taxon is likely to be exhausted with respect to the<br />
sampling technique.<br />
4.4 Small rodents and shrews<br />
4.4.1 Introduction<br />
For a <strong>co</strong>untry of its size, Uganda possesses an ‘unusually rich rodent fauna’ (Delany, 1975)<br />
and is the third richest African <strong>co</strong>untry in shrew species (Ni<strong>co</strong>ll & Rathbun, 1990). Small<br />
mammals play important e<strong>co</strong>logical roles as prey species, seed dispersers and seed predators<br />
(Rabinowitz, 1993). They have an impact on humans as several species of rodents live in<br />
houses, potentially bringing disease, whereas others are pests of stored products (Delany &<br />
Happold, 1979).<br />
4.4.2 Aim<br />
To survey and document the small rodent and shrew diversity of the reserve.<br />
4.4.3 Methods<br />
Small mammal traps were used to sample diurnal, crepuscular, and nocturnal small<br />
mammals. Small snap traps (10.2 x 4.6cm), large Sherman (38 x 12 x 10cm), small Sherman<br />
(23 x 9 x 8cm) and Trip Traps (27 x 7 x 6cm; Proctor Bros. Ltd.) were placed in suitable<br />
habitats (e.g. at the bases of trees, under rocks, on branches) to target terrestrial and arboreal<br />
species. Traps were baited with a paste of peanuts, sweet banana, margarine, and maize flour<br />
and were checked twice daily.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 34<br />
A line of pitfall traps was used to catch ground dwelling fauna not likely to be captured by the<br />
other traps. A row of ten buckets (34cm diameter, 35cm deep) was sunk to ground level at 5m<br />
intervals. Plastic sheeting was run vertically along the bucket row across the middle of each<br />
bucket to guide passing animals into the traps. Traps were checked twice daily.<br />
Animals captured opportunistically were also re<strong>co</strong>rded.<br />
Field identification was carried out using Delany (1975) and Kingdon (1974ab). Voucher<br />
specimens were sent for <strong>co</strong>nfirmation of identification to Robert Kityo at the Department of<br />
Zoology, Makerere University.<br />
4.4.4 Results<br />
Small mammal traps and lines of pitfall traps were set the sites depicted in Figure 4.1.<br />
Sampling intensity and capture rates are shown in Table 4.1.<br />
Table 4.1 Sampling intensity and capture rates for small rodents and shrews in <strong>Pian</strong>-<br />
<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Sampling intensity Captures<br />
Capture rate<br />
(no. traps x no. nights)<br />
Small mammal traps 2,461 87 3.5%<br />
Pitfall traps 340 12 3.5/100 trap nights<br />
TOTAL - 99 -<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 35<br />
Twelve species of rodent (from three families) and three species of shrew were identified, as<br />
listed in Table 4.2.<br />
Table 4.2 Checklist of the small rodents and shrews of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Vernacular name Specific name Typical Range Status<br />
habitat<br />
Order Insectivora<br />
Family Soricidae: shrews<br />
Hildegarde’s musk shrew Crocidura hildegardeae f m c KUT DD<br />
Dwarf musk shrew C. nanilla s KU LR (LC)<br />
Climbing forest shrew Sylvisorex megalura m KUT DD<br />
Order Rodentia<br />
Family Cricetidae: Cricetid rats<br />
Southern pouched rat Sac<strong>co</strong>stomus campestris s T DD<br />
Family Muridae: mice & rats<br />
Sahel spiny mouse A<strong>co</strong>mys cineraceus - U DD<br />
Grey spiny mouse A. percivali - KU DD<br />
Northern bush rat Aethomys hindei g s KUT LR (LC)<br />
Nile grass rat Arvicanthis niloticus g c KUT LR (LC)<br />
Barbary striped grass rat Lemnis<strong>co</strong>mys barbarus g KUT DD<br />
Common striped grass rat L. striatus s g c h KUT LR (LC)<br />
N. savannah multimammate rat Mastomys hildebrandtii h c KUT LR (LC)<br />
Pygmy mouse sp. Mus sp. - - -<br />
African meadow rat Myomys fumatus s g KUT LR (LC)<br />
Rudd’s mouse Uranomys rudi - KU DD<br />
Family Myoxidae: dormice<br />
African <strong>co</strong>mmon dormouse Graphiurus murinus w s h KUT LR (LC)<br />
Nomenclature and taxonomy follow Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994).<br />
Typical habitat from Delany (1975), Ni<strong>co</strong>ll & Rathbun (1990), Kingdon (1974ab), and Rosevear (1969).<br />
Key<br />
Typical habitat<br />
f forest interior g grassland m moist<br />
fe forest edge s savannah c cultivation<br />
w woodland sw swamp h human habitation<br />
Range (East African <strong>co</strong>untries from which the species is re<strong>co</strong>rded by Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994))<br />
K Kenya U Uganda T Tanzania<br />
Status (from Kityo, 1996)<br />
LR Low Risk LC Least Concern DD Data Deficient NE Not Evaluated<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 36<br />
The species accumulation rate for small rodents and shrews captured in small mammal traps<br />
is shown in Figure 4.2.<br />
Figure 4.2 Species accumulation rate for small rodents captured in small mammal traps<br />
in <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Number of species<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500<br />
Sampling effort (trap nights)<br />
Unfortunately some shrew specimens remain unidentified at the time of writing, and thus<br />
species accumulation rates for shrews cannot be shown. There were insufficient data for the<br />
species accumulation rate for small rodents captured in pitfall traps to be shown.<br />
4.4.5 Discussion<br />
Figure 4.2 suggests that the <strong>co</strong>llection of small rodents using this sampling technique is near<br />
<strong>co</strong>mpletion in the habitats sampled. Sampling in additional habitats is likely to reveal further<br />
species.<br />
Shrews<br />
Crocidura hildegardeae is known to be widely distributed in the moister parts of East Africa<br />
(Kingdon, 1974a).<br />
Crocidura nanilla has been re<strong>co</strong>rded in northern Uganda and northern Kenya (Kingdon,<br />
1974a), with more recent re<strong>co</strong>rds from south-western Uganda (Dickenson & Kityo, 1996;<br />
Lloyd, 1997).<br />
Sylvisorex megalura occurs in moist localities at medium altitudes. It is re<strong>co</strong>rded west to<br />
Niger and south to the Limpopo (Kingdon, 1974a).<br />
Cricetid rats<br />
Sac<strong>co</strong>stomus campestris occurs in various savannah habitats, particularly in areas subject to<br />
regular burning. It feeds on Acacia pods, and makes it burrows near streams and rivers, which<br />
was where it was re<strong>co</strong>rded in the reserve. It is distributed throughout East and southern Africa<br />
(Kingdon, 1974b), although this may be the first re<strong>co</strong>rd for Uganda.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 37<br />
Mice and rats<br />
A<strong>co</strong>mys are found in the drier parts of Africa, where they shelter in rocky crevices, termite<br />
mounds, cracked soil, or other rodents’ burrows (Kingdon 1974b).<br />
Aethomys hindei is a grassland species, <strong>co</strong>mmon in cultivated areas. Its diet <strong>co</strong>nsists of grass<br />
seeds and crops such as yam, cassava and sweet potato (Kingdon, 1974b).<br />
Arvicanthis niloticus is a <strong>co</strong>mmon and dominant grassland species, but is also associated with<br />
cultivated areas (Kingdon, 1974b).<br />
The herbivorous Lemnis<strong>co</strong>mys striatus is one of the larger of the zebra mice. It is a dominant<br />
and successful species occupying a wide variety of grassy habitats and areas of human<br />
habitation, eating seeds and crops (Kingdon, 1974b; Rosevear, 1969). L. barbarus is typical<br />
of dry savannahs and steppes. Where L. barbarus and L. striatus <strong>co</strong>-exist, the former tends to<br />
live in scrubby areas where there is rapid run-off, while the latter lives in moister drainage<br />
lines where there is more dense vegetation (Kingdon, 1974b).<br />
Mastomys hildebrandtii was captured in grassland. Multimammate rats are ubiquitous in<br />
