the economic valuation of the proposed ... - Nature Uganda

THE ECONOMIC VALUATION OF THE PROPOSED 

DEGAZETTEMENT OF MABIRA CENTRAL FOREST RESERVE 

NatureUganda 

Lead Consultants 

Dr. Yakobo Moyini 

Mr. Moses Masiga 

Series No. 7

The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira Central Forest Reserve 

With support from

THE ECONOMIC VALUATION OF THE 

PROPOSED DEGAZETTEMENT OF MABIRA 

CENTRAL FOREST RESERVE 

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non commercial 

purposes is authorized only with further written permission from the copyright 

holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Production of this publication 

for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written 

notice of the copyright holder. 

Citation: NatureUganda (2011). The Economic Valuation of the Proposed 

Degazettement of Mabira Central Forest Reserve. NatureUganda Kampala 

Copyright 

©NatureUganda – The East Africa Natural History Society 

P.O.Box 27034, 

Kampala Uganda 

Plot 83 Tufnel Drive 

Kamwokya. 

Email nature@natureuganda.org 

Website: www.natureuganda.org

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This consultancy builds on NatureUganda earlier studies to identify important biodiversity areas in Uganda or key 

biodiversity areas. Thirty three (33) Important Bird Areas were identified including Mabira Forest Reserve. 

In this study, we make a case that policy formulation about natural resources needs to be informed with facts in the 

present and full knowledge of the future or predicted long term consequences. We are grateful to BirdLife 

International Partnership particularly Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) whose initial support enabled 

NatureUganda to undertake this study on the economic evaluation of a section of Mabira Forest Reserve that was 

proposed for Degazzettement. 

The research work falls under our advocacy programme supported by various partners including BirdLife International 

through Jansen’s Foundation programme on ‘turning policy advantages into conservation gains’. It is our sincere 

hope that this report will trigger and sustain informed debate on conservation value of natural resources 

particularly critical ecosystems such as Mabira Forest Reserve. NatureUganda recognised the importance of an 

economic evaluation of the Mabira Central Forest Reseve at a time when there was a debate pitting conservation of 

natural resources against intensive use for agriculture and industry and this report will contribute useful information 

to the debate not only for Mabira Forest but for other natural resources in the country. We acknowledge the support 

received from NatureUganda secretariat especially the Executive Director Mr. Achilles Byaruhanga for coordinating 

the study and providing the consultants with all logistical requirements. 

We acknowledge contribution of Mr Telly Eugene Muramira who technically edited the report and Dr. Patrick Birungi 

of Makerere University for reading the earlier drafts as well as Dr. Panta Kasoma and Roger Skeen who proof read the 

report. 

Special tribute is paid to Dr. Yakobo Moyini (R.I.P) who was the lead consultant on this study that was conducted in 

2008. Other persons who contributed to this report include Mr. Moses Masiga and Dr. Paul Segawa. 

We further acknowledge EU support through the Important Bird Areas (IBA) monitoring project for providing the 

funds towards printing of this report in 2011. 

The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | 2011 

V

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

SCOUL Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited 

VAT Value Added Tax 

PAYE Pay as You Earn 

CFR Central Forest Reserve 

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation 

CHOGM Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 

PFE Permanent Forest Estate 

CFR Central Forest Reserve 

CITES Convention on International Trade of Flora and Fauna 

TEV Total Economic Value 

NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product 

TCM Travel Cost Method 

CVM Contingent Valuation Method 

PV Present Value 

NFA National Forestry Authority 

FGD Focus Group Discussion 

RIL Reduced Impact Logging 

MPA Management Plan Area 

FD Forest Department 

PA Protected Area 

THF Tropical High Forest 

WTP Willingness To Pay 

GEF Global Environment Facility 

Vi The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Government of Uganda received and tabled for discussion a proposal to degazette and change the land use of 

part of Mabira Central Forest Reserve to sugar cane production. The proposal proved very contentious and resulted 

in civil unrest and a raging debate on the merits and demerits of the proposed land use change. Those in favour of 

degazettement cited the numerous direct, indirect and multiplier economic impacts or benefits the change in land 

use will bring to Uganda. Those for conservation, on the other hand, cited the need to preserve the rich biodiversity 

of the forest, and the need to respect both regional and international agreements on the conservation of forests and 

the biodiversity therein. They also cited the public trust doctrine that charges government to manage and maintain 

forestry resources on behalf of the citizens of Uganda. 

Whereas those in favour of degazettement have been quite eloquent in enumerating the economic benefits of 

sugarcane growing, the pro-conservation groups have largely focused on the physical side of the argument and 

presented little economic data to support their arguments. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the 

economic implications of the two competing land use options. 

To undertake the assessment, a Total Economic Value (TEV) framework was applied. This was in view of the fact that 

forests are complex ecosystems that generate a range of goods and services. The TEV framework is able to account 

for both use and non-use values of the forest and elaborate them into direct and indirect use values, option, bequest 

and existence values. 

Lack of knowledge and awareness of the total value of the goods and services provided by forests previously 

obscured the ecological and social impact of the conversion of forests into other land uses. The TEV framework helps 

us to understand the extent to which those who benefit from the forest or its conversion also bear the associated 

management costs or opportunities foregone. 

In undertaking this study, the biophysical attributes of Mabira CFR in general and the area of impact in particular were 

reviewed. The most current and relevant inventory data available for the production zone of Mabira CFR was used. 

The economics of sugarcane production in Uganda and globally was also reviewed. Additional data and information 

were derived from an extensive survey of available literature. All this background data and information were then 

used to derive the total economic value of the impact area within Mabira CFR and compare it with the potential 

economic yield of growing sugarcane. 

The analysis concluded that the benefits of conserving Mabira CFR far exceeded those of sugarcane growing. The 

respective total economic value of conservation was estimated at US$ 45.1 compared to US$ 29.9 million which 

was the net present value of the annual benefits from sugar cane growing. The study therefore concluded that 

maintaining Mabira Central Forest Reserve under its current land use constituted a better option than sugarcane 

growing. This was the case when the total economic value of the forest was considered, but also when just timber 

values alone were counted. The study noted however, that the degazettement of Mabira CFR could still be favoured 

for other reasons other than economic considerations. The study recommended that should such a situation arise, 

then the developer (who is SCOUL) must undertake to compensate the National Forestry Authority for the total 

economic value (TEV) lost due to the change of land use. This requirement for compensation is legally provided 


Vii

for in the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, the National Environment Act and provisions of the multilateral 

environmental agreements, especially the Convention on Biological Diversity. The compensation would also 

conform to the social and environmental safeguard policies of the Government of Uganda and its development 

partners, including the need to conduct a thorough environmental impact assessment (EIA). The appropriate level of 

compensation the developer will be required to pay is US$45.1 million, payable to the NFA to support conservation 

activities in the remaining part of Mabira CFR and other reserves. 

The study also noted that Government could also waive the requirement for compensation. The study however, 

noted that such an action would tantamount to provision of a subsidy to SCOUL amounting to US$45.1 million or the 

total economic value of the lost value of the forest due to the proposed change in land use. The waiver would also 

tantamount to a gross policy failure, particularly in view of the efficiency questions surrounding SCOUL. 

The study also noted that if the developer paid the US$45.1 million compensation, they would in effect be purchasing 

7,186 ha of Mabira CFR at a fairly high cost per hectare. Land in the vicinity currently goes for UShs 500,000 to 1,000,000 

per acre (or Ushs 1,250,000 –2,500,000 per hectare). If SCOUL were to pay UShs 2,500,000 per hectare, double the 

upper range, the company would purchase 30,668 ha of land. For the equivalent of 7,186 ha, if SCOUL purchased the 

land from private sources the company would pay UShs.17,965 million (or US$10.6 million), an amount less than the 

compensation figure calculated in the study. 

The study finally noted that in addition to the financial and economic questions presented above, other equally valid 

issues needed further investigation. They include the need for compensation at ‘fair and equal’ value, the current 

implied objective of national self-sufficiency in sugar production; and land acquisition options available to the 

developer. 

Viii The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Acknowledgements iv 

Acronyms and Abbreviations v 

Executive Summary vi 

Table of Contents vii 

List of Figures viii 

List of Tables ix 

List of Boxes x 

1.0. INTRODUCTION 1 

1.1. BACKGROUND 1 

1.2. THE Degazettement PROPOSAL 3 

1.3 SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT 5 

1.4. METHODOLOGY 6 

2.0. BIOPHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MABIRA CFR 7 

2.1. SIZE AND LOCATION 7 

2.2. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 7 

2.3. PLANTS 8 

2.4. BIRDS 8 

2.5. MAMMALS 10 

2.6. AMPHIBIANS 10 

2.7. REPTILES 10 

2.8. BUTTERFLIES 10 

3.0. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE SUGAR SECTOR IN UGANDA 13 

3.1. Global Sugar Production Trends 13 

3.2 History of the Sugar Industry in Uganda 14 

3.3 Sugar Production and Consumption Trends in Uganda 17 

3.4. Performance of Uganda’s Sugar Sector 16 

4.0. EVALUATION OF DECISION TO CONVERT MABIRA CFR FOR SUGARCANE 

PRODUCTION 18 

4.1 Sugar Production Model for Uganda 18 

4.2. The Value of the Sugar Sector in Uganda 20 

4.2.1 Value of Reproducible Tangible Assets ( sugarcane) 20 

4.2.2 Value of non-reproducible assets of sugar factory (Land at the Company owned nucleus 

sugarcane estate) 21 

4.3. Cost of Production and the Determinants of the Competitiveness of the Sugar Sector in Uganda 22 

4.4. Options for Improving the Competitiveness of the Sugar Coorporation of Uganda Limited (SCOUL) 25 

4.5. CONCLUSIONS 29 


ix

5.0. THE CONSERVATION OPTION 31 

5.1. CONSERVATION OPTIONS FOR MANAGING FOREST RESOURCES 31 

5.2. CONSERVATION ECONOMICS 31 

5.2.1 Importance of economic valuation 31 

5.2.2 The Total Economic Value 32 

5.2.3 Analytical framework 35 

5.3. VALUATION 37 

6.0. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION 47 

6.1. DISCUSSIONS 47 

6.2. CONCLUSION 49 

x The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | 2011

REFERENCES 50 

Annexes 59 

Annex 1 Biodiversity Report 59 

Annex 2 Inventory Data 79 

List of Figures 

Figure 1 Map of Mabira and the Proposed Area for Degazettement 4 

Figure 2: Cost-benefit analysis of an alternate project, to continued conservation 6 

Figure 3: Centralised and contract farming model in sugar companies in Uganda 18 

Figure 4: Value chain for sugar cane to sugar 27 

Figure 5: Framework of specialisation for sugar industries 23 

Figure 6: The Total Economic Value of Forests 33 

Figure 7: Graphic Illustration of Willingness to Pay 37 

List of Tables 

Table 1: Mabira CFR Area Proposed for Degazettement 3 

Table 2: Species numbers recorded in Mabira from each family 11 

Table 3: World production and consumption of sugar (million tonnes, raw value) 13 

Table 4: Uganda Sugar and Sugar Crops production between 2002 and 2005 15 

Table 5: Sugar Companies and Production in Uganda at a glance 15 

Table 6: Sugarcane yield in Uganda’s sugar factory nucleus estate 15 

Table 7: Projected sugarcane production 16 

Table 8: Status of land ownership of Uganda’s sugar factories 19 

Table 9: Value of sugarcane for SCOUL out-growers in Mukono district, 2006 21 

Table 10: Sugar production costs in selected Least Developing Countries 21 

Table 11: Cost structure for a Kinyara Out-grower family 24 

Table 12: Average out-grower’s sugarcane production returns for SCOUL 26 

Table 13: Value for leases of land likely to be offered to SCOUL 28 

Table 14: Land resource values in Kitoola 29 

Table 15: Example of links between value category, functions and valuation tools 34 

Table 16: Value of Growing Stock 38 

Table 17: Value of Annual Exploitable Timber Yield 38 

Table 18: Value of standing Timber crop, Area Proposed for degazettement in Mabira CFR 39 

Table 19: Visitor statistics 42 

Table 21: Summary of Values 46 

Table 20: Carbon content and loss for tropical forest conversion 46 


xi

List of Boxes 

Box 1: Out-growers production and earnings with SCOUL 20 

Box 2: SCOUL sets terms to abandon Mabira CFR 23 

Box 3: SCOUL Sugar Corporation Press release summarised 27 

Box 4: Kabaka Land Offer Not a Donation – Govt 27 

Box5: Land Resource values 28 

xii The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | 2011

1.0. INTRODUCTION 

1.1. BACKGROUND 

The Government of Uganda received and tabled for 

discussion a proposal to expand sugar production by 

the Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited (SCOUL) in 

2007. The key elements of the proposal were to expand 

the acreage under sugar cane by the corporation by 

7,100 hactares within the Mabira Central Forest Reserve. 

The proposed expansion would however have to be 

preceded by the degazettement of the affected area 

to pave way for private use by the Sugar Corporation of 

Uganda Limited. 

The proposal sparked off a lot of controversy, with 

the key contentions centred on the clear need to 

conserve biodiversity and the permanent forest estate, 

notwithstanding the equally important need to expand 

sugar production to benefit from the large local, regional 

and international sugar commodity market. 

Mabira Central Forest Reserve was gazetted as a central 

forest reserve in 1900 under the famous Buganda 

agreement between the British Colonizers and the 

Buganda Kingdom. The reserve is found in Buikwe and 

Mukono Districts in Central Uganda and covers an area 

of 306 Km 2 across an altitudinal range of 1070 – 1340 m 

above sea level. The forest reserve is currently the largest 

natural high forest in the Lake Victoria crescent. 

The Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited on the other 

hand is a limited liability company jointly owned by the 

Mehta Family (76%) and the Government of Uganda 

(24%). Increased sugar production by the corporation 

should therefore, in theory benefit both the Mehta 

Family as majority shareholders and Ugandans as 

minority shareholders. The converse is also true that 

a degradation to the value of SCOUL affects both the 

Mehta family and Ugandans. 

The Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited argues and as 

published in the press (The Monitor Newspaper, 2007; 

New Vision News Paper, 2007; East African News Paper, 

2007): that the allocation of an additional 7,186 ha out of 

Mabira Central Forest Reserve will: 

1. Increase sugar production and save foreign 

exchange of US$ 20 – 25m per annum. 

2. Enable the generation of an additional 1-12 

MW of electricity which can be supplied to 

the national grid and onward to a number of 

industries in and around Lugazi Town. 

3. Create an additional 3,500 jobs with an annual 

earning of Shs 3 billion. 

4. Lead to the development of additional 

infrastructure investments (schools, houses, 

dispensaries) worth Shs. 3.5 billion; 

5. Require the development of 300 km of road in 

the newly allotted areas, an investment of Shs. 

The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | 2011 1 

2bn. 

6. Generate additional taxes in the form of value 

added tax (VAT), Excise Duty, pay as you earn 

(PAYE) and import duty in the range of Shs. 11.5m 

(per year). 

7. Enable the production of ethyl alcohol which can 

be blended with petrol to the extent of 10-15%, 

to form gasohol, an alternative vehicle fuel. 

8. Commit SCOUL and the Government of Uganda 

not to develop any more areas near the banks 

of River Nile and the shores of Lake Victoria and 

hence preserve the ecology of the rest of Mabira 

CFR. 

9. Commit SCOUL to participate in tree planting on 

those areas which are not suitable for sugarcane 

production.