Africa as they are closely associated with human activity, usually living near houses and<br />
fields (Kingdon, 1974b).<br />
Africa’s smallest rodents, Mus, have been re<strong>co</strong>rded in a range of habitats (Kingdon, 1974b).<br />
This species <strong>co</strong>mplex is currently being analysed to distinguish between five possible species<br />
in Uganda (Robert Kityo, pers. <strong>co</strong>mm.).<br />
The insectivorous Uranomys ruddi is re<strong>co</strong>rded from savannah in scattered locations from<br />
West, Central and East Africa (Kingdon, 1974b).<br />
Dormice<br />
The arboreal Graphiurus murinus occurs in all types of savannah and is <strong>co</strong>mmon around<br />
houses and fields (Delany, 1975). It was re<strong>co</strong>rded near the ranger post at Moruajore.<br />
The small rodents and shrews identified at the time of writing are typical of the locality and<br />
habitat types. Half are classed as ‘Data Deficient’ in the Ugandan <strong>co</strong>ntext (Kityo, 1996).<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 38<br />
4.5 Bats<br />
4.5.1 Introduction<br />
Macrochiropterans (macro bats) play an important role as pollinators and seed dispersers for<br />
tropical plants including many useful to humans, and in some areas may be key species in the<br />
maintenance of natural vegetation (IUCN, 1992). Microchiropterans (micro bats) feed on<br />
insects (Kingdon, 1974b) which helps to <strong>co</strong>ntrol disease.<br />
4.5.2 Aim<br />
To survey and document the bat diversity of the reserve.<br />
4.5.3 Methods<br />
Mist nets were set across suitable flight paths. Different species hunt at different altitudes<br />
(Kingdon, 1974a) so the nets were set at various heights up to 10m to maximise the number<br />
of species captured. Different species also hunt at different times of night (Kingdon, 1974a)<br />
so the nets were observed <strong>co</strong>nstantly between dusk (1900 hours) and dawn (0600 hours).<br />
Bats captured opportunistically were also re<strong>co</strong>rded.<br />
Field identification was carried out using Happold & Happold (1989), Kingdon (1974a) and<br />
Meester & Setzer (1971). Voucher specimens were sent for <strong>co</strong>nfirmation of identification to<br />
Robert Kityo at the Department of Zoology, Makerere University.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 39<br />
4.5.4 Results<br />
Mist nets were set at the sites depicted in Figure 4.1. Sampling intensity was 8,316 metrehours.<br />
Six bats were captured giving a capture rate of 0.1/100 metre-hours. Two species of<br />
macro bat and three species of micro bat (from three families) were identified, as listed in<br />
Table 4.3.<br />
Table 4.3 Checklist of the bats of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Vernacular name Specific name Typical<br />
Range<br />
Status<br />
habitat<br />
Order Macrochiroptera<br />
Family Pteropodidae: fruit bats<br />
Subfamily Pteropodinae<br />
Little epauletted fruit bat Epomophorus labiatus fe w s c KUT DD<br />
Pygmy epauletted fruit bat E. minimus fe w s c KUT DD<br />
Order Microchiroptera<br />
Family Nycteridae: slit-faced bats<br />
Hairy slit-faced bat Nycteris hispida varied h KUT LR (LC)<br />
Family Vespertilionidae: vesper bats<br />
African giant house bat S<strong>co</strong>tophilus nigrita f w s KT DD<br />
Family Molossidae: free-tailed bats<br />
Little free-tailed bat Chaerophon pumila h KUT LR (LC)<br />
Nomenclature and taxonomy follow Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994).<br />
Typical habitat from Kingdon (1974a).<br />
Key<br />
Typical Habitat<br />
f forest interior g grassland m moist<br />
fe forest edge s savannah c cultivation<br />
w woodland sw swamp h human habitation<br />
Range (East African <strong>co</strong>untries from which the species is re<strong>co</strong>rded by Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994))<br />
K Kenya U Uganda T Tanzania<br />
Status (from Kityo, 1996)<br />
LR Low Risk LC Least Concern DD Data Deficient NE Not Evaluated<br />
There are insufficient data for the species accumulation rate to be shown.<br />
4.5.5 Discussion<br />
In dense vegetation bats are channelled along flight paths and mist nets strung across them are<br />
hard to detect amongst the vegetation. In the open habitats of the reserve, however, capture<br />
rates are low as bats were not restricted to flight paths and are more likely to detect and avoid<br />
the mist nets. Sampling in additional habitats is likely to reveal further species.<br />
Macro bats<br />
Epomophorine bats are exclusively African, and have radiated into eight species, with<br />
Epomophorus exhibiting several ‘size classes’ (Kingdon, 1974a). The Epomophorus gambius<br />
<strong>co</strong>mplex includes the smallest size class, E. labiatus and the lower middle size class, E.<br />
minimus.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 40<br />
Micro bats<br />
The range of forms within the micro bats is greater than any other taxon of mammals (Delany<br />
& Happold, 1979). Eight families are represented in East Africa (Davies & Vanden Berghe,<br />
1994), three of which were represented in the reserve.<br />
Nycterid bats roost in papyrus crowns, holes, termite mounds, and buildings, and exploit the<br />
food sources of reedbeds, thickets, and dense undergrowth (Kingdon, 1974a). Nycteris<br />
hispida was re<strong>co</strong>rded from roofs at the ranger post at Moruajore.<br />
S<strong>co</strong>tophilus nigrita was re<strong>co</strong>rded by the Greek River. It has also been re<strong>co</strong>rded in Katonga<br />
<strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong> (Lloyd, 1997), but these are among the first known specimens of this<br />
species for Uganda (Robert Kityo, pers. <strong>co</strong>mm.). It is classed as ‘Low Risk: near threatened’<br />
in the 1996 Red List, although it is not listed for Uganda (Baillie & Groombridge, 1996), and<br />
Kityo (1996) classes it as ‘Data Deficient’ in the Ugandan <strong>co</strong>ntext.<br />
Chaerophon pumila is a widely distributed species, familiar through having <strong>co</strong>lonised roofs<br />
in almost every African town (Kingdon, 1974a).<br />
The bats are typical of the locality and habitat types. Three are classed as ‘Data Deficient’ in<br />
the Ugandan <strong>co</strong>ntext (Kityo, 1996).<br />
4.6 Reptiles<br />
4.6.1 Introduction<br />
Reptiles have not been <strong>co</strong>mprehensively studied in Uganda (Mathius Behangana, pers.<br />
<strong>co</strong>mm.), and the status of the majority of East African reptiles has not yet been evaluated.<br />
Reptiles have an important role in the e<strong>co</strong>system, many <strong>co</strong>nsuming insects and vermin that<br />
may carry diseases.<br />
4.6.2 Aim<br />
To survey and document the reptile diversity of the reserve.<br />
4.6.3 Methods<br />
Lines of pitfall traps were established to catch ground dwelling fauna (see section 4.4.3).<br />
Reptiles were also captured opportunistically by hand, except for potentially poisonous<br />
snakes.<br />
Field identification of reptiles was carried out using Broadley & Howell (1991), Branch<br />
(1988) and Hedges (1983). Voucher specimens were sent for <strong>co</strong>nfirmation of identification to<br />
Mathius Behangana at the Department of Zoology, Makerere University.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 41<br />
4.6.4 Results<br />
Lines of pitfall traps were set at the sites depicted in Figure 4.1. Sampling intensity was 340<br />
trap nights. Fifteen reptiles were captured, giving a capture rate of 4.4/100 trap nights. Four<br />
reptiles were captured opportunistically. Eight species of lizard (from four families) and three<br />
species of snake (from two families) were identified, as listed in Table 4.4.<br />
Table 4.4 Checklist of the reptiles of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Vernacular name Specific name Typical<br />