The pro-conservation groups who are are opposed to 

the degazettement of part of Mabira CFR on the other 

hand argue that: 

1. Mabira Central Forest Reserve has unique bird, 

2 

plant, primate, butterfly and tree species; 

2. Mabira Central Forest Reserve is located in a 

heavily settled agricultural area close to large 

urban centres including Kampala, Lugazi, 

Mukono and Jinja. This makes it a very important 

refugium and eco-tourist destination; 

3. Whereas the forest suffered considerable 

destruction through illegal removal of forest 

produce and agricultural encroachment which 

activities threatened the integrity of the forest, 

these have now been controlled and the forest 

has regained its original integrity; 

4. The bird species list for Mabira Forest now stands 

at 287 species of which 109 were recorded during 

the 1992-1994 Forest Department Biodiversity 

Inventory (Davenport et al, 1996). These include 

three species listed as threatened by the Red Data 

Books (Collar et al, 1994) i.e. the blue swallow 

(Hirundo atrocaerulea), the papyrus Gonolek 

(Laniarius mufumbiri) and Nahan’s Francolin 

(Francolinus nahani); 

5. The present value of timber benefit streams 

obtained from long-run sustainable yield in 

Mabira CFR and timber values foregone in the 

plantations of Kifu and Namyoya ; the present 

value of other annual benefit streams from forest 

products, biodiversity, domestic water, carbon 

storage and ecotourism; and the present value 

of annual ground rent payments would have to 

be foregone if the land use for Mabira CFR was 

changed; 

6. The Mabira CFR in its entirerity is an important 

water catchment forest. The CFR is a source of 

two main rivers – Musamya and Sezibwa – which 

flow into Lake Kyoga; 

7. Because of its strategic location close to the River 

Nile the Mabira CFR is a critical component of 

the local and regional hydrological cycle. There is 

therefore a likelihood of reduced water retention 

of water flow to the lakes and rivers; 

8. A large population living in and around Mabira 

CFR relies on the extraction of forest products to 

sustain their livelihoods; 

9. Uganda is a signatory to a number of key 

Conventions that protect forests including the 

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 

the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and 

the Kyoto Protocol among others; 

10. Change of land use in part of the forest will make 

it difficult to control futher encroachment. 

11. Any degradation of Mabira represents loss of a 

unique ecosystem and unique biodiversity and 

loss of known and unknown plants and animals 

of medicinal value; 

12. Mabira contributes to temperature regulation in 

the central part of the country, and any reduction 

is likely to lead to changes in temperature; 

13. The publicity resulting from converting part 

of the CFR will result in tourism becoming less 

attractive; 

14. A number of individuals, NGOs and corporations 

currently licensed to carry out activities in line 

with sustainable forest management will have 

their investment and planned activities affected; 

15. Investors in industrial plantations elsewhere in 

the country may face hostility from local people 

who may themselves desire to acquire forest 

land, which they see as being allocated to foreign 

investors; 

16. There are no indications that the public 

opposition to the degazzettement of the CFR will 

diminish; 

17. There could be insecurity to the investor over 

Mabira allocation; 

18. The proposed degazettement is likely to impact 

negatively on the image of the country 

As indicated above, both sides of the contention 

have strong arguments for their case. The arguments 

have however, not been translated into a common 

denominator to allow for impartial comparison of the 

benefits and costs of degazetting part of the forest. 

The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | 2011

The purpose of this study therefore is to use economic 

analysis to determine the merits and demerits of 

degazettement of part of Mabira Central Forest Reserve 

for sugar cane production. 

1.2. THE DEGAZETTEMENT PROPOSAL 

The request and proposed degazettement covers an 

area of 7100 ha of the production zone of the reserve 

representing about 24 percent of the total area of the 

forest. From the perspective of forest management and 

in order not to split any compartments, SCOUL’s request 

would involve the degazetting of 15 compartments, 

giving a total area of 7,186 hectares. The area requested 

by SCOUL for additional sugar production is therefore 

7186 ha (Table 1). This size of area will therefore be used 

in the analysis for purposes of this study. Figure 1 shows 

a spatial description of the affected area. 

Table 1: Mabira CFR Area Proposed for Degazettement 

Compartment No. Name Size (ha) 

171 Wakisi 617 

172 Senda North 315 

173 Senda 488 

174 Luwala 515 

175 Bugule 381 

178 Sango East 667 

179 Kyabana South 424 

180 Kyabana Central 451 

181 Kyabana North 365 

182 Liga 403 

183 Naligito 415 

184 Mulange 611 

185 Kasota 679 

234 Ssezibwa South 586 

235 Nandagi 479 

Totals 7186 

The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | 2011 3

Figure 1: Map of Mabira CFR showing the Proposed sections for Degazettement 

B 

B 

Namulaba 

F/stn 

B 

Maligita F/stn 

Maligito 

Cpt 183 

404.813Ha 

Wakisi 

Liga 

Cpt 171 

cpt 182 613.464Ha 

Kyabana North 

Senda North 

cpt 181 

Cpt 172 

341.291Ha 

320.394Ha 

Naluvule F/stn 

262.390Ha 

Kyabana F/Stn 

Kyabana Central 

Cpt 180 

447.251Ha 

Kyabana South 

Cpt 179 

403.050Ha 

Malunge 

Cpt 184 

579.919Ha 

4 The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | 2011 

Senda 

cpt 173 

499.419Ha 

Nagojje F/tsn 

Luwala 

Cpt 174 

516.500Ha 

Kasota 

Cpt 185 

694.248Ha 

Luwala South 

Cpt 175 

357.846Ha 

Sango East 

Cpt 178 

653.244Ha 

Sesibwa 

Cpt 234 

563 Ha 

Buwoola 

F/Stn 

B 

Wanande F/stn 

Najjembe F/stn 

B 

Nandagi 

Cpt 235 

442Ha 

Scale 1:140,000M 

0 2, 

050 

4,100 8,200 Meters 

Lwankima 

F/stn 

Outlines of blocks Forest Station Blocks proposed for degazettement

1.3 SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT 

The overall purpose of the study was to compare the 

economic merits of degazetting a section of Mabira CFR 

for sugar cane growing to those of maintaining it. This 

comparative study required the computation of the 

respective costs and benefits of the two alternative land 

uses with a view to determining the most preferable 

option. The benefits decision framework is summarised 

as follows: 

T 

T 

If∑ Bs∂t � ∑ Bc∂t 

, T 

T 

grow sugarcane; and if 

t = oB 

∂t 

� t = oB 

∂t 

, conserve 

∑ 

t = o 

c 

Where: 

∑ 

t = o 

s 

∑B s ∂t – sum of present value of net benefit of sugarcane 

growing 

∑B c ∂t – sum of present value of net benefit of 

conservation 

The conceptual scope of the study limited it to the 

most direct costs and benefits of land use change to 

sugar cane farming or the converse. Hence the primary 

analysis in this study dealt with sugar cane farming vis a 

vis forest conservation and applied farm gate or forest 

gate prices to all transactions. The estimates of all costs 

and benefits therefore related to sugar cane production 

and excluded the associated production of sugar, sugar 

by-products and the respective inputs. 

The study assessed a number of questions on the two 

components of the study viz? the sugar estate and the 

forest estate. The key questions on the first component 

included: 

» What is the value of sugarcane estate of SCOUL? 

» Is it possible for SCOUL (and the sugar industry 

as a whole) to achieve increased output through 

options, such as increasing productivity, and 

increasing the number of out-growers, other 

than using Mabira CFR? 

» Are the other sugar companies in Uganda, other 

than SCOUL, able to meet the demand sought 

without having to convert part of Mabira CFR 

into permanent agriculture? 

» Are there alternative pieces of land, to Mabira 

CFR, that could be used and the implications of 

using these alternative lands for SCOUL? 

The key questions on the second component (the forest 

estate) included: 

» What annual benefit flows are associated with 

the Central Forest Reserve; 

» What are the potential consequences of the 

proposed ecosystem degradation; 

» How will the annual flow of benefits change 

following the proposed degazettement? 

» What is the opportunity cost of maintaining the 

forest estate? 


The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettment of Mabira CFR 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

Figure 2: 2: Key Key Elements of the of Conservation the Conservation versus Degazettement versus Degazettment Options Options of Part of of Mabira Part Central 

Forest of Mabira Reserve Central Forest Reserve 

1.4. METHODOLOGY 

This economic analysis was carried out in three phases including a detailed review of 

1.4. METHODOLOGY 

literature and media reports on the subject, assessment of standing stock and inventory 

This economic analysis was carried out in three phases 

information on the potential impact on the forest, key informant interviews, community 

including 

consultations 

a detailed 

followed 

review 

by 

of 

data 

literature 

computations 

and media 

and interpretation. The study also involved 

reports detailed on the description subject, assessment of the biodiversity of standing stock of Mabira Central Forest Reserve, economic 

and evaluation inventory of information the agricultural on the potential impact of the area and detailed analysis of the sugar 

on commodity the forest, market. key informant interviews, community 

Description of the biodiversity of Mabira CFR relied on literature reviews. The 

agricultural economic evaluation relied on both budgeting techniques and cost benefit 

analysis, using the Net Present Value as the decision-making 

chapters. 

criteria. Assessment of the 

conservation value of the forest estate relied on both cost benefit analysis and the 

concept of total economic value (TEV). The detailed analytical frameworks are 

described in subsequent chapters. 

____________________________________________________________________ 

By Yakobo Moyini, PhD 

6 

Biodiversity 

Conservation 

Down stream 

water services 

Recreation 

Extraction of 

forest products 

Cost of 

conservation 

Net decrease in 

ecosystem benefits 

Biodiversity 

Conservation 

Down stream 

water services 

Recreation 

Extraction of 

forest products 

Decreased 

Biodiversity 

Conservation 

Decreased Down 

stream water 

services 

Decreased 

Recreation 

Reduced Extraction 

of forest products 

Less foregone cost 

of conservation 

Gross 

decrease in 

ecosystem 

benefits 

Opportunity 

cost of 

foregone 

ecosystem 

benefits 

Cost of 

conservation 

With Conservation Without Conservation Cost benefit analysis of conservation 

Source: Pagiola et al., (2004) 

decision 

consultations followed by data computations and 

interpretation. The study also involved detailed 

description of the biodiversity of Mabira Central Forest 

Reserve, economic evaluation of the agricultural 

potential of the area and detailed analysis of the sugar 

commodity market. 

Description of the biodiversity of Mabira CFR relied on 

literature reviews. The agricultural economic evaluation 

relied on both budgeting techniques and cost benefit 

analysis, using the Net Present Value as the decisionmaking 

criteria. Assessment of the conservation value of 

the forest estate relied on both cost benefit analysis and 

the concept of total economic value (TEV). The detailed 

analytical frameworks are described in subsequent 


7

2.0. BIOPHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 

OF MABIRA CFR 

2.1. SIZE AND LOCATION 

Mabira Central Forest Reserve covers an area of 306 

square kilometers (km 2 ) (30,600ha) mostly in Mukono 

and Buikwe Districts of Central Uganda. The forest lies 

in an altitudinal range of 1,070 to 1,340 metres above 

sea level. The dominant vegetation in the forest may 

therefore be broadly classified as medium altitude moist 

semi-deciduous forest. Mabira CFR is predominantly a 

secondary forest with the most distinctive vegetation 

types representing sub-climax communities following 

several decades of human influence. Three forest types 

are discernable including a young forest dominated 

by Maesopsis eminii (about 25 percent); a successional 

forest represented by young mixed Celtis-Holoptelea 

tree species (about 60 percent) and riverine forests 

dominated by Baikiaea insignis (about 15 percent). 

Although the forest suffered extensive human 

interference in the seventies and early eighties, the 

forest remains a significant conservation forest system. 

This report is aimed at providing a comprehensive 

account of the present state of knowledge of the flora and 

fauna of Mabira Forest Reserve in Mukono District. There 

has been a considerable amount of previous work in this 

forest and effort has been made to document all the 

information. The main body of the report provides fairly 

detailed accounts on the following taxa: plants; birds; 

mammals and butterflies of the reserve. Compared with 

other Ugandan forests, Mabira is relatively biodiverse, 

with total species diversity (an index of species richness 

per unit area) being average for all taxa except butterflies 

which were above average. In terms of the ‘conservation 

value’ of the species represented (based on knowledge 

of their world-wide distributions and occurrence in 

Ugandan forests), Mabira is above average for birds, and 

butterflies, and average for the remaining taxa. As a basis 

for further comparison with other sites, 81 species may 

be classified as restricted-range (recorded from no more 

than five Ugandan forests). Details of the biodiversity 

attributes of Mabira CFR are presented in Annex 1. 

Site description 

Mabira Forest Reserve lies in the counties of Buikwe and 

Nakifuma in the administrative district of Mukono. It was 

established under the Buganda Agreement in 1900 and 

is situated between 32 52° - 33 07° E and 0 24° - 0 35° N. It 

is found 54 km east of Kampala and 26 km west of Jinja. 

Mabira Central Forest Reserve is the largest remaining 

forest reserve in Central Uganda (Roberts, 1994) and 

lies in an area of gently undulating land interrupted by 

flat-topped hills that are remnants of the ancient African 

peneplain (Howard, 1991). Although the reserve lies 

close to the shores of Lake Victoria it drains to the north 

eventually into Lake Kyoga and the Victoria Nile. The 

vegetation in the reserve may be classified as medium 

altitude moist semi-deciduous forest. The dominant tree 

vegetation is mostly sub-climax tree species, with clear 

signs of previous disturbance and human interference. 

The reserve has a number of community enclaves. The 

enclaves are however, not part of the gazetted area of 

the forest. Mabira Central Forest Reserve is covered by 

the Uganda Lands and Surveys Department map sheets 

61/4, 62/3, 71/2 and 72/1 (series Y732) at 1:50,000. 

2.2. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

Pallister (1971) indicated that the principal rock types 

underlying Mabira Forest Reserve are granitic gneisses 

and granites with overlying series of metasediments 


which include schist’s, phyllites, quartzites and 

amphibolites. The gneisses and granites are generally 

fairly uniform and give rise to little variation in resistance 

to soil erosion other than along joints and fracture 

planes. Under humid conditions, granitic rocks are very 

liable to chemical decomposition and, in most parts of 

the area, the rocks are now weathered to a considerable 

depth. The overlying metasediments, by contrast, are 

heterogeneous and include hard resistant bands of 

quartzite and, to a lesser extent, amphibolite, alternating 

with soft, easily eroded schist’s. 

Soils 

The soils in the forest reserve are strongly influenced 

by the local topography. The forest lies on the Buganda 

catena which comprises of red soils with incipient 

laterisation? on the slopes and black clay soils in the 

valley bottoms. There are four principal members of 

this catena which are described as follows, starting with 

those at the highest altitude: 

a. Shallow Lithosols of the highest ridge crests 

8 

consisting of grey and grey brown sandy loams 

overlying brashy, yellowish or reddish brown 

loam with laterite or quartzite fragments and 

boulders. 

b. Red Earths (Red Latosols) which cover most 

of the land surface and are strikingly apparent 

in the large conical termitaria dotting a rather 

monotonously green landscape. The soil profile 

consists of up to 30 cm of brown sandy or clay 

loam overlying uniform orange-red clay to a 

depth of 3 m or more. 

c. Grey Sandy Soils appearing at the base of the 

slopes of the catena these may be derived from 

hill-wash or river alluvium. Underlying the sandy 

topsoils are fine sandy clays of a very pale grey 

colour mottled to orange brown. 

d. Grey clay usually water logged and occupied by 

papyrus stand at the base of the catena. Below 

this are sandy and even pebbly clays. Despite 

the waterlogged condition for most of the year, 

surface peat accumulation is rarely more than a 

few inches thick. The last two members of the 

catena are very acid in reaction (pH 3.8 – 4.8) and 

are deficient in all plant nutrients except sulphur 

and magnesium. 

Due to the weathering, the soils are not so fertile and 

the fertility that is there is because of the forest litter 

that decomposes and releases nutrients. However, the 

cutting away of the forest will result into further soil 

degradation because of the removal of the forest cover 

and subsequent loss of litter. It will also lead to quicker 

leaching of nutrients and higher soil erosion levels. 

2.3. PLANTS 

Three hunded sixty five plant species are known to occur 

in Mabira forest as recorded by Howard & Davenport 

(1996) and Ssegawa (2006). Of the species recorded in this 

reserve, nine are uncommon and have been recorded 

from not more than five of the 65 main forest reserves in 

Uganda (Howard & Davenport, 1996). Trees and shrubs 

recorded in Mabira but not previously known in the 

floral region include Acacia hecatophylla, Aeglopsis 

eggelingii, Alangium chinense, Albizia glaberrima, 

Aningeria adolfi-friederici, Bequaertiodendron 

oblanceolatum, Cassipourea congensis, Celtis adolfi- 

fridericii, Chrysophyllum gorungosanum, Dombeya 

goetzenii, Drypetes bipindensis, Elaeis guineensis, 

Elaeophorbia drupfera, Ficus dicranostyla, Khaya 

anthotheca, Lannea barteri, Manilkara multinervis, 

Musanga cecropioides,Myrianthus holstii, Neoboutonia 

macrocalyx, Rawsonia lucida, Rhus ruspolii, Rinorea 

beniensis, Schrebera alata, Tapura fischeri and Warburgia 

ugandensis. Restricted-range trees and shrubs recorded 

from Mabira include Caesalpinia volkensii, Antrocaryon 

micraster, Chrysophyllum delevoyi, Elaeis guineensis, 

Lecaniodiscus fraxinfolius, Tricalysia bagshawei, 

Chrysophyllum perpulchrum, Ficus lingua and Picralima 

nitida. The Mahogany species namely, Entandrophrama 

cylindricum, Entandrophragma angolense and Khaya 

anthotheca are listed as globally threatened species 

(IUCN, 2000). Others include Hallea stipulosa, Lovoa 


swynnertonii and Milicia excelsa. The species that are 

known to occur in Mabira forest are given in Table A1. 

2.4. BIRDS 

Mabira Forest Reserve is an Important Bird Area 

(Byaruhanga et al 2001), globally recognized as an 

important site for conservation of biodiversity (key 

biodiversity area) using birds as indicators. Over 300 

species of birds is known to occur in Mabira forest with 

one of the highest diversity of species in Uganda. It is 

the biggest block of forest in central Uganda which 

makes Mabira Forest a refugium of species that existed 

in central Uganda forests. Forty-eight per cent of these 

are forest dependent representing 45% of the Uganda 

total. Nahan’s Francolin (Francolinus nahani) is a globally 

endangered species occurring only in Mabira in central 

Uganda. Other globally threatened species include Blue 

Swallow (Hirundo atrocaerrulea, Grey Parrot (Psittacus 

erithacus) and Hooded Vulture (Necrosyrtes monanchus 

listed as globally Vulnerable. Also listed are Papyrus 

Gonolek (Laniarius mufumbiri) a ‘near-threatened’ 

species. 

Mabira Forest Reserve supports a rich avifauna of 

significant conservation value. Other regionally 

threatened species include Brown Snake-Eagle 

(Circaetus cinereus), Crowned Eagle (Stephanoaetus 

coronatus), White-headed Saw-wing (Psalidoprocne 

albiceps), Toro Olive Greenbul (Phyllastrephus 

hypochloris), and Green-tailed Bristlebill (Bleda eximia). 

A number of species are known to occur in Mabira that 

are otherwise associated with different regions and 

altitudes. Their presence can possibly be explained by 

the fact that Mabira may have been connected to the 

refugium forest once forming part of the extensive 

forest that existed across East Africa, now isolated since 

its retreat. Tit Hylia (Philodornis rushiae) of the race denti 

is a West African species and is only known in East Africa 

from two specimens, both collected in Mabira (Britton, 

1981). Purple-throated Cuckoo Shrike (Camphephaga 

quiscalina) is also known from West Africa where it 

is uncommon. It is known in East Africa in scattered 

locations where it is generally found in high altitude 

sites. In Uganda it is also known from lower altitude 

sites such as Mabira and Sango Bay Forest Reserves. 

Two species, Fine-banded Woodpecker (Campethera 

tulibergi) and Grey Apalis (Apalis cinerea) recorded in 

Mabira are normally restricted to high altitude areas. 

Mabira is a particularly valuable forest for lowland forest 

species sharing many rare species with other lowland 

forests in Uganda such as Semliki National Park and 

Sango Bay Forest Reserve. Examples of these include 

White-bellied Kingfisher (Alcedo leucogaster), Blue- 

headed Crested -Flycatcher (Trochocercus nitens). 

Restricted-range birds recorded from Mabira include 

Little Bittern (Ixobrychus minutus), Banded Snake Eagle 

(Circaetus cinerascens), African Hawk Eagle (Hieraaetus 

spilogaster), Gabar Goshawk (Micronisus gabar), 

Nahan’s Francolin(Francolinus nahani), Allen’s Gallinule 

(Porphyrio alleni), Caspian Plover(Charadrius asiaticus), 

European Cuckoo(Cuculus canorus), Madagascar Lesser 

Cuckoo(Cuculus rochii), Cassin’s Spinetail(Neafrapus 

cassini), White-bellied Kingfisher(Alcedo leucogaster), 

African Dwarf Kingfisher (Ispidina lecontei), Blue- 

cheeked Bee-eater (Merops persicus), Eurasian Roller 

(Coracias garrulous), Little SpottedWoodpecker 

(Campethera cailliautii), Bearded Woodpecker 

(Dendropicos namaquus), Blue Swallow(Hirundo 

atrocaerulea), Banded Martin (Riparia cincta), African 

Penduline Tit (Anthoscopus caroli), Purple-throated 

Cuckoo-Shrike (Campephaga quiscalina), Leaflove 

(Pyrrhurus scandens), Isabelline Wheatear (Oenanthe 

isabellina), Black-capped Apalis (Apalis nigriceps), 

White-winged Warbler (Bradypterus carpalis), Carruthers’ 

Cisticola (Cisticola carruthersi), Stout Cisticola (Cisticola 

robustus), Trilling Cisticola(Cisticola woosnami), Grey 

Longbill (Macrosphenus concolor), Yellow Longbill 

(Macrosphenus flavicans), Tit Hylia (Pholidornis rushiae), 

Wood Warbler (Phylloscopus sibilatrix), Blue-headed 

Crested Flycatcher (Trochocercus nitens), Plain-backed 

Pipit(Anthus leucophrys), Papyrus Gonolek (Laniarius 

mufumbiri), Woodchat Shrike(Lanius senator), 


Wattled Starling(Creatophora cinerea), Red-chested 

Sunbird(Cinnyris erythrocerca) 

2.5. MAMMALS 

A total of fifty (50) large and small mammal species 

are known to occur in Mabira Forest Reserve. A high 

proportion of the species list are forest-dependent, 

and includes Deomys ferrugineus and Scutisorex 

somereni, closed forest-dependent specalists often 

regarded as two of the most sensitive indicators of forest 

disturbance. The Ugandan endemic shrew Crocidura 

selina, only previously recorded from Mabira Forest 

(Nicoll and Rathbun, 1990) has not been recorded since 

but has been recorded in other forests. Species with high 

conservation value include Crocidura maurisca and 

Casinycteris argynnis – a new record for Mabira forest. 

Others protected under the CITES include Red-tailed 

Monkey (Cercopithecus ascanius), Potto (Perodictictus 

potto), Galago (Galago senegalensis), Leopard (Panthera 

pardus), Grey Cheeked Mangabey (Cercocebus abigena) 

and Baboons (Papio anubis). 

2.6. AMPHIBIANS 

Some of the common amphibian species are associated 

with permanent wetlands, rivers or water points. Species 

of genera Afrana, Hyperolius, Xenopus, Hoplobatrachus 

and Afrixalus seem to select habitats with water all year 

round. The commonest species were members of family 

Hyperoliidae. Members of family Ranidae were also 

found to be common. 

The most common species of family Hyperoliidae 

are generally associated with permanent water 

sources. Members of genera Xenopus, Afrana and 

Hoplobatrachus were also quite common. Members of 

these genera are commonly found near water, more so 

for the bullfrog, which only gets out of the water to feed. 

Afrana angolensis is a riverine species found mainly 

along rivers and this was encountered along rivers in 

Mabira Forest Reserve (Table A4). One member of family 

Arthroleptidae, Artholeptis adolfifriederici is a new 

record for Mabira Forest Reserve. 

10 

2.7. REPTILES 

Mabira Central Forest Reserve has a variety of reptiles. 

More than 23 species of reptiles have been identified in 

the reserve. Reptiles are highly mobile and live in a range 

of habitats. They may be encountered in aquatic, bush, 

forest, rocky or riverine terrain. The tolerance of reptiles 

to a range of habitat types explains the large diversity 

of reptile species in the forest reserve.The key reptiles 

in the reserve however, include chameleons, geckos, 

forest and nile monitor lizards, skinks, snakes including 

tree and house snakes, pythons, cobras, mambas, puff 

adders and vipers. A list of the key reptile species in 

the forest reserve together with an indication of their 

respective conservation status is included in Table A5 in 

the annex. 

2.8. BUTTERFLIES 

A total of 199 species of butterflies is known to occur 

in Mabira forest. Nine (9) Papilioidae, twenty four (24) 

Pieridae, twenty five (25) Lycaenidae, one hundred 

and twenty eight (128) Nymphalidae aud thirteen (13) 

Hesperiidae. A relatively high proportion (73 percent) of 

the total were forest-dependent butterflies. Details of 

the number of species taken from each family, and each 

subfamily in the case of the Papilionidae, Pieridae and 

Nymphalidae, are provided in Table 2. 

It can be seen that the reserve supports at least 16 percent 

of Uganda’s Rhopaloceran fauna, including 24 percent 

of the country’s Pieridae, 29 percent of the Nymphalidae 

and 38 percent of the subfamily Charaxinae (Howard 

& Davenport, 1996). Of the species registered, those 

of particular interest included Sallya natalensis a new 

record for Uganda (Howard & Davenport, 1996). This 

butterfly is a migratory insect so unusual distribution 

records are not too surprising, however, its previous 

known range was from Natal to parts of Kenya (Larsen, 

1991). Charaxes boueti, meanwhile, a member of one of 

the more commonly studied subfamilies, represents a 

new record for this forest (Howard & Davenport, 1996): 

one of the few areas in the country which have been 

comparatively well investigated for their Rhopaloceran 

fauna. 


At least two sub-species endemic to Uganda were 

registered, Tanuetheira timon orientius; Ugandan 

forests being the eastern limit of the species’ range and 

Acraea lycoa entebbia, known only from central and 

eastern Uganda. Acraea agan ice ugandae, meanwhile, 

an uncommon butterfly is restricted to the northern 

shoreline of Lake Victoria (Howard & Davenport, 1996). 

Other species of limited range include the skipper 

Ceratrichia mabirensis (Mabira being the Type Locality) 

with a patchy distribution, limited to parts of Uganda, 

Tanzania and western Kenya (Larsen, 1991), and 

Pseudathyma plutonica a scarce insect ranging from 

eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to western 

Kenya. Moreover, Fseudacraea clarki, a comparatively 

large and conspicuous butterfly has records from 

Cameroon to Gabon and West Kenya, although Larsen 

(1991) maintains its absence from the latter. It is certainly 

not a common insect in East Africa. 

Mabira Forest Reserve may be considered rich in terms 

of its butterfly fauna, supporting a high percentage of 

forest-dependent butterflies, as well as a number of 

uncommon and restricted-range species (Howard & 

Davenport, 1996). Despite a recent history of intensive 

human disturbance in this forest (as reflected by the 

fact that almost a quarter of the species recorded are 

associated with forest edge and woodland habitats), the 

butterfly fauna has shown marked resilience (Howard & 

Davenport, 1996). Two species of Nymphalidae Acraea 

rogersi and Bicyclus mesogena, both reliant on dense, 

undisturbed forest demonstrate the environmental 

flexibility of some invertebrate communities (Howard & 

Davenport, 1996). 

Table 2: Species numbers recorded in Mabira from each family and from Papilionidae, Pieridae and 

Nymphalidae subfamilies 

Family Uganda Forest % Uganda 

Subfamily Total Total Total 

Papilionidae 31 9 29 

Papilioninae 31 9 29 

Pieridae 100 24 24 

Coliadinae 10 3 30 

Pierinae 90 21 23 

Lycaenidae 460 25 5 

Nymphalidae 447 128 29 

Danainae 13 7 54 

Satyrinae 71 20 28 

Charaxinae 65 25 38 

Apaturinae 1 1 100 

Nymphalinae 195 50 26 

Acraeinae 101 24 24 

Libytheinae 1 1 100 

Hesperiidae 207 13 6 

TOTAL 1245 199 16 


Restricted-range butterflies recorded from Mabira 

include Belenois victoria Victoria White, Dixeia charina 

African Small White, Epitola catuna, Lachnocnema 

bibulus Woolly Legs, Tanuetheira timon, Cacyreus 

audeoudi Audeoud’s Bush Blue, Amauris hecate Dusky 

Danaid, Charaxes port hos, Charaxes pythodoris Powder 

Blue Charaxes, Palla ussheri, Apaturopsis clenchares 

Painted Empress, Euryphura albimargo, Euryphura 

chalcis, Pseudathyma plutonica, Pseudacraea clarki, 

12 

Neptis trigonophora, Sallya natalensis Natal Tree 

Nymph, Hypolimnas dubius Variable Diadem, Acraea 

aganice Wanderer, Acraea rogersi Rogers’ Acraea, 

Acraea semivitrea, Acraea tellus, Celaenorrhinus bettoni, 

Celaenorrhinus proxima, Gomalia elma African Mallow 

Skipper, Ceratrichia mabirensis, and Caenides dacena. 

The list of known butterflies of Mabira forest are given 

in Table A6. 


3.0. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE 

SUGAR SECTOR IN UGANDA 

3.1. GLOBAL SUGAR PRODUCTION 

TRENDS 

More than 130 countries produce sugar world wide. Of 

these, 66 percent process their sugar from sugarcane. 

The rest produce sugar from sugar beet. Sugarcane 

primarily grows in the tropical and sub-tropical zones 

of the southern hemisphere, while sugar beet is 

largely grown in the temperate zones of the northern 

hemisphere (ED&F Man, 2004). Prior to 1990, about 40 

percent of sugar was made from beet but sugarcane 

production has grown more rapidly over the last two 

decades because of the lower costs associated with its 

production. 

The top seven sugar producing countries in the world 

include Brazil, India, the European Union, China, 

Thailand, South Africa and Mauritius. The above seven 

countries produce up to sixty (60) percent of total global 

output (USDA, 2006). Projections indicate increased 

sugar production in 2006/07 due to higher production 

in Brazil, India, China and Thailand. Production in the 

EU was expected to decline by 5 million tonnes, from 

21.8 million metric tonnes to 16.8 million metric tonnes 

(USDA, 2007). 