habitat<br />
Range<br />
Order Sauria<br />
Family Gekkonidae: geckos<br />
Chevron-throated dwarf gecko Lygodactylus gutturalis - KUT NE<br />
Family Scincidae: skinks<br />
NE<br />
Subfamily Scincinae<br />
Burrowing skink sp. Scelotes sp. - - -<br />
Subfamily Lygosomatinae<br />
Rainbow skink Mabuya quinquetaeniata KUT NE<br />
Common stripped skink M. striata - KUT NE<br />
Family Agamidae: agamas<br />
Common agama Agama agama KUT NE<br />
Family Chamaeleonidae: chameleons<br />
Chameleon sp. Chamaeleo sp. - - -<br />
Family Lacertidae<br />
Scrub-lizard sp.<br />
Nucrus sp.<br />
Family Varanidae: monitors<br />
SE savannah monitor lizard Varanus albigularis - KUT NE<br />
Order Serpentes<br />
Family Boidae: pythons & boas<br />
Subfamily Pythoninae<br />
African rock python Python sebae s KUT NE<br />
Subfamily Viperinae<br />
Puff adder Bitis arietans s KUT NE<br />
Family Colubridae: <strong>co</strong>lubrid snakes<br />
Subfamily Lamprophiinae<br />
Water snake sp. Ly<strong>co</strong>donomorphus sp. - - -<br />
Nomenclature and taxonomy follow Broadley & Howell (1991).<br />
Typical habitat from Branch (1988) and Broadley & Howell (1991).<br />
Key<br />
Habitat<br />
f forest interior g grassland m moist<br />
fe forest edge s savannah c cultivation<br />
w woodland sw swamp h human habitation<br />
Range (East African <strong>co</strong>untries from which the species is re<strong>co</strong>rded by Howell (undated))<br />
K Kenya U Uganda T Tanzania<br />
Status (Mathius Behangana, pers. <strong>co</strong>mm.)<br />
LR Low Risk LC Least Concern DD Data Deficient NE Not Evaluated<br />
Status<br />
Unfortunately, some specimens remain unidentified at the time of writing. Sampling in<br />
additional habitats is likely to reveal further species.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 42<br />
4.6.5 Discussion<br />
Lizards<br />
Skinks were the most <strong>co</strong>mmonly re<strong>co</strong>rded reptile. Mabuya be<strong>co</strong>me accustomed to human<br />
activity quickly, and are <strong>co</strong>mmon in areas of human habitation (Capula, 1989).<br />
Snakes<br />
Python sebae, Africa’s largest snake, is understandably feared by local people, being the only<br />
snake to <strong>co</strong>nsider humans edible (Branch, 1988).<br />
Bitis arietans, Africa’s most poisonous snake, is also widely feared (Hedges, 1983).<br />
The reptiles are typical of the locality and habitat types. None have been evaluated with<br />
regard to <strong>co</strong>nservation status.<br />
4.7 Amphibians<br />
4.7.1 Introduction<br />
Amphibians have not been <strong>co</strong>mprehensively studied in Uganda (Mathius Behangana, pers.<br />
<strong>co</strong>mm.), and the status of the majority of East African amphibians has not yet been evaluated.<br />
Amphibians are e<strong>co</strong>logically important, being predators of insects, some of which are pests to<br />
crops or vectors of disease. Amphibians are also now re<strong>co</strong>gnised as sensitive environmental<br />
indicators: impact on their habitat is reflected by a change in abundance and diversity in a<br />
short time (Behangana, 1995).<br />
4.7.2 Aim<br />
To survey and document the amphibian diversity of the reserve.<br />
4.7.3 Methods<br />
Lines of pitfall traps were established to catch ground dwelling fauna (see section 4.4.3).<br />
Amphibians were also <strong>co</strong>llected opportunistically by hand, particularly when calling in the<br />
evenings.<br />
Field identification was carried out using Schiøtz (1975) and Stewart (1967). Voucher<br />
specimens were sent for <strong>co</strong>nfirmation of identification to Mathius Behangana at the<br />
Department of Zoology, Makerere University.<br />
4.7.4 Results<br />
Lines of pitfall traps were set at the sites depicted in Figure 4.1. Sampling intensity was 340<br />
trap nights. Unfortunately, all of the specimens remain unidentified at the time of writing.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 43<br />
4.8 Butterflies<br />
4.8.1 Introduction<br />
Perhaps the most widely appreciated butterflies are the swallowtails, birdwings and their<br />
allies, Papilionidae, which have recently received substantial <strong>co</strong>nservation attention.<br />
Members of this family occur in association with most vegetation types, with many species<br />
having very precise environmental requirements. Therefore, some butterflies have<br />
<strong>co</strong>nsiderable potential for use as indicator species as their incidence and abundance reflect<br />
small degrees of habitat change (Collins & Morris, 1985). Moreover, butterflies are not only<br />
of <strong>co</strong>nservation value, but are also attractive to tourists.<br />
4.8.2 Aim<br />
To survey and document the butterfly diversity of the reserve with reference to habitat type.<br />
4.8.3 Methods<br />
Five fine mesh Blendon traps were baited with a variety of rotting fruits including banana,<br />
pawpaw and pineapple. The nets were hung from trees at heights between 0.5 and 1m above<br />
the ground. Hand held sweep nets were used to <strong>co</strong>llect species of butterflies not captured in<br />
the Blendon traps.<br />
Field identification of butterflies was carried out using Migdoll (1992). Voucher specimens<br />
were sent for <strong>co</strong>nfirmation of identification to Patrick Etyang at the Department of Zoology,<br />
Makerere University.<br />
4.8.4 Results<br />
Butterfly traps were set at the sites depicted in Figure 4.1. Sweep netting was carried out there<br />
and opportunistically throughout the reserve. Unfortunately, all of the specimens remain<br />
unidentified at the time of writing.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 44<br />
4.9 Conclusions<br />
The reserve has a diverse small fauna which <strong>co</strong>mprises over 7.9% of the <strong>co</strong>untry’s small<br />
rodents, shrews, bats, and reptiles as shown in Table 4.5.<br />
Table 4.5 Diversity by taxon of the small fauna of <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong><br />
Taxon<br />
No. of species<br />
No. of species<br />
%<br />
re<strong>co</strong>rded in PUWR re<strong>co</strong>rded in Uganda<br />
Small rodents 12 74 † 16.2<br />
Shrews >3 35 † >8.6<br />
Bats 5 90 † 5.6<br />
Reptiles >11 191 ‡ >5.8<br />
TOTAL >31 390 >7.9<br />
†<br />
Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994)<br />
‡<br />
Pomeroy & Tushabe (1996)<br />
Although species accumulation rates indicate that <strong>co</strong>llection of small rodents is near<br />
<strong>co</strong>mpletion in the habitats sampled, both further field work and taxonomic work on<br />
specimens already <strong>co</strong>llected is likely to identify more species. The small fauna identified at<br />
the time of writing is typical of the locality and the grassland, riverine woodland, and kopje<br />
habitats of the reserve, or is associated with human presence and cultivation.<br />
Endemism is low in Uganda (IUCN, 1986) due to the overlap of biogeographic zones and no<br />
endemics were re<strong>co</strong>rded. No species of particular <strong>co</strong>nservation <strong>co</strong>ncern were re<strong>co</strong>rded,<br />
although the <strong>co</strong>nservation status of many species is yet to be assessed.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 45<br />
4.10 References cited<br />
Baillie, J. & Groombridge, B. (Eds.) 1996. 1996 IUCN Red list of threatened animals. IUCN,<br />
Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge.<br />
Bakamwesiga, H. & Pomeroy, D. 1997. The seventh Regional Biodiversity Meeting.<br />
Makerere University Institute of Environment & Natural Resources, Kampala.<br />
Behangana, M. 1995. The status of amphibians in Rwenzori Mountains, western Uganda.<br />
M.Sc. thesis. Makerere University, Kampala.<br />
Branch, B. 1988 A field guide to the snakes and other reptiles of southern Africa. New<br />