Over seventy (70) percent of global sugar production 

is consumed in the country of origin, implying that 

only thirty (30) percent is traded in the world sugar 

market (ED&F Man, 2004). As indicated in Table 3, world 

consumption of sugar was higher than production for 

2005 and 2006 (Table 3). Africa, Asia, Greater Europe 

(outside EU) and North America were the regions 

with the largest sugar deficit (Table 3). In Africa, the 

deficit was 2.8 and 2.7 million tonnes in 2005 and 2006 

respectively (FAO, 2006). More than 60 percent of the 

global consumption of sugar takes place in developing 

countries, with China and India leading the way. In 

addition, it is the developing countries particularly in 

Asia, which are expected to be the primary source of 

future demand growth (Sserunkuma and Kimera, 2006). 

Table 3: World production and consumption of sugar (million tonnes, raw value) 

World’s Regions 

Production 

2005 2006 

Consumption 

2005 2006 

World 145.2 149.7 147.2 149.9 

Developing countries 101.9 106.9 99.5 102.0 

Latin America and the Caribbean 50.5 49.9 26.5 27.1 

Africa 5.3 5.6 8.1 8.3 

Near East 7.7 7.7 11.1 11.5 

Far East 38.1 43.4 53.6 55.1 

Oceania 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 

Developed countries 43.3 42.8 47.7 47.9 

Europe, of which: 27.2 26.8 29.8 29.9 

European Union (25) 22.1 21.3 18.1 18.1 

Eastern Europe in Europe) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 

North America 7.4 7.1 10.4 10.5 

Oceania 5.4 5.4 1.4 1.4 

Others 3.3 3.6 6.0 6.1 

Source: FAO (2006) 


The demand for sugar has also been growing in the 

eastern Africa region. In order to achieve growth targets 

therefore, the sugar industry has been classified as 

a sensitive industry that requires effective safeguard 

measures (Serunkuma and Kimera, 2006). In Kenya, the 

area under sugarcane was 151,014 hectares by the end 

of 2006 and the average yield was 71.46 mts/ha. The 

amount of cane crushed was 4,850,333 mts. The amount 

of sugar produced by Kenyan sugar factories was 

475,669 mts. In 2006, production further declined to 475 

653 mts against a demand of 718,396 mts (Kenya Sugar 

Board in the East African Standard, 2007). In Tanzania, 

the annual sugar production was about 115,000 tonnes, 

while the demand of sugar is estimated at 300,000 

tonnes. As such, Tanzania imports about 200,000 tonnes 

per annum to offset the shortfall (Tanzania Ministry of 

Agriculture, Food and Cooperatives, 2007). 

3.2 HISTORY OF THE SUGAR INDUSTRY IN 

14 

UGANDA 

Sugarcane production in Uganda dates back to 1924 

when the first sugar factory was established in Uganda 

and East Africa. The factory was then known as Uganda 

Sugar Factory Limited. The factory has since changed 

to the Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited (SCOUL) 

(Serunkuma and Kimera, 2006). The Sugar Corporation 

of Uganda Limited was established by the late Najir 

Kalidas Mehta who came to Uganda from India in 1901. 

The second sugar factory opened at Kakira in 1930. It 

was started by the late Muljibhai Madhvani who also 

came to Uganda from India in 1908. Two other sugar 

establishments were made at Sango Bay in Rakai District 

and at Kinyara in Masindi District. Sugar production at 

Sango Bay started in 1972 but was shut down in 1973 

following the expulsion of the Asian owners during 

the Idi Amin government. The National Sugar Works in 

Kinyara near Masindi (Kinyara Sugar Works) was initiated 

in the 1960s and implemented in the early 1970s. 

Uganda has good physical attributes for the successful 

production of sugar. Peak production reached 152,000 

mts in 1968, and by 1969, Uganda was able to export 

about 48,000 mts of sugar. In the 1950s and 1960s, with 

just SCOUL and Kakira Sugar Works, Uganda was one of 

the world leaders in the sugar industry with production 

at a tune of 140,000 mts of sugar per year. For example, 

about 20,000 mts of sugar/year were exported to the 

United States of America and regionally to neighbouring 

countries. Uganda’s premier position in the sugar sector 

declined following the economic and political upheavals 

of the Amin and Obote II regimes. Sugar production 

actually plummeted to almost zero by 1983. Sugar 

estates were abandoned, machinery fell into disrepair,or 

were looted, and the physical and social infrastructure 

deteriorated (AfDB, 2002). The country became entirely 

dependent on imported sugar. The sector has however 

partly recovered following the return of Asians in the 

mid 1980s. In 1988, the Mehta Group repossessed and 

commissioned the rehabilitation of the SCOUL factory 

in Lugazi. Between 1985 and 1995 Kakira Sugar Works 

1985 Ltd underwent rehabilitation and Kinyara Sugar 

Works was rehabilitated between 1986 and 1996 1 . 

The Economic Recovery Program initiated in 1987 and 

the Structural Adjustment Programme of the early 

1990s promoted the rehabilitation of the agricultural 

sector, including the sugar industry. The rehabilitation 

in the sugar industry looked at the rehabilitation of 

sugarcane yields of the nucleus plantation; evaluation of 

current systems and methods of sugarcane production 

and set up methods and means to achieve production 

of sugarcane at minimum costs. It also examed advice 

on options for the diversification of the industry and the 

institutional and legislative requirements to improve 

management of the industry. 

The sugar industry employs about 21,749 persons 

on a permanent, contract and casual labour basis. Of 

these eighty to ninety (80–90) percent are members 

of the National Union of Plantation Workers of Uganda 

(NUPAWU) (Uganda Land Coalition, 2006). In addition, 

the sugar industry engages approximately 40,000 

1 Between 1985 and 1988, there was no sugar production 

as all factories were under rehabilitation 


workers, when both direct and indirect employment 

are considered, including out-grower farmers (Fashoyin 

et al., 2004). The total sugarcane production increased 

from 2002 to 2003 and 2003 to 2004 (Table 4) by nearly 

six percent and nine percent, respectively but declined 

by two and a half percent from 2004 to 2005 (FAO, 

2007). By late 2005, Uganda had three operational 

sugar factories SCOUL, Kakira Sugar Works (1985) Ltd, 

and Kinyara Sugar Works Ltd. In the second half of 2006, 

a new company known as G.M. Sugar Limited, located 

at Nakibizzi in Mukono District, emerged as the fourth 

local sugar factory. Unlike the other three operators, 

this fourth factory does not have a nucleus sugarcane 

plantation. Instead G.M. Sugar Limited buys all its 

sugarcane from out-growers. 

Table 4: Uganda Sugar and Sugar Crops production between 2002 and 2005 

2002 2003 2004 2005 

Production quantity (000 tonnes) 1,877.62 1,995.08 2,202.88 2,149.67 

Increased sugarcane production (%) -- 5.89 9.43 -2.48 

Import quantity (000 tonnes) 82.25 60.17 88.18 180.01 

Export quantity (000 tonnes) 5.14 0.82 15.19 95.64 

Food consumption quantity (000 tonnes) 1,229.01 1,329.09 1,428.97 1,554.54 

Source: FAO (2007) 

Table 6: Sugarcane yield in Uganda’s sugar factory nucleus estate 

Cane yield 

(Tonnes/ha) 

Average Age of 

Cane harvested 

(Months) 

Kakira Sugar Works 108.9 18.94 5.69 

Kinyara Sugar Works 89.9 18.7 4.78 

Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd 83.3 18.1 4.64 

Source: (USCTA, 2003) 

Cane Productivity 

(Tonnes/ ha /m) 

Though yields remain low, short-term projections indicate anticipated growth in cane production for the three sugar 

plantations as indicated below: 

3.3 SUGAR PRODUCTION AND 

CONSUMPTION TRENDS IN UGANDA 

Three issues influence productivity of the sugar sector in 

Uganda. They include yield per hectare, sugar recovery 

ratios and import export demand. Cane productivity in 

Ugnada may be ranked medium to low. Nucleus estate 

yields are normally higher than outgrower yields due 

to better agronomic practices. Typical nucleus estate 

yields range between 83.3 tonnes per hectare at Sugar 

Corporation of Uganda Limited (Table 6), 89.9 mts per 

hectare at Kinyara Sugar Works to 108.9 tonnes per 

hectare at Kakira Sugar Works (Isingoma, 2004). Cane 

yields of 120 mts per hectare are however, achievable 

at nucleus estates (AfDB, 2002). The major factors 

influencing yield include rain and irrigation, the later 

being very underdeveloped. 


Table 7: Projected sugarcane production 

Sugar factories 

16 

Projected Sugarcane production 

2003 2004 2005 

(tonnes) % (tones) % (tonnes) % 

Kakira Sugar Works 980,854 49 1,067,417 46 1,235,955 47 

Kinyara Sugar Works 560,406 28 666,217 29 683,813 26 

Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd 456,141 23 600,000 26 700,000 27 

Total Projection 1,997,401 100 2,333,687 100 2,619,768 100 

Adapted from: (USCTA, 2003) 

The average sugar recovery ratios are also low. Kinyara 

has the highest standing at 9.6 percent compared to 

Kakira’s 8.9 percent and SCOUL’s 8.4 percent. Following 

a crop improvement campaign, Kinyara improved its 

cane to sugar ratio to 10 percent in the financial year 

2004/05. The same campaign helped Kinyara to surpass 

its production target of 64,000 tonnes of sugar per year 

by 958 tonnes and to upgrade to a new production 

target of 93,000 tonnes per year for 2008. Although the 

outgrower contribution also increased to eight hundred 

farmers (800), sugar producers remained wary of cheap 

imported sugar, which makes competition a nightmare. 

They also complained of a poor road network and argued 

that it made the expansion of the outgrower scheme 

very difficult. Similar issues were raised at both Kakira 

Sugar Works and at the Sugar Corporation of Uganda 

Limited. Both factories however, suffered production 

short falls. The shortfalls were further exercebated by 

the low cane to sugar conversion ratios. 

3.4. PERFORMANCE OF UGANDA’S 

SUGAR SECTOR 

Kakira Sugar Works Limited is the largest sugar factory 

in Uganda in terms of yield and output. The company 

accounts for forty two (42) percent of overall national 

output and operates a nucleus estate of 12 000 hectares. 

The estate benefited from a contentious takeover of 

1,200 hectares that were previously part of Butamira 

Central Forest Reserve 2 . The company also services up 

to 10,000 hectares of out-grower contract production. 

A systematic expansion of the SCOUL nucleus plantation 

increased cultivable land by thirty three (33) percent 

from 9,000 to 12,000 hectares. In October 2006, RAI 

Holdings, a Kenyan consortium, paid Ush62 billion 

($33.5 million) for a fifty one (51) percent stake in Kinyara 

Sugar Works Limited 3 (KSWL) (New Vision Newspaper, 

2006). Kinyara Sugar Works factory produces more 

than 50,000 tonnes of sugar per year from over 500,000 

mts of sugarcane. The company collaborates with over 

800 outgrower farmers operating over 4,600 hectares 

of cane plantation. Among the three sugar factories, 

Kakira Sugar Works has the largest nucleus estate and 

cane output. SCOUL has the lowest output (Table 5). 

The overall sugar production output from the three 

factories was 198,000 metric tones. This fell short of total 

annual demand currently put at 240,000 metric tones by 

over 40,000 metric tonnes (East African, 2007). 

2 The land use in Butamira CFR changed to permanent 

agriculture. The move triggered a law suit by a civil society group. While 

the group won the case, it would appear this was a pyrrhic victory. 

3 10 % of the shares in Kinyara Sugar Works were offer to the 

out-growers of Kinyara Sugar Works, another 10 % to the Bunyoro Kitara 

Kingdom and 30 percnet of the shares are to be traded to the public on the 

Kampala Stock Exchange 


Table 5: Sugar Companies and Production in Uganda at a glance 

Company SCOUL Kakira Kinyara 

Location Lugazi; Mukono District 

Ownership 

Mehta Family (76%) 

GoU (24%) 

Kakira, Jinja 

Distict 

East African 

Holdings 

(100%) 

Area 15,000 ha 22,000 ha 11,000 ha 

Commissioned 1924 1930 1976 

Sugarcane tonnage 480,000 900,000 500,000 

Sugar tonnage 44,000 90,000 64,000 

Products 

Sugar, spirit, vegetables, 

and cut flowers 

Permanent & contract staff 6,000 2,300 3,900 

Casual workers 4,200 

Out-growers 700+ 3,600+ 800 

Out-grower area (ha) 3,000 10,000 4,600 


Kinyara, Masindi District 

RAI Holdings (51%), Bunyoro Kitara 

Kingdom (10%), Kinyara sugar works 

out-growers (10%), and public (29%) 

Sugar, molasses, spirit 

Cane of out-growers 160,000 mts/year 200,000 tonnes/year 

Primary schools 13 1 

Secondary schools 1 1 

Health care 

Clinic & maternity with 

20 beds 

Company policy Against child labour 

*Conversion sugar (%) 9.1 10 10.91 

Source: Sserunkuuma and Kimera (2006) *calculated from existing data 

Clinic and maternity-primary health 

care only; 2 doctors, midwives and 

nurses plus ambulance 

17


___________________________________________________________________________________ 

4.0. EVALUATION OF DECISION TO 

CONVERT MABIRA CFR FOR SUGAR 

CANE PRODUCTION 

4.0. EVALUATION OF DECISION TO CONVERT MABIRA CFR FOR 

SUGARCANE PRODUCTION 

4.1 Sugar Production Model for Uganda 

Uganda’s sugar industry employs a mixed production model consisting of a nucleus sugar 

4.1 cane plantation SUGAR PRODUCTION which is MODEL normally FOR owned and production managed and quality by a depending sugar company on the soil fertility. and 

registered UGANDA and non-registered out-grower farms. The nucleus estate is often fairly large 

Uganda’s and supplies sugar industry more than employs 50% a mixed of sugarcane production to the The mill sugar in companies order to provide secure sugarcane some guarantee of a certain 

model of throughput consisting of for a the nucleus plant sugar (Figure cane 3). plantation The Sugar quantity Company and acceptable also owns quality a processing from out-growers plant by 

which (Serunkuma is normally and owned Kimera, and managed 2006). by For a sugar a farmer the to provision become of an standard out-grower land preparation, he has to seedlings, be 

company registered and at registered the out and grower non-registered Department out- of the agrochemicals, Company. supervising The successful production applicant and technical 

receives a quota of the expected production and 

grower farms. The nucleus estate is often fairly large assistance quality depending to all out-growers. on the The soil supporting fertility. service 

and supplies more than 50% of sugarcane to the mill costs are deducted from the total price to be paid to 

The sugar companies secure sugarcane of a certain quantity and acceptable quality from 

in order to provide some guarantee of throughput for small farmers at the harvest time. With the level of 

out-growers by the provision of standard land preparation, seedlings, agrochemicals, 

the plant (Figure 3). The Sugar Company also owns a follow up on extension, farm practices and cane quality; 

supervising production and technical assistance to all out-growers. The supporting 

processing plant (Serunkuma and Kimera, 2006). For a it is envisaged that the sugar processing companies are 

service costs are deducted from the total price to be paid to small farmers at the harvest 

farmer time. to become With the an out-grower level of follow he has to up be registered on extension, able farm to establish practices production and conditions cane quality; on the registered it is 

at envisaged the out grower that Department the sugar of the processing Company. The companies out-grower are farms able that to are establish identical to the production 

conditions on 

successful conditions applicant on the receives registered a quota out-grower of the expected farms that are identical to the conditions on their 

their own own nucleus plantation. 