Holland Publ. Ltd., Cape Town.<br />
Broadley, D.G. & Howell, K.M. 1991. Syntarsus - a check list of the reptiles of Tanzania,<br />
with synoptic keys. National Museum & Monuments of Zimbabwe, Bulawayo.<br />
Capula, M. 1989. Guide to the reptiles and amphibians of the world. Simon & Schuster Inc.,<br />
New York.<br />
Collins, N.M. & Morris, M.G. 1985. Threatened swallowtail butterflies of the world: the<br />
IUCN Red Data Book. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.<br />
Davies, G. & Vanden Berghe, E. 1994. Checklist of the mammals of East Africa. East<br />
African Natural History Society, Nairobi.<br />
Delany, M.J. 1975. The rodents of Uganda. Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History),<br />
London.<br />
Delany, M.J. & Happold, D.C.D. 1979. E<strong>co</strong>logy of African mammals. Longman Group Ltd.,<br />
London.<br />
Dickenson, C. & Kityo, R.M. 1996. Small mammals. In: T. Davenport, P.C. Howard, & R.<br />
Matthews (Eds.), Mujuzi, Ssesse Islands, and Jubiya Forest <strong>Reserve</strong>s: biodiversity<br />
report. Biodiversity Inventory Programme Report No. 23, Forest Department,<br />
Kampala.<br />
Happold, D.C.D. & Happold, M. 1989. The bats (Chiroptera) of Malawi, Central Africa:<br />
checklist and keys for identification. Nyala 142:89-112.<br />
Hedges, N.G. 1983. Reptiles and amphibians of East Africa. Kenya Literature Bureau,<br />
Nairobi.<br />
Howell, K.M. (undated). Draft checklist of East African reptiles. Unpublished paper.<br />
IUCN. 1986. Review of the protected areas system in the Afrotropical realm. IUCN, Gland,<br />
Switzerland.<br />
IUCN. 1992. Old world fruit bats: an action plan for their <strong>co</strong>nservation. IUCN, Gland,<br />
Switzerland.<br />
Kingdon, J. 1974a. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. II, Part A<br />
(Insectivores and bats). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.<br />
Kingdon, J. 1974b. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. II, Part B<br />
(Hares and rodents). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.<br />
Kityo, R.M. 1996. Draft red data list for Ugandan mammals. Unpublished paper.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 46<br />
Lloyd. J. 1997. Small fauna survey. In: K.L. Zwick (Ed.), Katonga <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>:<br />
biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey (II). <strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas<br />
Project Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9. The Society for Environmental<br />
Exploration, London & Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Authority, Kampala.<br />
Meester, J. & Setzer, H.W. 1971. The mammals of Africa: an identification manual.<br />
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.<br />
Migdoll, I. 1992. Field guide to the butterflies of southern Africa. New Holland Publ. Ltd.,<br />
London.<br />
Ni<strong>co</strong>ll, M.E. & Rathbun, G.B. 1990. African Insectivora and elephant shrews: an action plan<br />
for their <strong>co</strong>nservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.<br />
Pomeroy, D. & Tushabe, H. 1996. Biodiversity of Karamoja: Part One: ground surveys,<br />
results and analyses. Makerere University Institute of Environment & Natural<br />
Resources, Kampala.<br />
Rabinowitz, A. 1993. <strong>Wildlife</strong> field research and <strong>co</strong>nservation training manual. The <strong>Wildlife</strong><br />
Conservation Society, Conservation International, New York.<br />
Rosevear, D. 1969. The rodents of West Africa. Trustees of the British Museum (Natural<br />
History), London.<br />
Schiøtz, A. 1975. The treefrogs of eastern Africa. Steenstrupia, Copenhagen.<br />
Stewart, M. 1967. Amphibians of Malawi. State University of New York Press, Albany, New<br />
York.<br />
Personal Communications<br />
Mathius Behangana (MSc), Dept. of Zoology, Makerere University, PO Box 7062, Kampala.<br />
Robert Kityo (MSc), Dept. of Zoology, Makerere University, PO Box 7062, Kampala.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 47<br />
5.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY (Karen L. Zwick)<br />
5.1 Summary<br />
A brief socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey of the <strong>co</strong>mmunities living around the <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong><br />
<strong>Reserve</strong> was <strong>co</strong>nducted in November and December 1996. Rapid and Participatory Rural<br />
Appraisal (R/PRA) methods were used in two primarily Sebei villages, Chepsikunya and<br />
Seryoto, and two <strong>Pian</strong> villages, Lopedot and Lomorimor. The main issues identified were<br />
insecurity and poor food security. In addition, the reserve was identified as an important<br />
source of many natural resources for the <strong>Pian</strong> in particular. Attitudes towards UWA and<br />
<strong>co</strong>nservation are relatively positive, although the <strong>Pian</strong> and the Pokot have the upper hand, and<br />
the major threat remains poaching. A potential <strong>co</strong>nflict between development and<br />
<strong>co</strong>nservation objectives is a resettlement project in the part of the Sebei CWA re<strong>co</strong>mmended<br />
for inclusion in a new National Park.<br />
5.2 Introduction<br />
5.2.1 Aims<br />
The socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey aims to:<br />
• <strong>co</strong>llect baseline sociological and e<strong>co</strong>nomic data on the <strong>co</strong>mmunities living around the<br />
reserve;<br />
• <strong>co</strong>llect data on the use of the reserve’s natural resources by local people; and<br />
• investigate attitudes towards and awareness of the reserve and <strong>co</strong>nservation issues.<br />
5.2.2 Community <strong>co</strong>nservation and the 1996 wildlife statute<br />
There is growing re<strong>co</strong>gnition that although traditional-style exclusive protected areas can be a<br />
vital part of a national <strong>co</strong>nservation strategy, on their own they are largely failing to <strong>co</strong>nserve<br />
wild animals and plants adequately throughout the world, and perhaps most so in Africa<br />
(Makombe, 1994). Such protected areas allow for very restricted, if any, human use of the<br />
natural resources within them, and the restrictions are targeted at the rural people living in the<br />
immediate vicinity, who are often very poor. The <strong>co</strong>sts of these restrictions to these people<br />
are often unbearable, and in much of Africa, rural life within the law is just not possible<br />
(Pangeti, 1992). The realisation that wild animals and plants will <strong>co</strong>ntinue to be utilised,<br />
either legally or illegally, has lead to a shift in focus away from protected areas defended from<br />
a <strong>co</strong>untry’s own citizens by paramilitary law enforcement organisations to the development of<br />
multiple resource use areas, where a range of sustainable uses of the natural resources are<br />
permitted with a view to balancing <strong>co</strong>nservation objectives with the day to day and<br />
development needs of local <strong>co</strong>mmunities.<br />
Fraser Stewart (1992) re<strong>co</strong>gnised that local participation was critical to sustainable PA<br />
management and <strong>co</strong>nservation in Uganda, and, while ownership of all wildlife is still vested<br />
in the state, the 1996 wildlife statute makes extensive provisions for wildlife use rights for<br />
both individuals and <strong>co</strong>mmunities. Although a defensive and protectionist ethic still pervades<br />
among the old guard, newly recruited UWA wardens are <strong>co</strong>mmitted to the management of<br />
protected areas to benefit local <strong>co</strong>mmunities, and every PA now has at least one warden<br />