Figure Figure 3: 3: Centralised Centralised and and contract contract farming farming model model in sugar in sugar companies companies in Uganda in Uganda 

Sugar company nucleus plantation 

Source: Uganda Land Coalition (2006) 


Sugar company – the sponsor 

Company owned sugar factory 

Company’s out growers Department 

Registered 

out growers 

Association 

Nonregistered 

out growers 

_____________________________________________________________________ 21 

18 

The By Economic Yakobo Valuation Moyini, of PhD the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | 2011

A registered out-grower is a self-employed farmer 

usually a smallholder who owns or leases land, and 

produces and supplies sugarcane under contract to a 

plantation sugar company. The size of the small farmer’s 

land varies from a minimum of 2 ha to larger farms with 

up to 400 hectares or even more. The company retains 

exclusive control over purchase and marketing of the 

out-grower–supplied sugar (Welch, 2004). 

The out-growers however, retain the risk of growing, 

harvesting and transporting their quota of cane to the 

sugar mill as per production contract and under the 

company’s supervision. The company engages to buy 

the estimated quota of cane agreed on, to provide 

technical advice, help with mechanical land preparation 

(bush clearing, ploughing and harrowing), planting 

(selection of seeds) and training and can, if required, 

provide financial aid in the form of loans. The company 

charges for all these services to the out-grower. It 

should also be noted that there is another category of 

out-growers, the non-registered small farmers whose 

aggregate supply of sugarcane to companies is growing. 

These farmers are, however, not guaranteed a market 

from the companies. 

From the status of land ownership by the three 

leading sugar production firms; SCOUL’s nucleus estate 

represents seventy five (75) percent of its total land 

compared to fifty nine (59) percent and 54.5 percent 

for Kinyara and Kakira, respectively. Kakira has the 

largest combined sugar estate totalling 22,000 hectares 

followed by SCOUL totalling 15,000 hectares and Kinyara 

totalling 11,000 hectares (Table 8). 

The Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited (SCOUL) 

therefore has the largest nucleus estate and the 

smallest area of outsourced cane (from 3,000 ha of 

small outgrowers). SCOUL also utilizes 1,000 hectares 

of land that is directly leased from private suppliers. 

Among the three estates, therefore, SCOUL obtains only 

twenty five (25) percent of its cane from outgrowers 

compared to forty and forty five percent for Kakira 

and Kinyara, respectively. Since they rely a lot more on 

the cane grown in the community, Kakira and Kinyara 

have to build strong links with local communities 

and authorities. The sugar companies depend on the 

stability of the land tenure system and the contracts 

they have with farmers. Kinyara has diversified sugarcane 

sources and has both large and small scale outgrowers, 

and large self funded groups. Kinyara may therefore 

have the most secure sugarcane estate. Both SCOUL 

and Kakira have little diverisification and carry the risk 

of their farmers defecting to other processors, or as in 

the case of Kakira forming their own sugar processing 

company. In addition, SCOUL still has 6.6 percent of its 

nucleus estate on private land, and as such relies on the 

land owner’s willingeness to continue under the current 

arrangements. These conditions precipitate the desire 

for SCOUL to expand its nucleus estate into the forest 

reserve. 

Table 8: Status of land ownership of Uganda’s sugar factories 

Classification of land owned 

SCOUL 

(ha) (%) 

Kakira 

(ha) (%) 

Kinyara 

(ha) (%) 

Nucleus estate 12,000 75 11,000 54.5 6,400 59 

Government of Uganda lease 1,000 4.5 

Private land leases 1000 6.6 

Outsourcing 3,000 25 10,000 45.5 4,600 41 

Large private estates - 800 7.2 

Small out-growers 3,000 25 10,000 45.5 2,400 21.8 

Large self-funded 1,400 12.7 

Total 15,000 100 22,000 100 11,000 100 

Source: Adapted from Uganda land coalition (2005); Welch (2004) 


4.2. THE VALUE OF THE SUGAR SECTOR IN 

20 

UGANDA 

The value aspects of Uganda’s sugar estate may be 

classified into three categories including the following: 

i. reproducible tangible assets including 

plantations and the improvements made on 

them; 

ii. non-reproducible tangible assets by type where 

land is categorised into: urban land, cultivated 

land and other lands (parks and private gardens); 

and 

iii. assets not owned such as leased land on which 

the sugarcane is produced (UN, 1991) 

Box 1: Out-growers production and earnings with SCOUL 

4.2.1. Value of Reproducible Tangible 

Assets ( sugarcane) 

The gross profit from sugarcane production for the 

sugar factories cannot be individually disaggregated 

from value of the sugar and other by-products derived 

from the sugarcane. On the other hand, sugarcane value 

can be derived (for Kakira and SCOUL) from the value at 

which the sugar estates buy factory delivered sugarcane 

from out-growers (Table 9). The outgrowers receive a 

price ranging between Ushs20,200 per metric tone to 

Ushs 25,000 per metric tone of sugarcane (Welch, 2004). 

Consider the case of a farmer in Kasokoso village, Kawolo sub-county Mukono District: 

» Sugarcane takes 18 months to mature, for the first crop; 

» Kiwanuka got a Ushs 200,000 loan, bought sugarcane stems and planted three acres; 

» At that time, a tonne of sugarcane cost Ushs 17,000; 

» Kintu got Ushs 2.5 million from selling sugarcane to SCOUL; 

» The price of sugarcane rose to Ushs 20,200 per tonne; 

» The farmer hoped to get Ushs 8 million from his harvest in February 2006; 

» The contracted out-growers are assured of the market for their sugarcane at SCOUL; 

» The farmers get sugarcane stems, technical skills and tractors to plough our fields, on credit; 

» SCOUL can meet the transportation costs depending on the distance from the factory; 

» The farmer’s life has improved; he has renovated his house and bought three cows. He also plans to 

buy more land. The farmer (Mr. Kintu) is now also a field supervisor at SCOUL. 

Source: New Vision (2006) 

The total value of sugarcane produced by SCOUL is 

Ushs 12,120 million equivalent to US$ 7.128 million 

(Table 9). For Kakira Sugar Works the value of sugarcane 

is Ushs 20,200 million (equivalent to US$ 11.88 million). 

Estimates of the average revenue per hectare, for 

Busoga Sugar Cane Out-growers Association, was US$ 

490 per ha (Uganda Land Coalition, 2005), which was 

only slightly higher than the estimates for farmers in 

Kasokoso village, Kawolo Sub-county Mukono District 

(New Vision, 2006). 

Estimates of the present value of a 5 ratoon (annual) of 

sugar cane gave a present value of Ushs 2,822,861 per 

ha (US$ 1,660 per ha) and Ushs 3,207,162 per ha (US$ 

1,887 per ha) for the sugarcane estate at SCOUL and 

Kakira respectively (Table 9). Therefore, a 7,186 ha estate 

can, at the maximum, produce cane with a present 

value of Ushs 20,285.08 million (US$ 12.3 million) at 

SCOUL and Ushs 23,046.67 million (US$ 13.6 million) for 

the equivalent of Kakira sugar works. 


Table 9: Value of sugarcane for SCOUL out-growers in Mukono district, 2006 

Description of cost items SCOUL Kakira 

Area 15,000 22,000 

Sugarcane (kg) 600,000 1,000,000 

Price of sugarcane (Ushs/tonne) 20,200 (US$ 11.88) 

Per hectare value of sugarcane based on out-grower prices (‘000 Ushs/ha) 808 918 

Per hectare value of sugarcane based on out-grower sugar prices 

(US$/ha) 

Present value of the sugarcane at on out-grower sugar prices (‘000 

Ushs/ha), based on a 5 annual ratoon, at a 22% Bank Interest rate 

Present value of the sugarcane at on out-grower sugar prices (US$/ha) 

based on a 4 to 5 annual ratoon, at a 22% Bank Interest rate 

Value of a 7,186 ha estate of sugar cane out-grower sugar prices 

(‘million Ushs), based on a 5 annual ratoon, at a 22% Bank Interest rate 

Value of a 7,186 ha estate of sugar cane out-grower sugar prices (US$ 

million) based on a 4 to 5 annual ratoon, at a 22% Bank Interest rate 

Source: Adapted from (New Vision, 2006; Uganda Land Commission, 2005) 

4.2.2. Value of non-reproducible assets of 

sugar factory (Land at the Company owned 

nucleus sugarcane estate) 

In valuing non-reproducible tangible assets of the 

nucleus estate land is valued as cultivated land located 

at the different sites. In Mukono District and the areas 

neighbouring Mabira Central Forest reserve and SCOUL 

sugar estate the land rates obtained from brokers ranged 

between Ushs 500,000 to 1,000,000 per acre equivalent 

to Ushs 1,250,000/ha and 2,500,000/ha. Therefore, if it 

was a private land estate equivalent to 7,186 ha Mabira 

CFR, without any other ecosystem values it would 

Table 10: Value of land based on open market prices 

Value of one unit of land 

area 

Land rates (range) (Ushs/acre) 500,000 – 1,000,000 

475.2 540 

2,822,861.53 3,207,161.99 

1,711.88 1,886.57 

20,285.08 

23,046.67 

12.30 13.56 

fetch a value of Ushs 8,0982.5 – 17,965 million (US$ 

10.57 million to US$ 21.135 million) on the open land 

market (Table 10). Economic sense would suggest that 

SCOUL would not vie to buy such land if someone, i.e. 

the Government, were giving it for free. If then the 

government goes ahead and gives this land it would in 

effect be providing an equivalent subsidy (US$ 10.57 – 

21.14), on the basis of the land rates in the area alone, 

to one of the three main sugar factories in the country, 

thereby creating an un-level playing field in the market 

place. Similar overtures might have to be extended to 

the other sugarcane estates as well. 

Land value (million Ushs/ha) 1,250,000 - 2,500,000 8,982.5 - 17,965 

Value of equivalent land on the open 

market (7,186 ha) 

US$ 735.3 – 1,470.6 5,283,823.5 - 10,567,647 


4.3. COST OF PRODUCTION AND THE 

DETERMINANTS OF THE COMPETITIVENESS OF 

THE SUGAR SECTOR IN UGANDA 

Brazil has the lowest sugar production costs, 

approximately US$ 150/ mts of sugar. In Africa, 

Southern African Development Community countries 

such as Zimbabwe (US$ 160/mts), Zambia (US$ 180/ 

mts), and South Africa (US$ 220/mts) have the lowest 

sugar production costs (Malzbender, 2003). Yet Zambia 

is a landlocked country like Uganda. Additional, by- 

products reduce input costs: for example, bagasse is 

burned to achieve energy self-sufficiency in mills and 

filter press mud from mills is spread on fields to reduce 

inorganic fertiliser use. There is potential to generate 

additional value from current production. Uganda 

22 

has one of the highest sugar production costs in the 

Eastern and Southern African region (UNCTAD, 2005). 

The county’s average sugar production cost (Table 

10) is more that two times higher than the average 

production cost of Zambia, three-times as high as the 

sugar production cost in Sudan. Indeed, only Tanzania, 

Uganda’s neighbour to the south, has a comparable but 

slightly lower sugar production cost. As such, one would 

expect that Uganda’s sugar industry still has options for 

improvements in productivity and production leading 

to a reduction in the average sugar production costs. 

The higher costs for the sugar factories in Uganda are 

attributed to: (i) high operational costs; and (ii) the high 

costs of out-growers cane if the distance goes beyond 

20-30km; 

Table 11: Sugar production costs in selected Least Developing Countries 

Country 

Estimation of costs US$/ 

tonne 

Ethiopia 375 56.8 

Bangladesh 550 83.3 

Tanzania 600 91.0 

Uganda 660 -- 

Madagascar 550 83.3 

Source: adapted from UNCTAD (2005) 

However, the cost of producing sugar in Uganda is already 

much higher than regional producers. In addition, the 

Ugandan sugar industry maintains a production cycle 

which subsidises out-grower sugarcane farmers and a 

fixed sugarcane rate. 

Provision of extension services aimed at ensuring 

that a good quality cane is available to the factory is a 

necessary input on the part of sugar factories. However, 

there are no direct incentives for farmers to expand on 

Average sugar production cost as a percentage 

of Uganda’s production cost 

their areas or for other farmers, engaged in production 

of other crops, to switch from these crops if they can 

earn better prices producing sugar cane. 

However, the SCOUL has stated that the production 

costs are quite high (Box 3.3). Similarly, when the price 

rose in 2006 (New Vision, 4 th October, 2005), the General 

Manager Kakira Sugar Works attributed the higher price 

to a power shortage, which lead to increased investment 

in the factories to keep them running. 


Box 2: SCOUL sets terms to abandon Mabira CFR 

The Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited will consider dropping its bid for a chunk of Mabira Forest only if 

the alternative land on offer is fertile, within 20-30 Kilometres of its factory and has no squatters. Speaking 

on Monday to officials from the National Association of Professional Environmentalists (Nape), SCOUL Chief 

Executive S.C Khanna said the company would take up the two land offers- one by the Mengo establishment 

and the other by the Anglican Church in Mukono-only if such land met the company's expectations. 

"Tell us where that land is. If it is fertile land and free from squatters then we can see what to do. But it is not a 

matter of any land," Mr Khanna said at SCOUL's head offices at Lugazi. Mr Khanna spoke out for the first time 

in weeks while meeting Nape officials headed by Mr. Frank Muramuzi. Mr Khanna said that if the land Mengo 

was offering is beyond the radius of 30 kilometres, they would not buy or take it. "If the cost of transporting the 

sugarcane exceeds the cost of producing the sugar, then our company cannot survive. 

The Monitor Newspaper (2007) 

The main value chain for sugar worldwide consists of 

cane production, milling, refining, and other valueaddition 

activities such as food processing, food retail 

until the sugar reaches the end user (Figure 3). In 

Uganda the chain is largely restricted to the first three 

chain processes. The sugar used in the beverage 

industry and other food industries, including hotels is 

largely imported (UBOS, 2006). 

If increased competition arises in the industry there is 

Figure 4: value Figure chain 4: value for sugar chain for cane sugar to sugar cane to sugar 

likely to also be increased specialisation where the sugar 

companies manage their nucleus estate and then buy 

the additional sugarcane they need from commercial 

private estates and long-term contracted smallholder 

out-growers. The sugar factories can then buy the cane 

on the basis of the cane quality, the farmers would incur 

the transport costs, and in exceptional cases the actual 

cost of transport would be deducted from the price 

negotiated with the sugar factories. 


___________________________________________________________________________________ 

Cane 

Cane 

milling 

Raw 

sugar 

trade 

Refining at 

origin 

Refining at 

destination 

Food 

processors & 

Retailers 

Source: (IIED, 2004) 

Source: (IIED, 2004) 

If increased competition arises in the industry there is likely to also be increased 

specialisation where the sugar companies manage their nucleus estate and then buy the 

additional sugarcane they need from commercial private estates and long-term contracted 

smallholder out-growers. The sugar factories can then buy the cane on the basis of the 

cane quality, the farmers would incur the transport costs, and in exceptional cases the 

actual cost of transport would be deducted from the price negotiated with the sugar 

factories. 


Figure 5: Framework of specialisation for sugar industries 

Food 

retail 

End 

user

additional sugarcane they need from commercial private estates and long-term contracted 

smallholder out-growers. The sugar factories can then buy the cane on the basis of the 

cane quality, the farmers would incur the transport costs, and in exceptional cases the 

actual cost of transport would be deducted from the price negotiated with the sugar 

factories. 