dedicated to <strong>co</strong>mmunity <strong>co</strong>nservation.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 48<br />
5.2.3 Previous studies<br />
There are no previous studies specifically of the peoples of the reserve and its immediate<br />
environs or their use of natural resources. Karamojong society has been described in detail by<br />
Dyson-Hudson (1966), Cisternino (1979), and Novelli (1988) among others, and Ocan (1994)<br />
describes many of the current problems of the region, while Wilson (1962) briefly describes<br />
various uses of the plants of the region.<br />
5.2.4 People and history<br />
The reserve is surrounded by five ethnic groups: the <strong>Pian</strong> Karamojong to the north and east,<br />
the Pokot to the south-east, the Sebei to the south, the Iteso to the west, and the Tepes high on<br />
Napak and Kadam. All are nilotic or nilo-hamitic in origin (Nzita & Mbaga, 1995; Ocan,<br />
1994).<br />
Rainfall around the reserve is not as low as it is further north and east in Karamoja, but it is<br />
both highly variable and unpredictable in its spatial and temporal distribution. All of these<br />
peoples are traditionally primarily subsistence pastoralists or agro-pastoralists, whose survival<br />
strategies rely on moving their herds in space and time to find the pasture and water they need<br />
to maximise productivity. The Pokot are nomadic; entire families move wherever there is<br />
pasture and water. The <strong>Pian</strong> practice transhumance; the men move west with their cattle<br />
through the reserve towards Lake Opeta as the dry season progresses, while the women and<br />
children remain in permanent settlements in the east. The more benign climate to the west in<br />
Teso reduces the need for mobility, and many people there are settled, as are the Sebei and<br />
the Tepes, who in recent times have had their cattle raided by the more heavily armed and<br />
warlike <strong>Pian</strong>, other Karamojong, and Pokot, and who now must cultivate in order to survive<br />
(Ocan, 1994; Nzita & Mbaga, 1995; KWMP, 1996).<br />
The agricultural potential of the area around the reserve is limited to annual crops, except for<br />
Napak, Kadam, and a small fertile and well watered area at the base of Kadam, near Namalu,<br />
where some perennial crops can be grown (Wilson, 1962). The traditional staple foods are<br />
sorghum, finger millet, and bulrush millet, although new crops have been introduced more<br />
recently, reducing the impact of disease and pest attack. However, the wet (growing) season<br />
is very short and the dry season very severe, with minor droughts approximately every third<br />
year, and major ones approximately once a decade so a survival strategy based on cultivation<br />
alone is a risky one. In recent times, however, many of the people of the area have been<br />
forced to take this option as the number of cattle has declined, and those remaining have<br />
fallen into the hands a few powerful warlords (Wilson, 1985; Knutsson, 1985).<br />
Cattle densities in and around the reserve (mostly <strong>Pian</strong>) reached their highest in the early<br />
1960s as a result of the loss of <strong>Pian</strong> and other Karamojong grazing lands through decisions<br />
made by the <strong>co</strong>lonial administration, <strong>co</strong>upled with increases in numbers due to the advent of<br />
modern veterinary medicine and the indiscriminate <strong>co</strong>nstruction of artificial watering points.<br />
The cattle exceeded the capacity of the vegetation to support them sustainably, especially<br />
around the new watering points and in areas where dispersal was curtailed by veterinary<br />
<strong>co</strong>rdons. The overgrazing led to changes in the vegetation, which became less productive and<br />
less able to protect the soil from erosion, which further reduced productivity. It also reduced<br />
the standing biomass such that there was insufficient fuel for regular dry season burning,<br />
which further served to hasten the induced negative vegetation changes (Alnwick, 1985;<br />
Wilson, 1985; Wilson, 1962).<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 49<br />
The number of cattle owned is the most important thing to most pastoralists, who to rely on<br />
them for their intermediate products (milk and blood) rather than their terminal products for<br />
subsistence, and for whom they act as a mobile store of wealth in an uncertain environment,<br />
most <strong>co</strong>mmonly exchanged for brides, but also for grain in times of need. Because of this,<br />
and because pasture is held in <strong>co</strong>mmon, no individual <strong>Pian</strong> would <strong>co</strong>nsider limiting the<br />
number of cattle he owned, and thus numbers <strong>co</strong>ntinued to grow while the capacity of the<br />
vegetation to support them decreased. Eventually this led to trespass of cattle into<br />
neighbouring areas, which led to increased violence, in the form of raiding, between groups<br />
(Alnwick, 1985; Wilson, 1962).<br />
Traditionally, raiding had served to restock herds after disaster and redistribute wealth, so that<br />
most families had enough cattle for subsistence purposes, and checks were made on the<br />
wealth of any one individual. It also allowed young men to accumulate the cattle necessary<br />
for marriage, and served to identify allegiances. The advent of modern weaponry, which came<br />
to raiding in Karamoja in 1959, changed all this. Some <strong>co</strong>ntrol was kept on the situation until<br />
Idi Amin came to power in 1971, when law and order effectively broke down throughout the<br />
<strong>co</strong>untry. In Karamoja, human lives were lost in unprecedented numbers, and the balance of<br />
power between groups was altered dramatically (Cisternino, 1985; Wilson, 1985). The Sebei<br />
and Iteso peoples neighbouring Karamoja lost all of their livestock to the <strong>Pian</strong>, other<br />
Karamojong, and Pokot, and many fled the border areas and turned to cultivation (Nzita &<br />
Mbaga, 1995). The Tepes too lost all of their livestock, but remained in the mountains,<br />
unable to escape. Around the reserve, relations between the <strong>Pian</strong> and Pokot, which had never<br />
been good, deteriorated further (Ocan, 1994; Wilson, 1985). Cattle numbers dropped quickly<br />
as a result of the violence, and as veterinary medicine became unavailable and artificial<br />
watering points fell into disrepair. In 1979 Amin’s retreating army and the advancing<br />
Tanzanian forces killed huge numbers of cattle and wildlife before Amin’s troops left the<br />
armoury at Moroto open, releasing some 2,000 more automatic weapons for use in raids.<br />
Rather than being a source of security, cattle <strong>co</strong>uld now be stolen or scattered at any time, and<br />
the majority of <strong>Pian</strong> and Pokot families soon found themselves without access to their main<br />
source of food, and were forced to rely on cultivation (Wilson, 1985; Ocan, 1994).<br />
The unreliability of cultivation as a survival strategy in Karamoja was made worse during the<br />
1970s as insecurity limited the area that <strong>co</strong>uld be planted and often resulted in seed being<br />
stolen or destroyed. Because of the risk of raiding, all of the cattle of those families which<br />
still had them were taken with the men (and guns) in the dry season, leaving the women and<br />
children with no access to milk and blood. When crops failed, those families with cattle were<br />
unable to find buyers, and those with money unable to find grain for sale, due to a <strong>co</strong>mplete<br />
breakdown in <strong>co</strong>mmerce in the <strong>co</strong>untry. Between 1964 and 1979 food relief was distributed<br />
in Karamoja in ten out of the 16 years (Alnwick, 1985), and in 1980 poor rains, in addition to<br />
the existing problems, led to severe famine: despite international aid, approximately 50,000<br />