Commercial 

private sugar 

estates 

The cost structure for Kinyara Sugar Works indicates that the main sources of costs for 

out-growers come from land developments, transport and labour (Table 11). Labour and 

transports costs increase after the first year while the land development costs decreased 

after the first year. The cost structure in Kinyara was used as a proxy for the likely costs 

of production for out-growers throughout Uganda’s sugar industry. 

land developments, transport and labour (Table 11). equivalent to Ushs 784,260/ha. Of which family labour 

Labour _____________________________________________________________________ 

and transports costs increase after the first year contributed 35% of the gross production costs, which 27 is 

while the land development costs decreased By Yakobo after the Moyini, in line PhD with the average labour costs for Kinyara Sugar 

first year. The cost structure in Kinyara was used as a Works over the three year period (Table 12). The net 

proxy for the likely costs of production for out-growers profits for the out-grower are Ushs 954,974/ ha over an 

throughout Uganda’s sugar industry. 

average 18 month period leading to an income of Ushs 

636,649/ year. 

24 

Sugar milling 

and refining 

growers 

Association 

Long-term 

contracted 

farmers 

Sugar factory and its functional 

departments 

Sugar Company Nucleus Plantation 

The cost structure for Kinyara Sugar Works indicates that 

the main sources of costs for out-growers come from 

Sugarcane by 

products 

alcohol/ethanol; 

Co-generated 

Non-registered 

out growers 

Association 

However, from Table 12, the gross costs of production 

for the SCOUL out-grower are 45% of the gross revenue 

Table 11: Cost structure for a Kinyara Out-grower family 

Land 2 ha 

Distance 12 Kms 

Costs of production distribution by percentage 

Plant-Harvest Ratoon 1 Ratoon 2 

Land developments (%) 57 26 30 

Transport (%) 18 31 28 

Labour (%) 23 42 42 



Table 12: Average out-grower’s sugarcane production returns for SCOUL 

Out-growers without outstanding loans a case of Busoga Sugar Cane Out-growers Association 

Average family members working in the plot 5 

Average casual workers working in the plot 12 

Average women workers working in the plot 25% 

Average daily working hours 10 

Average plot extension 5 acres ( 2 ha) 

Average gross revenue per harvest (5 acre) Ushs 3,449,600 (about US$ 1,770)* 

Average gross revenue per ha Ushs 1,724,800 (US$ 885) 

Average gross cost of production (5 acres) about 45% of the gross revenue 

Average gross cost of production per ha Ushs 784,260 (US$ 398) 

Average labour cost out the family about 35% of cost of production 

Average labour costs out of family Ushs 274,491 (US$ 139) 

Average net profit per harvest (5 acres) Ushs 1,909,948 (about US$ 980) 

Average profits per ha Ushs 954,974 (US$ 490) 

Major problems low prices, markets and credit 

Major problems with the company 

Source: Uganda land Coalition (2005) 

*Exchange rate used then was 1948 indicative figures 

determination of prices, delays in 

payments, high cost of transport 

4.4 OPTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE SUGAR CORPORATION OF 

UGANDA LIMITED (SCOUL) 

Option 1: Productivity enhancement 

SCOUL has argued that to be competitive it needs an 

additional 7,186 hectares of land, from within the Mabira 

Central Forest Reserve. This section of the report aims 

at analyzing the options available to SCOUL to achieve 

the desired level of competitiveness. One option is 

productivity enhancement. This option examines the 

possibility for SCOUL to attain the highest average 

yield level recorded in the country at Kakira. Even with 

productivity enhancement, SCOUL would still need an 

additional 2,208 ha of land to achieve the same output as 

Kakira Sugar Works (Table 11). The African Development 

Bank (AFDB, 2002) noted that an even higher yield of 

120 mt/hectares is possible in Uganda. Although this 

has not been practically achieved on any farm in the 

country, it demonstrates the possibility that productivity 

enhancement should significantly reduce the need for 

estate expansion by SCOUL. 


Table 11: Estimate sugar estate land savings, on nucleus estate, from increasing productivity of the 

cane in Uganda 

26 

Cane yield 

(mts/ha) 

Average 

area of 

nucleus 

estate 

Estimated 

average 

production 

potential of 

nucleus estate 

(mts) 

percentage of 

best performer 

potential 

production 

on 7,186 

ha (mts) 

Kakira 108.9 11,000 1,197,900 100.00 782,555.4 0.00 

Additional 

land area 

needed 

to reach 

highest 

(ha) 

Kinyara 89.9 6,400 575,360 82.55 646,021.4 1518.73 

SCOUL 83.3 12,000 999,600 76.49 598,593.8 2208.42 

Option 2: Improvement in sugarcane 

conversion 

With respect to the efficiency of converting cane to sugar, 

SCOUL would appear to have the lowest efficiency at 8.4 

compared to 8.9 for Kakira and 10 for Kinyara. If SCOUL 

were to attain the conversion efficiency of Kinyara at its 

current level of productivity it would require 16 percent 

less of its current 15,000 ha estate to produce the same 

amount of sugar, if sugar is the principal product. With 

the improved level of efficiency in sugar conversion 

with sugar as the principal product, SCOUL would be 

requesting for 4,786 ha, which is 2,400 ha less than the 

current request of 7,186. . 

Option 3: Improvement in productivity and 

conversion ratio 

A combination of the two options above, increasing 

productivity and the sugar conversion efficiency on 

their own could reduce SCOUL’s land requirements by 

4,608 ha. If the current expansion needs of SCOUL are 

7,186 hectares, then this would reduce to 2,578 hectares. 

Table 12: Estimate savings on sugar estate land from increasing the cane to sugar conversion efficiency 

at SCOUL and Kakira factories 

Estimated sugarcane and sugar based on current estate 

Details used for estimating sugarcane and sugar 

production 

SCOUL Kakira Kinyara 

Area (hectares) 15,000 22,000 11,000 

Sugarcane output (tonnes) 600,000 1,000,000 649,580 

Yield sugarcane (tonnes/ha) 83.3 108.9 89.9 

Conversion cane to sugar 8.4 8.9 10 

Sugar output (tonnes) 48,000 84,000 64,958 

Savings of land from increasing sugar conversion to 

higest national level 

2,400 2420 0 


Option 4: Expanding sugarcane production 

to alternative lands other than Mabira CFR 

a) What if SCOUL could secure land close to it 

sugar estate at the current level market rates? 

When SCOUL applied to be given part of Mabira, the 

government of the Kingdom of Buganda and the 

Church of Uganda in Mukono District proposed to 

provide alternative land (New Vision, 2007; Monitor, 

2007) 4 . Additional discussions covered in the press 

between landlords and SCOUL indicated that some 

landlords did not renew their lease agreements because 

they felt the money they were given by SCOUL was too 

little (Box 4). On the other hand, SCOUL justifiably felt 

that the amounts requested for by some landlords were 

too high and unfeasible especially when the current 

4 New Vision (2007) and Monitor (2007) Kabaka offers land to 

SCOUL and Church offers land to SCOUL 

purchase prices are in the range of Ushs 500,000 to 

1,000,000 per acre 5 . 

SCOUL has several pieces of leased land, which it 

considers feasible. For example, in Kitoola village (and 

other villages) near Mabira forest, in one lease, SCOUL 

has acquired 934 acres equivalent to 388 ha and the 

landlord is paid Ushs 4,500/acre (or Ushs 10980/ha) per 

annum. But the amounts paid on leases per year differ 

among farmers. Indeed, if SCOUL chose to accept the 

offers from the Government of the Kingdom of Buganda 

and from the Church of Uganda it is likely that the price 

offered would be similar to that of the landlords in 

Kitoola. Therefore these values can be used as a proxy 

indication of how SCOUL values land in the area. 

5 The estimates were undertaken before SCOUL request for 

Mabira CFR, June/July 2007. The land rates have increased by between 

50 -100% by March 2008 (Land Brokers interviewed, Mukono District). 

Box 3: SCOUL Sugar Corporation Press release summarised (dated April 07) 

The lease for any parcel of land between SCOUL and Kulubya expired way back in 1996. On expiry of the lease 

the beneficiary/ landlord wanted an outright sale of the land rather than a lease, as he demanded Ushs 10 

million as premium per acre and 50,000/= as premium per acre per annum, which were exorbitant. 

New vision newspaper (2007) 

Box 4: Kabaka Land Offer Not a Donation – Govt. 

Officials in Mengo said the government had no excuse to cut down Mabira to grow sugarcane after Kabaka 

Ronald Mutebi offered his land to save the forest. Buganda Katikkiro Emmanuel Ssendaula said unless the 

government has different intentions, there's no genuine reason to defend the forest giveaway. Mukono district 

leadership yesterday said they were ready to secure 30,000 hectares of land on which farmers would grow 

sugarcane and sell it to Mehta. LC5 chairman Mukome Lukoya asked the government to channel prosperity for 

all funds to the out-growers. 

Monitor Newspaper (2007) 


) Opportunity of SCOUL leasing land from land owners in areas of Mukono District 

As indicated in Table 13, landlords with large tracts of land lying idle would be in a better position to benefit from the 

land leasing scheme than smallholder landowners. Small landowners and landlords would have very small revenue 

such that there would be no incentive for them to join the venture. 

Table 13: Value for leases of land likely to be offered to SCOUL 

Number* of 

units 

Land area 

(ha) 

Amount (Ushs/ 

ha/yr) 

Total Amount 

(Ushs/yr) 

Mutoola IV (in Kitoola) 21 338 10,980 3,711,240 

If government of Buganda or the Church of 

Uganda offered 7,100 ha (i.e. actual variant 

requested for) 

1 7,100 10980 77,958,000 

1 landowner with 2 ha 3,550 2 10,980 20,980 

1 with 1000 ha 7 1,000 10,980 10,980,000 

*indicates the number of units required to satisfy the 7 100 ha land requirement for SCOUL 

Box 5: Land resource values 

Land resource values were estimated from the perspective of the net benefit streams per annum. Then the 

present values were obtained by capitalising the average annual benefit stream using the government of 

Uganda’s social opportunity cost of capital of 12 percent. The present value of product or service (i) equals 

average annual benefits (economic rent) capitalised by the social opportunity cost of capital. 

Where: 

PVt = present value of product i 

t = time period from 1 to m years 

ARt = average annual benefit from product i 

r = social opportunity cost of capital or discount rate (12 percent). 

Subsequently, the total present value of the land area to be acquired by Mabira is given by the equation: 

Where: 

TPV = total present value 

n = number of products 

t = time period from 1 to m years 

28 The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | 2011

The present value/ha of land acquired by SCOUL is likely to be in the range of Ushs 91, 500/ha (Table 14). 

Table 14: Land resource values in Kitoola 

Details of land valuation characteristics Value for Kitoola land 

Average value (Ushs/ha) 10,980 

Social opportunity cost of capital (%) 12 

Present value of land resource leased by SCOUL (Ushs/ha) 91,500 

Average value (Ushs) for 7,186 ha 657,519,000 

4.5. CONCLUSIONS 

From the status of land ownership by the three 

leading sugar production firms; SCOUL has the largest 

proportional land ownership i.e. nucleus estate nearly 

double the size of that owned by Kinyara sugar works 

and 1,000 ha more than that of Kakira Sugar works. The 

sugar estates depend on the community as outgrowers 

to a tune of one-quarter for SCOUL, compared to 

40 percent and 45 percent for Kakira and Kinyara, 

respectively. Therefore to ensure stability of production, 

Kinyara and Kakira are more indebted to the stability of 

land tenure systems and community land stewardship 

in the areas of operation than SCOUL. 

Based on estimates of the average revenue per hectare, 

for Busoga Sugar Cane Out-growers Association, of US$ 

490 per ha, the value of sugarcane produced by Kakira 

was about US$ 4 million higher than that of SCOUL in 

2006. 

Some of the other options available to SCOUL other 

than acquiring part of Mabira CFR include: productivity 

enhancement, improving the sugarcane conversion 

ratio, reducing its production costs and there by 

increasing its competitiveness and ability to buy, or get 

leases for, land at market rates and taking up the land 

offers made by stakeholders opposed to the conversion 

of Mabira CFR. If SCOUL were to enhance its productivity 

to the levels of Kakira sugar works, it would require 2,208 

ha less of Mabira CFR than the 7,186 ha it is requesting 

of land. Yet the level of productivity at Kakira 108.9 mt/ 

hectare is still below the highest attainable productivity 

level of 120 mt/ha noted by the African Development 


Bank. 

Similarly, if SCOUL increased its sugar conversion efficiency 

to the level achieved at Kinyara, the company should 

be requesting for 2,400 ha less than the current 7,186 

hectares. A combination of the two options (increasing 

productivity and the sugar conversion efficiency) 

could reduce SCOUL’s additional land requirements by 

4,608 ha to 2,578 ha Regionally, Uganda’s sugarcane 

yield is comparable with other countries in the region. 

Similarly Uganda’s sugar conversion ratios (from cane 

to sugar) though slightly lower, are within the same 

range as those of neighbouring countries. Uganda’s 

sugar production costs are however, the highest in 

the region. The implications of the above conditions 

are that Uganda’s sugar industry has space to improve 

competitiveness through increased productivity and 

conversion efficiency, without necessarily increasing the 

area under sugar cane. 

Finally, based on the land rates obtained from brokers 

in Mukono District, a private land estate equivalent 

to 7,186 ha Mabira CFR, without any other ecosystem 

values would fetch a value of Ushs 8 to 18 billion (US$ 

11 million to US$ 21million) on the open land market. If

then the government goes ahead and gives this land it 

would in effect be providing an equivalent subsidy (US$ 

10.57 – 21.14), on the basis of the land rates in the area 

30 

alone. To create a level playing field in the market place 

the government would have to make similar overtures 

to other agricultural estate based firms in the country. 


5.0. THE CONSERVATION OPTION 

5.1. CONSERVATION OPTIONS FOR 

MANAGING FOREST RESOURCES 

The aim of sustainable forest management is to coordinate 

the diverse activities of forest users while balancing the 

economic and ecological integrity of the forest. Forests 

produce a range of natural products, timber, non- 

timber forest products, are habitat to biodiversity and 

provide the opportunity to store carbon. Sustainable 

forest management brings out the ?compliments? of 

the above outputs while also maintaining the quality 

of the ecosystem. Previously, the perceived urgency of 

combating deforestation in tropical regions emphasized 

ecological criteria of management. Ecological criteria 

based on natural science were used to designate natural 

areas for protection. Human activities were restricted 

and human comunites relegated to surrounding areas. 

These command and control approaches have mostly 

failed (Cernea, 1986; Weber, 1996). 

New approaches focusing on economic criteria 

have now emerged. The emergence of conservation 

economics, in the 1970s, defined new approaches to 

managing natural environments, in which economic 

criteria were taken into account along with ecological 

criteria. In fact, the modern model has for the most 

part shifted from ecological management to economic 

management (Pearce and Pearce, 2001). The reasoning 

and assumptions behind economic management of 

tropical forests are that they can be managed to ensure 

optimal use of the resource availability to society i.e. 

the economic management is about allocating these 

resources where they will be best used and will maximise 

social well-being. 

5.2. CONSERVATION ECONOMICS 

5.2.1. Importance of economic valuation 

Economic valuation is a tool for decision-making 

intended to compare the advantages and disadvantages 

of alternative development options or alternatives. The 

value of forests depends not only on the market prices 

of its direct uses but is also based on other indirect uses 

of the forest resources that cannot be traded in the 

market (Lette & de Boo 2002). Valuation of the goods 

and services provided by forests is needed because 

these areas are under great pressure and are in fact 

disappearing. Extensive areas of Mabira CFR were 

severely encroached not too long ago (Karani et al 

1997). The natural forest cover of nearby Kifu CFR and 

Namyoya CFR have been completely destroyed and 

the areas have now reverted to plantation forests. The 

lack of knowledge and awareness of the total value of 

the goods and services provided by forest resources 

will obscure the ecological and social impact of the 

conversion of forests into other uses. Proper valuation 

of all goods and services provided by a forest can help 

us understand the extent to which those who benefit 

from the forest or its conversion also bear the associated 

management costs or opportunities foregone (Balmford 

et al., 2003; Balmford et al., 2002; Lette & de Boo 2002; 

Daily & Walker 2000; Montgomery et al 1999; Ando et 

al 1998;;; Pimentel et al 1997; and Costanza et al 1997;). 