people died of starvation in the region (Biellik & Henderson, 1985).<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 50<br />
Between 1957 and 1980, while the human population of Karamoja doubled, its cattle<br />
population more than halved (Cisternino, 1985). This reduction of grazing pressure, <strong>co</strong>upled<br />
with the removal of huge amounts of woody vegetation by impoverished people reduced to<br />
producing char<strong>co</strong>al to make a living served to inadvertently and unexpectedly reverse the<br />
negative vegetation changes of the recent past (Wilson, 1985). However, guns and the<br />
associated violence remain an important part of <strong>co</strong>ntemporary life, leaving 80-90% of the<br />
people without cattle, their traditional source of subsistence (Knutsson, 1985). The cultivation<br />
upon which these people have been forced to rely is as precarious as ever, and the food<br />
security situation remains poor. Traditional society is under threat as the authority of elders is<br />
undermined by young warlords, and the situation is widely perceived to be that of a crisis,<br />
with the land unable to sustain its peoples, and violence rife (Ocan, 1994). In 1990 a<br />
development plan for the region was produced; it’s short term goal is to meet the basic<br />
biological demands of people and cattle (UNSO, 1990).<br />
The region remains very underdeveloped however, with the average in<strong>co</strong>me in Karamoja just<br />
20% of that of the rest of Uganda (UNSO, 1990), and minimal opportunities for formal sector<br />
employment. Government services are minimal: for example, Moroto and Kotido districts are<br />
respectively ranked last and third last in the <strong>co</strong>untry in terms of primary schools per capita,<br />
and se<strong>co</strong>nd last and last respectively in terms of se<strong>co</strong>ndary schools per capita (Rwabwoogo,<br />
1995), with only 30% of school aged children actually enrolled in 1983 (Cisternino, 1985).<br />
Literacy rates are just 18% for men and 5% for women (Dodge, 1986).<br />
The reserve is primarily used for pasture and water by the <strong>Pian</strong>, particularly in the dry season,<br />
although there are some settlements near Napak in the north and an area of cultivation west of<br />
Namalu which encroach (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996ab). Underdevelopment and the<br />
traditional lifestyles of most of the peoples living around the reserve mean that many rely<br />
heavily on the natural resources around them for fuel, <strong>co</strong>nstruction materials, materials for<br />
utensils, traditional medicines, wild <strong>co</strong>llected foods, etc. (KWMP, 1996). Almost 150 uses<br />
for wild plants were documented by Wilson (1962), and over fifty described by local <strong>Pian</strong> in<br />
villages near Namalu (KWMP, 1996), although the impact of this use has not been evaluated.<br />
In addition, a wide variety of wildlife is hunted for meat and other products, primarily by the<br />
<strong>Pian</strong> (KWMP, 1996) and the widespread use of automatic weapons by often hungry people<br />
has had obvious effects on the wildlife resources of the area, although local <strong>co</strong>mmunities still<br />
suffer from crop damage and livestock loss by wildlife (KWMP, 1996).<br />
5.3 Methods<br />
The survey was <strong>co</strong>nducted in November and December 1996.<br />
The reserve falls within the jurisdiction of the Karamoja <strong>Wildlife</strong> Management Project<br />
(KWMP), and thus the current survey was undertaken in <strong>co</strong>njunction with it, as well as with<br />
the reserve’s Community Conservation Warden (CCW). Preliminary background discussions<br />
were held with the CCW and locally recruited Community Conservation Rangers (CCRs) to<br />
establish priorities and refine the focus of the survey.<br />
The survey focused on the <strong>co</strong>mmunities closest to Moruajore where people were most<br />
familiar with the reserve staff. Local people CCRs from the <strong>co</strong>mmunities visited were used as<br />
translators, and the volunteer research assistants were trained in the methods used as the<br />
survey progressed, and guided by the Socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomics Co-ordinator.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 51<br />
5.3.1 Rapid and Participatory Rural Appraisal<br />
The methods of appraisal employed in this survey follow the general approaches and methods<br />
grouped under the headings of Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) and Participatory Rural<br />
Appraisal (PRA), as developed by organisations such as the Institute of Development Studies<br />
and the International Institute for the Environment and Development.<br />
RRA developed from both a dissatisfaction with more traditional techniques of investigating<br />
rural life, such as questionnaires and surveys, which tend to be tedious and unreliable, and a<br />
desire to tap into indigenous technical knowledge to increase the efficiency with which<br />
development professionals and others <strong>co</strong>uld acquire this information. It seeks to enable<br />
outsiders to gain information and insight from rural people themselves about rural <strong>co</strong>nditions.<br />
This information is then taken away for analysis and presentation (Chambers, 1992).<br />
PRA is based on RRA and other fields, and seeks to move beyond RRA. PRA draws on the<br />
philosophies of activist participatory research, which seeks to enhance self awareness and self<br />
<strong>co</strong>nfidence and thus empower people by allowing them to <strong>co</strong>nduct their own analyses of their<br />
own reality. It absorbed techniques such as transect walking, informal mapping, and<br />
diagramming from agro-e<strong>co</strong>systems analysis, and from applied anthropology it absorbed the<br />
importance of attitude, behaviour, and rapport, as well as the ideas of the etic - the mental<br />
frame, categories, and world view of the outsider - and the emic - those of the insider. In<br />
<strong>co</strong>ntrast to RRA, PRA seeks not to elicit information for use by an outsider but to stimulate<br />
<strong>co</strong>mmunity awareness, with the outsider’s role being that of a catalyst which starts a process<br />
off but lets it follow its own <strong>co</strong>urse. The investigation, analysis, and presentation of<br />
information is by rural people themselves (Chambers, 1992).<br />
Both RRA and PRA stress the importance of listening and learning directly from rural people<br />
themselves, of seeking out the opinions of those who might otherwise go unheard, of using<br />
flexible, open-ended methodologies and being receptive to improvisation, and of self<br />
awareness and <strong>co</strong>nstant self criticism on the part of the outsider (Chambers, 1992). RRA<br />
tends to be used in academic work for learning by outsiders who require information for some<br />
purpose of their own. PRA tends to be used by development workers who seek to empower<br />
the rural people with whom they are working, and the information <strong>co</strong>llected remains with the<br />
<strong>co</strong>mmunity, and is used to create an action plan. In practise, of <strong>co</strong>urse, there is a <strong>co</strong>ntinuum<br />
between the two extremes.<br />
This survey was just that, a survey, in which the information <strong>co</strong>llected was taken away for<br />
analysis by an outsider. No specific actions were planned to follow on from this work, and<br />
ongoing <strong>co</strong>nflicts of interest between the people under survey and UWA, the <strong>co</strong>mmissioning<br />
institution, preclude any real empowerment: as such the appraisal was not truly participatory.<br />
However, given the existing situation of suspicion and mistrust of government and outside<br />