Forests in general are complex ecosystems and 

generate a range of goods and services. For purposes 

of determining the magnitudes of net benefits lost due 

to conversion of a forest to other development options, 

the total economic value (TEV) approach was chosen as 

the most comprehensive. The TEV (Figure 5) endeavours 

to identify and formalise the various economic benefits 


expected from the environment (Lette and de Boo 

2002). Despite the importance of the valuation of forests 

and nature, under-valuation was and still is the order of 

the day, as a result of market and policy failures (Lette & 

de Boo 2002). Market failure has been identified as one 

of the major causes of under-valuation (Lette & de Boo 

2002). For example, when determining the economic 

value of a forest, decision-makers usually only take into 

account the easily quantifiable – financial – costs and 

benefits related to goods and services traded on the 

market, whereas there are numerous functions of forests 

for which markets malfunction, are distorted or simply 

do not exist (Lette & de Boo 2002). Markets only exist 

for some of the production functions of forests, such as 

timber, fuelwood, and non-timber products. However, 

even if markets exist, market prices for these goods may 

not reflect their real value, since markets can be distorted, 

for example by subsidies which represent policy failures 

(Lette & de Boo 2002). The authors suggest that the 

market price of a particular good may not reflect all the 

costs involved in producing that good because there 

may be benefits or costs enjoyed or borne by others not 

directly involved in the production of the good, what 

economists call externalities (Lette & de Boo 2002). 

In using the total economic value approach, the value is 

usually sub-divided into: (i) direct use values – benefits 

that accrue directly to the users of forests, whether 

extractive (e.g. timber and NTFPs) or non-extractive (e.g. 

ecotourism). Direct use values are most often enjoyed 

by people visiting or residing in the ecosystem itself; (ii) 

indirect use values – benefits that accrue indirectly to 

users of forests, primarily ecological or environmental 

32 

services; (iii) option value – the amount that individuals 

would be willing to pay to conserve a forest for future 

use (e.g. biodiversity values) of resources they may 

not be using at present; (iv) bequest value – the value 

attached to the knowledge that others might benefit 

from a forest area in the future; and (v) existence value 

– the value placed by non-users on the knowledge that 

something exists, i.e. its intrinsic value. 

5.2.2. The Total Economic Value 

Various valuation tools have been developed to 

estimate the monetary value of non-marketed goods 

and services (Lette & de Boo 2002). Munasinghe’s 

classification of major value categories has proved to 

be a useful analytical tool to link value categories and 

their underlying environmental goods and services 

with specific valuation tools (Munasinghe 1992; Lette 

& de Boo 2002) as shown in Table 15. While the direct 

use value of goods and services traded on the market 

can be easily translated into monetary terms by taking 

their market prices, there are a lot of other goods and 

services often conceived as having direct use values. 

These functions can be better valued by means of 

other valuation tools (e.g. Related Goods Approach, 

Hedonic Pricing or Travel Cost Method). The regulation 

functions of forests from which indirect use value is 

perceived can also be valued by various valuation 

tools (e.g. Replacement Cost Technique, Production 

Function Approach). To capture option, bequest and 

existence values, Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is 

used to estimate the monetary value of environmental 

amenities ( Lette & de Boo, 2002). 


Method). The regulation functions of forests from which indirect use value is perceived 

can also be valued by various valuation tools (e.g. Replacement Cost Technique, 

Production Function Approach). To capture option, bequest and existence values, 

Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is used to estimate the monetary value of 

environmental amenities ( Lette & de Boo, 2002). 

Figure 6: The Figure Total 6: Economic The Total Economic Value of Forests Value of Forests 

Direct 

use 

Outputs that 

can be 

consumed 

directly 

Values of 

functions 

related to: 

- Food 

- Biomass 

- Recreation 

- Health 

Use values 

Indirect 

use values 

Functional 

benefits 


functions 

related to: 

- Ecological 

functions 

- Flood control 

- Storm 

protection 

Total economic value 

Option values Bequest 

values 

Future direct 

and indirect use 

values 


functions 

related to: 

- Biodiversity 

- Conserved 

habitats 

Value of 

leaving use 

and non-use 

values for 

offspring 


functions 

related to: 

- Habitats 

- Irreversible 

changes 

Non-use values 

Decreasing “tangibility” of value to individuals or specific groups 

Existence 

Value form 

knowledge of 

continued existence, 

based on e.g. moral 

conviction 


functions 

related to: 

- Habitats 

- Endangered 

species 

Source: Lette & de Boo (2002); Munasinghe (1992) 

Source: Lette & de Boo (2002); Munasinghe (1992) 

“It must be emphasised that none of these valuation tools provides comprehensive 

answers. All of them value only part of the goods and services provided by forests and 

“It must be emphasised nature. They all that have none limitations of these and valuation should be chosen chosen and and used used with care. with care. Using Using several several valuation tools 

valuation tools for a single object case, contributes to a more complete valuation” 

tools provides comprehensive answers. All of them value for a single object case, contributes to a more complete 

only part of the _____________________________________________________________________ 

goods and services provided by forests valuation” 

36 


and nature. They all have limitations and should be 


Table 15: Example of links between value category, functions and valuation tools 

USE 

FUNCTIONS 

VALUATION TOOLS 

34 

USE VALUES NON-USE VALUES 

1. Direct use value 

Wood products 

(timber, fuel) 

Non-wood 

products (food, 

medicine, genetic 

material) 

Educational, 

recreational and 

cultural uses 

Human habitat 

2. Indirect use 

value 

Watershed 

protection 

Nutrient cycling 

Air pollution 

reduction 

Micro-climatic 

regulation 

Carbon storage 

3. Option value 4. Bequest value 

Possible 

future uses 

of the goods 

and services 

mentioned 

in 1&2 (Use 

Values) by actual 

stakeholders 

Possible future uses of 

the goods and services 

mentioned in 1&2 (use 

Values) by the offspring 

of actual stakeholders 

5. Existence 

value 

Biodiversity 

Culture, heritage 

Benefits to 

stakeholders of 

only knowing of 

the existence of 

goods or services 

without using 

them 

Tool to be used: Tool to be used: Tool to be used: Tool to be used: Tool to be used: 

Market Analysis 

Related Goods 

Approaches 

Travel Cost 

Method 

Contingent 

Valuation Method 

Hedonic Pricing 

Source: Lette & de Boo (2002) 

Restoration Cost 

Preventive 

Expenditure 

Production 

Function 

Approach 

Replacement 

Costs 

The foregoing tools have been successfully applied in 

the valuation of several tropical high forests and other 

ecosystems. Naidoo & Adamowicz (2005) quantified the 

costs and benefits of avian biodiversity in Mabira CFR 

through a combination of economic surveys of tourists, 

spatial land-use analyses, and species-area relationship. 

The results showed that revising entrance fees and 

redistributing ecotourism revenues would protect 114 

of the 143 forest bird species under current market 

conditions. This total would increase if entrance fees 

Contingent 

Valuation 

Method 

Contingent Valuation 

Method 

Contingent 

Valuation 

Method 

were optimised to capture the tourists’ willingness to 

pay for forest visits and the chance of seeing increased 

numbers of bird species. 

Beukering & Cesar (2001) calculated the total economic 

value of the Leuser ecosystem in the Philippines 

under conservation and deforestation scenarios using 

extended Cost-Benefit Analysis and found that the 

conservation scenario far outweighed the deforestation 

scenario. Their study concluded that conservation of 


the forest ecosystem would be in the best interest of 

the local population, local and national governments, 

and the international community. Hadker et al (1997) 

used the Contingent Valuation Method to estimate 

willingness-to-pay on the part of residents of Bombay 

(Mumbai) for the maintenance of Borivli National 

Park, located within the City’s limits. The study arrived 

at a willingness-to-pay of 7.5 rupees per month per 

household, which amounted to a total present value of 

1033 million rupees (or US$ 31.6 million). The authors 

suggested that this figure could be used to influence 

policy decisions, given that the Protected Area at the 

time ran on a budget of 17 million rupees (US$ 520 000). 

Menkhaus & Lober (1995) used the Travel Cost Method 

(TCM) to determine the value that tourists from the 

US placed on Costa Rican rainforests as ecotourism 

destinations using the Monteverde Cloud Reserve as 

a sampling site. Consumer surplus was estimated to 

be approximately US$ 1150, representing the average 

annual per person valuation of the ecotourism value of 

PAs in Costa Rica. The ecotourist value of the Monteverde 

Cloud Forest Reserve was obtained by multiplying 

the total number of visitors by the average consumer 

surplus. This resulted in a total annual US ecotourism 

value of US$ 4.5 million for the Monteverde Reserve. 

Janssen & Padilla (1999) used a combination of Cost- 

Benefit Analysis and Multi-Criteria Analysis to assess the 

opportunity cost of preservation and analyse tradeoffs 

to be made in deciding whether to preserve or convert 

a mangrove forest in the Philippines. The result showed 

that the aquaculture alternatives performed better 

than the forestry preservation alternative in terms of 

economic efficiency. 

Kramer et al (1995) used a combination of valuation tools 

(Contingent Valuation combined with Opportunity Cost 

Analysis and Recreation Demand Analysis) to investigate 

changes in environmental values resulting from the 

creation of Mantadia National Park in Madagascar. 

Kramer et al (1993) used Contingent Valuation Method 

to determine the value of tropical rainforest protection 

as a global environmental good. Using two approaches 

the authors determined the average willingness-to-pay 

of US citizens at US$ 24 to31 and extending to all US 

households, total willingness-to-pay was estimated at 

US$ 2180 to 2820 million per year. 

Sikoyo (1995), used the Contingent Valuation Method 

to determine community direct use benefits from 

Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda; 

while Moyini & Uwimbabazi (2001) used the Travel 

Cost Method and the Contingent Valuation Method 

to determine the Mountain gorilla tourism value of 

Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park. The results 

showed a consumer surplus of US$ 100. Muramira 

(2000) estimated the value of the overall impact of 

Wayleave construction through Mabira at US$ 340,202 

and suggested that this money be set aside to address 

the environmental impacts of the development. The 

author used inventory and market analysis, secondary 

information on resource usage and willingness-to-pay 

studies in comparable areas and project data. 

5.2.3 Analytical framework 

The analytical approach adopted in this report consists 

of the following. 

1. Resource values were estimated from the 

perspective of net benefit streams, annualised, 

and then their present values obtained by 

capitalising the average annual benefits stream 

using the Government of Uganda’s social 6 

opportunity cost of capital of 12 percent. Benefit- 

cost analysis is based on discounting the benefits 

and costs attributable to a project over time 

and then comparing the present value of costs 

(PVC) with the present value of benefits (PVB). 

The present value of benefits is the sum of the 

discounted values of benefits in each year. Thus: 

6 A social time preference rate (STP), reflecting the preference 

society has for present as opposed to future consumption, or the relative 

value it puts on the consumption of future generations. Discount rates 

for projects in developing countries usually range from 8% to 12%. The 

evaluator is best advised to use 10% or 12% 


PVB = 

PVC = 

Where: 

36 

∑ = t n 

t = 1 

∑ = t n 

t = 1 

Bt 

t 

( 1+ 

i) 

Ct 

t 

( 1+ 

i) 

n = number of years being considered; t = each 

individual year; and i = the discount rate expressed as a 

decimal fraction 

» The decision-making criteria; After the 

NPV 

= 

discounting has been completed, the present 

value of the benefits (PVB) is compared to the 

present value of all the costs (PVC). For a project 

to be considered profitable at a given discount 

rate, the present value of benefits should exceed 

that of costs i.e. PVB > PVC. The net present 

value (NPV). This is sometimes called “net 

present worth”, and it is obtained by subtracting 

the present value of costs from that of benefits 

i.e. NPV = PVB - PVC or, mathematically: 

∑ = t n 

t = 1 

Bt 

− Ct 

t 

( 1+ 

i) 

Where: t = individual years; n = number of years over 

which the project is evaluated; B = the sum of benefits 

in a given year; C = the sum of costs in a given year; and 

i = the discount rate expressed as a decimal. 

For a project to be acceptable, PVB > PVC i.e. the net 

present value should be positive. The net present value 

gives a good idea of the total profit, in present value 

terms, of the project. The NPV shown above is used 

to give a present value for a single ecosystem service. 

However, for all the different ecosystem services that 

are obtained from Mabira CFR, the Total Present Value is 

caculated. The Total Present Value is the sum of the net 

present values of all the ecosystem services i.e. 

TPV = 

Where: 

m 

∑ NPVs 

s= 

1 

TPV = Total Present Value; NPV= Net Present Value; and 

s (1-m) = all ecosystem services from 1 to m 

Note: Simple calculus shows that TPV is equivalent to the 

quotient of the NPV divided by the discount rate (i) 

TPV = NPV 

i 

The approach is a good measure of the opportunity cost 

(or forest benefits foregone) as a result of alternative 

development initiatives in Mabira CFR. 

2. For Mabira CFR, the volume of the standing 

timber is the capital stock from which benefits 

are derived, and not the stream of benefits 

themselves. 

3. In calculating the streams of benefits arising 

from timber, poles and firewood, stumpage 

values and not market prices were used. 

4. The basis for calculating the value of forests for 

ecotourism is the consumer surplus, representing 

the price tourists are willing-to-pay, up and 

above what they actually pay for the ecotourism 

experience (Figure 6). Ecotourism is an important 

activity in Mabira CFR. 


4. The basis for calculating the value of forests for ecotourism is the consumer 

surplus, representing the price tourists are willing-to-pay, up and above what they 

actually pay for the ecotourism experience (Figure 6). Ecotourism is an important 

activity in Mabira CFR. 

Figure 7: Graphic Illustration of Willingness to Pay 

Figure 7: Graphic Illustration of Willingness to Pay 

Willingness-to-pay 

(WTP) 

consumer surplus 

actual price paid 

No. of days 

5. Non-timber forest products are harvested in Mabira CFR. This study used the 

extensive research of Bush et al (2004) on community livelihoods in 

5. Non-timber forest products are harvested in 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

Mabira CFR. This study used the extensive 

enclaves extend into Mabira CFR and 40will 

be 


research of Bush et al (2004) on community 

impacted by the development. This land is owned 

livelihoods in representative forests in Uganda. 

by individuals who should be compensated. 

The results of their research were used in this However, the valuation of the lands is outside 

study, augmented by the Consultants’ household 

the scope of this study since the analysis focuses 

survey and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), 

exclusively on the CFR. 

among others. 

6. Carbon sequestration values were derived 

from Bush et al (2004) where average values of 

tonnes of carbon per unit area per year have 

been estimated multiplied by the appropriate 

domestic market price prevailing then for carbon. 

There are two carbon values – carbon stored in 

growing stock; and carbon sequestered annually 

as a result of growth. 

7. Biodiversity values were estimated using 

secondary data from research in comparable 

areas. 