authority, the patience and honesty inherent in participatory approaches seemed the best way<br />
to develop mutual trust and respect (Mason & Danso, 1995).<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 52<br />
5.3.2 Community and group meetings<br />
These were arranged in advance through <strong>co</strong>mmunity leaders and usually took place under a<br />
shade tree in the centre of the village. Discussion was facilitated by the Socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomics Coordinator,<br />
who also introduced <strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda and explained the aims and methods of the<br />
entire survey programme. To avoid creating false expectations, care was also taken to explain<br />
what <strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>co</strong>uld not do. Participation was sought from all sectors of the<br />
<strong>co</strong>mmunity, particularly women, and the <strong>co</strong>mmunity was en<strong>co</strong>uraged to ask questions of the<br />
survey team and CCW. At the end of each meeting the CCW took some time to explain and<br />
interpret the new wildlife statute.<br />
Although the survey aims remained <strong>co</strong>nsistent, discussions were open-ended and <strong>co</strong>mmunity<br />
led: topics <strong>co</strong>vered included lifestyles and subsistence activities, including problems<br />
associated with these, general problems and development issues, the use of natural resources<br />
in and around the reserve, and attitudes towards and awareness of the reserve and<br />
<strong>co</strong>nservation issues. Elders and long-term residents were asked to provide historical <strong>co</strong>ntext<br />
by outlining the history of the settlement and describing trends in natural resources, and maps<br />
of local features and natural resources of importance were <strong>co</strong>nstructed. Using a variety of<br />
techniques allowed triangulation to check the <strong>co</strong>nsistency of the information provided.<br />
5.4 Results<br />
Four <strong>co</strong>mmunities were visited: two primarily Sebei villages, Chepsikunya and Seryoto, to<br />
the south of the reserve on the main road to Mbale, and two <strong>Pian</strong> villages, Lopedot and<br />
Lomorimor, near Namalu, where the KWMP had earlier held a three day PRA exercise<br />
(KWMP, 1996). Unfortunately, as result of food security problems in the area during the<br />
se<strong>co</strong>nd work phase, the socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey was terminated early and little more than<br />
introductory work was <strong>co</strong>mpleted.<br />
5.4.1 Chepsikunya and Seryoto<br />
The major issue identified in Chepsikunya and Seryoto was the insecurity, which had resulted<br />
in the Sebei people moving away from the area and switching from pastoralism to cultivation<br />
and char<strong>co</strong>al production as a <strong>co</strong>nsequence of losing all of their cattle to the <strong>Pian</strong> and Pokot.<br />
People had only recently returned to the area under the protection of the army and were still<br />
apprehensive. They were being assisted by an OED funded resettlement project which was<br />
rehabilitating local government buildings and infrastructure and assisting with ground<br />
breaking and plowing, but despite this, in the absence of cattle, food security was still a<br />
<strong>co</strong>ncern, as crops were often damaged by wildlife and sometimes failed. Food security<br />
problems were made worse by the loss of small stock to wildlife. Char<strong>co</strong>al production was a<br />
major source of revenue for many residents: although there was some <strong>co</strong>ncern over the<br />
sustainability of this, most people felt they had no other options in the short term.<br />
5.4.2 Lopedot and Lomorimor<br />
The major issue identified in Lopedot and Lomorimor was also the insecurity, which had<br />
caused loss of life and cattle. Along with crop damage and livestock loss by wildlife, the loss<br />
of cattle <strong>co</strong>ntributed to food security problems, which were a <strong>co</strong>ncern. There was also anxiety<br />
about the presence of the survey team itself, and fears about loss of land or access to it.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 53<br />
5.4.3 Resource use<br />
Use of the reserve varies by ethnic group. Because the Sebei to the south fear the <strong>Pian</strong> and the<br />
Pokot, and because the natural resources around them are relatively unexploited, they rarely<br />
enter the reserve, although they are aware of resources within it such as honey and fish.<br />
Discussions with the CCW and CCRs revealed that the Iteso people to the west and the Tepes<br />
on Napak and Kadam do not often enter the reserve either, again because they fear the <strong>Pian</strong><br />
and the Pokot. The Tepes, who are not wanted on the plains by the <strong>Pian</strong> and other<br />
Karamojong, are under pressure from the Forest Department to move out of the Forest<br />
<strong>Reserve</strong>s, but thus far the FD has shown less resolve than the Karamojong, and so they<br />
remain in the mountains. The Pokot use the reserve primarily as a raiding <strong>co</strong>rridor, keeping<br />
their cattle outside the reserve to the east, as <strong>co</strong>nfirmed by Lamprey & Michelmore (1996ab).<br />
However, while travelling through the reserve on raids both they and the <strong>Pian</strong> kill<br />
<strong>co</strong>nsiderable numbers of wildlife for meat.<br />
The <strong>Pian</strong> used the reserve the most intensively, primarily for pasture and water for their cattle,<br />
but also for a number of other resources, including fuelwood, poles, thatching grass, binding<br />
fibres, fencing materials, materials for utensils, traditional medicines, and wild <strong>co</strong>llected<br />
foods, including honey and fish, as well as wildlife for meat and other products. Fuelwood,<br />
thatching grass, traditional medicines, honey, fish, and bush meat and other animal products<br />
were all exploited for sale (revenue generation) as well as for domestic use (see also KWMP,<br />
1996).<br />
5.4.4 Attitudes towards the reserve<br />
Attitudes towards the UWA staff and their initial return to Moruajore were generally very<br />
positive. People hoped that their presence would improve security, and that they would be<br />
able to assist in <strong>co</strong>ntrolling problem animals and vermin. However, people felt that the<br />
rangers needed to be more heavily armed to be really effective against cattle raiders and<br />
poachers. As long as it <strong>co</strong>uld be kept out of villages (!), most people had positive attitudes<br />
towards wildlife, and <strong>Pian</strong> elders re<strong>co</strong>unted how in the past their cattle used to graze with<br />
wildlife, and how this was a good thing, because the wildlife ‘took half the diseases’.<br />
5.5 Discussion<br />
Insecurity and food security impact directly on the possibilities for both development and<br />
<strong>co</strong>nservation in and around the reserve. Under current <strong>co</strong>nditions it is almost impossible for<br />
local people to plan for the future or to take <strong>co</strong>ntrol of their own destinies, although a strong<br />
UWA presence <strong>co</strong>uld make a difference. While all are in favour of the theory of <strong>co</strong>mmunity<br />
<strong>co</strong>nservation, implementing it in a situation where the <strong>co</strong>mponents of the ‘<strong>co</strong>mmunity’ are<br />
virtually at war with one another will prove challenging…<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 54<br />
5.6 Conclusions<br />
The reserve is still of undoubted <strong>co</strong>nservation value, and for the <strong>Pian</strong> in particular it is an<br />
important source of resources, not only for domestic use, but also for sale, particularly in<br />
times of hardship. Although attitudes towards UWA and <strong>co</strong>nservation are relatively positive,<br />
it is clear that the <strong>Pian</strong> and Pokot have the upper hand, and the major threat remains the<br />
<strong>co</strong>ntinued use of automatic weapons by hungry people against wildlife. Until the issues of<br />
insecurity and food security (which are both results and causes of each other) are addressed<br />
and resolved, its value will <strong>co</strong>ntinue to decline, and opportunities for development will be<br />
few. A potential <strong>co</strong>nflict between development and <strong>co</strong>nservation objectives is the OED<br />
funded resettlement project in the part of the Sebei CWA re<strong>co</strong>mmended for inclusion in a<br />
new National Park.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 55<br />
5.7 References cited<br />
Alnwick, D.J. 1985. The 1980 famine in Karamoja. Photo<strong>co</strong>pied paper, pp. 127-144.<br />
Biellik, R.J. & Henderson, P.L. 1985. Mortality, nutritional status and diet during the famine<br />
in Karamoja, Uganda, 1980. Photo<strong>co</strong>pied paper, pp. 145-154.<br />
Chambers, R. 1992. Rural appraisal: rapid, relaxed, and participatory. Institute of<br />
Development Studies Discussion Paper 311. Institute of Development Studies,<br />
Brighton.<br />
Cisternino, M. 1979. Karamoja: the human zoo. Ph.D. thesis, University of Swansea.<br />
Cisternino, M. 1985. Famine and food relief in Karamoja. Photo<strong>co</strong>pied paper, pp. 155-161.<br />
Dodge, C.P. 1986. Health Services. Photo<strong>co</strong>pied paper.<br />
Dyson-Hudson, N. 1966. Karamojong politics. Clarendon Press, Oxford.<br />
Fraser Stewart, J.W. 1992. Integrated local rural <strong>co</strong>mmunities with Protected Area<br />
management in Uganda. Ministry of Tourism, <strong>Wildlife</strong> & Antiquities, Kampala &<br />
Food & Agriculture Organisation, Rome.<br />
Knutsson, K. 1985. Preparedness for disaster operations. Photo<strong>co</strong>pied paper, pp. 183-189.<br />
KWMP. 1996. The abandoned <strong>co</strong>ws: resource use and <strong>co</strong>nflict around <strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong><br />
<strong>Reserve</strong>: Participatory Rural Appraisal report. Karamoja <strong>Wildlife</strong> Management<br />
Project, Moroto.<br />
Lamprey, R.F. & Michelmore, F. 1996a. The <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas of Uganda:<br />
preliminary aerial survey results and their assessment plus initial re<strong>co</strong>mmendations.<br />
Ministry of Tourism, <strong>Wildlife</strong> & Antiquities, Kampala.<br />
Lamprey, R.F. & Michelmore, F. 1996b. Surveys of Uganda’s <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas:<br />
phase II surveys: May - June 1996. Ministry of Tourism, <strong>Wildlife</strong> & Antiquities,<br />
Kampala.<br />
Makombe, K. (Ed.) 1994. Sharing the land: wildlife, people and development in Africa.<br />
IUCN Regional Office for Southern Africa in association with IUCN Sustainable Use<br />
of <strong>Wildlife</strong> Programme, Harare.<br />
Mason, J.J., & Danso, E.Y. 1995. PRA for people and parks: the case of Mole National Park,<br />
Ghana. International Institute for the Environment and Development Sustainable<br />
Agriculture Programme PLA Notes No. 22 pp. 76-79. International Institute for<br />
Environment and Development, London.<br />
Novelli, B. 1988. Aspects of Karamojong ethnosociology. Museum Comboniam No. 44,<br />
Comboni Missionaries, Verona.<br />
Nzita, R. & Mbaga, N. 1995. Peoples and cultures of Uganda. Fountain, Kampala.<br />
Ocan, C. 1994. Pastoral crisis and social change in Karamoja. In: M. Mamdani & J. Oloka-<br />
Onyango (Eds.), Uganda: studies in living <strong>co</strong>nditions, popular movements, and<br />
<strong>co</strong>nstitutionalism, Journal für Entwicklungspolitik, Vienna.<br />
Pangeti, G.N. 1992. Community participation in rural development and natural resource<br />
<strong>co</strong>nservation. In: T. Matiza & H.N. Chabwela (Eds.), Wetlands <strong>co</strong>nservation<br />
<strong>co</strong>nference for southern Africa. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 56<br />
Rwabwoogo, M.O. 1995. Uganda districts information handbook. Fountain, Kampala.<br />
UNSO. 1990. Karamoja Development Plan. UNSO/UGA/89/X 53. Government Printer,<br />
Entebbe.<br />
Wilson, J.G. 1962. The vegetation of Karamoja District, Northern Province of Uganda.<br />
Memoirs of the Research Division Series 2 - Vegetation, Number 5. Dept. of<br />
Agriculture, Uganda Protectorate, Kampala.<br />
Wilson, J.G. 1985. Resettlement in Karamoja. Photo<strong>co</strong>pied paper, pp. 163-170.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13
<strong>Pian</strong>-<strong>Upe</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> <strong>Reserve</strong>: biological and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic survey 57<br />
6.0 CONCLUSIONS<br />
Despite limited sampling, the reserve was found to have a rich and diverse flora and fauna,<br />
largely typical of the locality and vegetation and habitat types. These are of enormous<br />
<strong>co</strong>nservation value as they <strong>co</strong>ver a large area and are essentially undisturbed, ironically, as a<br />
result of insecurity. The large mammal fauna includes almost a quarter (24%) of the <strong>co</strong>untry’s<br />
large mammal species, over a third (35%) of which are listed as ‘<strong>co</strong>nservation dependent’ or<br />
‘near threatened’ in the 1996 Red List while others, such as zebra, are of national<br />
<strong>co</strong>nservation interest.<br />
The main issues facing local <strong>co</strong>mmunities are insecurity and poor food security, which<br />
directly impact on the possibilities for both development and <strong>co</strong>nservation. In particular,<br />
insecurity and poor food security <strong>co</strong>ntinue to pose a major threat to the large mammal fauna,<br />
as poaching by hungry people armed with automatic weapons is widespread. Reducing it will<br />
require a strong UWA presence and <strong>co</strong>nsiderable <strong>co</strong>mmunity outreach and law enforcement<br />
activities, but until the wider problems of the region are addressed and resolved, it is unlikely<br />
to be eliminated. Paradoxically, however, absolutely terrible insecurity in the south of the<br />
reserve has allowed the wildlife here some respite from poaching <strong>co</strong>mpared with elsewhere in<br />
the region, as the area is effectively a no man’s land between the <strong>Pian</strong> Karamojong and the<br />
Pokot, and is thus subject to lower levels of poaching.<br />
Under improved security <strong>co</strong>nditions many of the current small populations of large mammals<br />
may re<strong>co</strong>ver and be viable in the long term. There are fewer land use <strong>co</strong>nflicts here than in<br />
most other parts of the <strong>co</strong>untry, and wildlife <strong>co</strong>nservation and cattle keeping at moderate<br />
densities are intrinsically quite <strong>co</strong>mpatible. In time, if populations are allowed to increase, the<br />
potential exists for both tourism and sustainable harvesting schemes. Attitudes towards UWA<br />
and <strong>co</strong>nservation are relatively positive, although it is clear that the more heavily armed <strong>Pian</strong><br />
and Pokot have the upper hand. A potential threat, however, is agricultural <strong>co</strong>nversion, such<br />
as the OED funded resettlement project south of the Greek River in the part of the Sebei<br />
CWA re<strong>co</strong>mmended for inclusion in a new National Park.<br />
<strong>Frontier</strong>-Uganda <strong>Wildlife</strong> Protected Areas Project January 1998<br />
Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 13