8. Small parts of Buwoola and Namusa community 

5.3. VALUATION 

A. VALUE OF TIMBER GROWING STOCK 

Table 16 Shows estimates of volumes and values of 

standing timber on a compartment by compartment 

basis for the area proposed to be gazetted (also see 

Annex 2). Total timber volume (40cm dbh +) was 

estimated at 547 541m 3 . Based on existing inventory 

data and information from the current management 

plan, the total volume is made up of: 20.8 percent of 

Class I timber utilisation class; 31.3 percent of Class II; 

and 47.9 percent of Class III. 


Table 16: Value of Growing Stock 

Class Volume (m 3 ) Value (Shs millions) 

I 113,889 19,677 

II 171,380 17,568 

III 262,272 22,657 

Totals 547,541 59,902 

Source: NFA (2007) 

From information based on a pilot study at the NFA 

and based on estimates used by Moyini (2006), average 

stumpage values per cubic metre (at 100 percent 

management costs) for the different utilisation classes 

were: Ushs 172,770 for Class I; Ushs 102,511 for Class 

II; and Ushs 86,386 for Class III 7 (Table 17). From the 

foregoing, the value of the standing timber in the 

Compartments proposed for degazettement would be 

as follows above: 

Therefore, the value of the standing timber is Ushs 

59,902,000,000 or US $ 35,236,471. 

7 Historically, purchasers of standing timber have paid in 

excess of the NFA’s reserve prices during timber auction exercises. 

Hence, the reserve prices should be considered relatively conservative. 

Table 17: Value of Annual Exploitable Timber Yield 

38 

Value of annual timber benefit stream 

According to Karani et al (1997) a forest inventory 

carried out in 1993 revealed that Mabira had an annual 

exploitable timber yield based on trees of diameter 

50cm and above and a 60-year felling cycle of 1m 3 /ha/ 

year. This is based on selective logging or what is known 

as reduced impact logging (RIL). Allowing for in-growth 

and considering a felling regime based on 40cm instead 

of 50cm dbh as a minimum, the harvestable volume is 

increased by 24 percent. Hence the estimates of Karani 

et al (1997) were adjusted upwards by 24 percent, to 

give annual exploitable volume of 1,868m 3 /year Class 

I, 2,803 m 3 /year Class II and 4,240 m 3 /year for Class III 

(Table 18). Using the same average stumpage values as 

reported earlier, the annual stream of timber benefits 

which would be foregone are as follows: 

Class Volume (m 3 /year Value (Shs / year) 

I 1,868 332,734,360 

II 2,803 287,338,333 

III 4,240 366,276,640 

Totals 8,911 986,349,333 

Source: Karani et al. (1997) 

From the foregoing, the value of the annual exploitable 

timber yield which would be foregone as a result of 

degazettement becomes Ushs 986,349,333/year. The 

equivalent present value at 12 percent social cost of 

capital would be Ushs 8,219,577,775 (or US$ 4,835,046). 


Table 18: Value of standing Timber crop, Area Proposed for degazettement in Mabira CFR 

CPT Area 

Mean Vol 

per ha DBH 

40-50 

Mean Vol per 

ha DBH 50 + 

Mean Vol/ 

ha dbh 

40cm+ 

Total Vol 

(m3 ) dbh 40- 

50 cm 

Total Vol (m3 ) 

dbh 50 cm+ 

Total 

Volume 

(m3) 40cm+ 

dbh 

180 447 15 61 76 6,526 27,330 33,855.78 

181 341 15 61 76 4,979 20,849 25,827.34 

182 362 15 61 76 5,285 22,133 27,417.88 

183 405 15 61 76 5,913 24,762 30,674.70 

184 580 4 25 28 2,094 14,210 16,303.80 

185 694 25 46 71 17,336 31,667 49,003.34 

171 613 15 61 76 8,950 37,479 46,428.62 

172 320 15 61 76 4,672 19,565 24,236.80 

173 489 15 61 76 7,139 29,897 37,036.86 

174 516 15 61 76 7,534 31,548 39,081.84 

175 358 15 61 76 5,227 21,888 27,114.92 

178 653 15 113 129 9,932 73,985 83,917.03 

179 403 15 61 76 5,884 24,639 30,523.22 

234 563 15 61 76 8,220 34,422 42,641.62 

235 442 15 61 76 6,453 27,024 33,477.08 

106,143 441,397 547,540.83 

Source: NFA Databank 

POLES AND FIREWOOD 

The Management Plan for Mabira CFR 1997-2007 did 

not encourage the harvesting of poles from the forest. 

The Plan had this to say in Prescription No. 30. 

“Though a limited quantity of poles is 

permitted for domestic use, there are 

attempts to collect and sell poles due 

to socioeconomic pressures. There is 

absolute need to watch out for any 

large quantities collected by people 

neighbouring the reserves, as a small 

business. The FD (now the NFA) staff 

will investigate any suspected cases and 

take appropriate steps to stamp out the 

practice”. 

Karani, et al (1997). 


Similarly, for fuelwood or woodfuel (representing 

firewood and charcoal), the Management Plan 1997- 

2007 Prescription 31 said thus. 

“ Fuelwood cutting (sic) and charcoal 

production are destructive to a standing 

crop, as licence holders are indiscriminate 

i.e. cutting young trees of marketable 

species. Fuelwood cutting (sic) and 

charcoal production shall not be allowed 

in the MPA (Management Plan Area)”. 

Karani et al (1997). 

From the foregoing, harvesting of both poles and 

firewood in commercial quantities is prohibited. 

However, harvesting the products in limited quantities 

for own use is permissible. Hence the approach to 

estimating the combined stream of values from 

firewood and poles was the one Bush et al (2004) used 

39

ased on household livelihoods. 

Bush et al. (2004) estimated the total livelihood value 

of timber (largely poles and firewood) and non-timber 

products from a typical protected tropical high forest 

in Uganda at UShs 18,074 per ha per year, of which 47 

percent was timber and 53 percent non-timber forest 

products. Hence the combined annual stream of poles 

and firewood values was estimated at UShs 8,495/ha. 

Since the impact area in Mabira CFR is estimated at 

7186ha, this gives a benefit stream of UShs 61,045,070/ 

year. Capitalising this annual benefit stream by 12 

percent gives a net present value for poles and firewood 

of UShs 508,708,917. Bush et al (2004) cautioned as 

follows. 

40 

“It is important to note at this point that 

the values calculated do not imply that 

the level of economic value derived is 

sustainable. (They estimated economic 

value based on the current levels of use). 

However, it is reasonable to assume that 

protected THF [Tropical High Forest] 

values are closer to sustainable harvest 

rates considering the management 

efforts of the NFA”. 

In summary, the values of poles and firewood were 

arrived at as follows. 

Poles + Firewood livelihood value 

UShs 8,495/ha/year 

Size of Impact Area 

7186 ha 

Total annual benefit stream 

UShs 61,045,070/year 

Present Value of Poles + Firewood benefits 

UShs 508,708,917 (or (US$ 299,241) 

B. NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS 

Prescription 32 of the Mabira Forest Management Plan 

1997-2007 had this to say about handicrafts materials. 

“Demand for handicraft products, 

including easy chairs, stools, mats 

and baskets is rising. Although limited 

quantities, for domestic use, are permitted 

free of charge under the Forests Act, a 

system shall be devised to monitor, record 

and control harvesting. Any collection/ 

harvesting for commercial purposes shall 

be fully charged at appropriate rates of 

such forest product”. Karani et al (1997). 

For other non-timber forest products, Prescription 33 of 

the Mabira Forest Management Plan 1997-2007 stated 

as follows: 

“Domestic collection of medicinal herbs, 

edible plants and other food materials 

does not pose any immediate danger 

to the resource or the standing forest 

crop. Such collection may promote 

protection and conservation of the 

respective forest resource in the MPA by 

neighbouring communities. However, 

levels of harvesting shall be controlled 

and in case of commercial interests, 

corresponding fees shall be charged. In 

case of any destruction to standing forest 

crop, e.g. debarking and uprooting, the 

FD (now NFA) officers shall take steps to 

immediately stop such actions” Karani et 

al. (1997). 

To estimate the benefits stream from non-timber forest 

products, the Bush et al. (2004) study was used. The 

results of the research showed that typical tropical 

high forest protected areas (PAs) on average generate 

UShs 9,579/ha/year, an amount much lower than 

Afromontane forest PAs, private THFs and savanna 

woodland/bushland. Nonetheless, the value for tropical 

high forest PA is thought to be the closest to the Mabira 

situation. Using the approach similar to the one for poles 

and firewood, the present value of the benefits stream 


from non-timber forest products was estimated at UShs 

573,622,450 as shown below. 

NTFPs livelihood value 

UShs 9,579/ha/year 

Size of impact area 

7186 ha 

Annual benefit stream 

UShs 68,834,694/year 

Present Value of NTFPs 

UShs 573,622,450 (or US$337,425) 

C. PHARMACEUTICAL VALUE 

Mabira CFR is rich in biodiversity. The area of impact of 

the proposed degazettement represents 24 percent 

of the total and, therefore, is likely to affect overall 

biodiversity richness. Some biodiversity will definitely 

be lost. 

Biodiversity richness of a forest represents an option 

value; and it is perhaps one of the least tangible 

benefits of Uganda’s forests (Bush et al 2004). The value 

of biodiversity lies partly in the development of plant- 

based pharmaceuticals (Bush et al 2004; Emerton & 

Muramira 1999; Mendelsohn & Balik 1997; Howard 

1995; Pearce & Moran 1994; Ruitenbeek 1989). In 

addition to undiscovered plant-based pharmaceuticals, 

Howard (1995) reported that there is potential in wild 

coffee genetic material. According to Bush et al (2004), 

Uganda’s farmed coffee is being hit by a Fusarium wilt 

against which no known cultural or chemical practices 

appear to succeed and wild coffee is known to be 

resistant to it (Bush et al 2004). 

Various estimates have been made of the value of 

forest biodiversity. Ruitenbeek (1989) estimated the 

biodiversity of Korup Park in Cameroon at ₤0.1/ha/ 

annum. Pearce & Moran (1994) provided a range of 

values for tropical forest, ranging from US$0.1/ha to US 

$ 21/ha. 

Mendelsohn & Balik (1997) produced a value for 

undiscovered plant-based drugs in tropical forest with 

average plant endemism of US$3/ha. Howard (1995) 

suggested that Uganda’s forests are not as species rich 

as Korup Park and the country would be less competitive 

in say supply of Prunus africana. Bush et al (2004), 

suggest an average value for biodiversity at US$1.50/ha/ 

year. Simpson et al (1994) estimated the pharmaceutical 

value of ‘hot spot’ land areas in various countries of the 

world. Their estimate of the willingness to pay (WTP) of 

the pharmaceutical companies was $2.10 for Tanzania 

and $1.1 for Ivory Coast. Hence the Bush et al (2004) is a 

very reasonable estimate. Using this estimate the future 

pharmaceutical opportunities foregone in the impact 

area would be UShs 18,324,300/year (using an exchange 

rate of 1 US$ = UShs 1700). This annual benefit stream 

translates into a present value of UShs 152,702,500 (or 

US$898,825). 

D. DOMESTIC WATER CONSERVATION 

During Focus Group Discussions with communities 

surrounding Mabira CFR and living in the forest enclaves, 

they revealed that to them the most important use of 

the forest was for water collection. All the surrounding 

communities and those living in the forest enclaves, said 

they get their water from the forest. This view tallies with 

the observation of Bush et al (2004), where the forests 

surveyed across Uganda represented important sources 

of water for local communities. 

Bush et al (2004) estimated the mean value of water 

provision for both humans and livestock per household 

at UShs 18,415 per annum, and ranges from UShs 12,078 

per annum for Budongo CFR to UShs 30,928 per annum 

for Rwenzori Mountains National Park. In this report, 

the value for Budongo CFR which is relatively similar to 

Mabira CFR was used in estimating community water 

benefits. 

Muramira (2000) estimated the number of households 

in the enclaves and within the proximity of Mabira at 

15,631. Assuming population growth rate of 3.4 percent 

per annum (UBOS 2002), by 2007, this population would 

have increased to about 19,753 households. Therefore 

multiplying the mean value of water provision of UShs 


12,078 per annum by the number of households gives 

a total value of UShs 238,576,734 per annum. However, 

the impact area is 7186ha out of the total size of about 

30,000ha. Therefore, the value of water provision in 

impact area which will be lost is equivalent to UShs 

57,258,416 per annum. Holding this value constant over 

the project period, the net present value of domestic 

water provision translates into a conservative estimate 

of UShs 477,153,468 (or US $ 280,679) 8 . 

E. ECOTOURISM 

According to Pearce & Pearce (2001) ecotourism is a 

growing activity and contributes a potentially valuable 

non-extractive use of tropical forests. A review of some 

estimates of tourism values shows enormous variations 

in unit values of ecotourism. For example Maille and 

Mandelsohn (1991) estimated the value of tropical 

forest ecotourism in Madagascar at $360 – 468/ha 

based on a study of consumer’s surplus using the travel 

cost method (TCM). On the other hand, other tropical 

forest ecosystem values are as follows: $650/ha benefit 

of no logging over continued logging in a forest in the 

Philippines (Hodgson & Dixon 1988); consumer’s surplus 

estimates of $ 1/ha for a site in Mexico (Adger et al 1995); 

$740/ha for forest recreation areas in Malaysia (Garrod 

&Willis 1997); and $950 – 2305/ha for two forested 

parks in Costa Rica (Shultz et al 1998). Generally, very 

8 The estimate is conservative because the population in 

the enclaves and the surrounding areas will increase over the years. 

However, it is possible with increased development, alternative water 

sources may be developed. 

Table 19: Visitor statistics 

Year 

42 

Foreigners/ 

Foreign Residents 

high popularity sites generate much higher values as 

demonstrated by the Schultz et al study. 

Ecotourism in Mabira CFR is popular due to its proximity 

to large urban centres and above average biodiversity 

richness. The lower case value ($360/ha) for Madagascar 

from the study of Maille and Mandelsohn (1991) 

could be a reasonable average estimate. Multiplying 

the Madagascar value by the 7186 ha proposed for 

degazettement, one estimate of the ecotourism value of 

Mabira CFR would be $2,586,960/year; and the present 

value at $21,558,000. 

On the other hand, according to Muramira (2000), 

Uganda’s tropical high forests have some of the richest 

biodiversity of plant and animal life in the world. However, 

compared to other national forests, the biodiversity 

inventory for Mabira CFR revealed that the forest has 

average biodiversity attributes (Davenport et al 1996). 

The ecotourism value of Mabira lies in the fact that it 

is the only THF protected area within the Lake Victoria 

shore crescent. Furthermore, Mabira CFR is close to the 

urban centres of Kampala (53km) and Jinja (21km). There 

is increasing interest in ecotourism in Mabira CFR as 

shown in Table 20. Finally, in addition to the Ecotourism 

Centre operated by the NFA, new developments are 

either nearing completion (for example the facility of 

Ecolodges) or are in the early stages of development (for 

example the plans of MAFICO). These developments, 

amongst others, point to an accelerated growth in 

ecotourism in Mabira CFR. 

Locals Total 

2005/06 1,989 2,854 4,843 

1999 1,312 2,880 4,172 

1998 1,450 1,125 2,575 

1997 1,304 1,094 2,398 

1996 1,097 515 1,612 

Source : data for 2005/06 fiscal year from the NFA 

: data for remaining years, Muramira (2000) 


The basis to estimating the annual value of ecotourism 

is the consumer surplus, the difference between the 

price tourists are willing to pay and the price they 

actually paid. Naidoo & Adamowicz (2005) found that 

an entrance of US$47 would maximise tourism value 

compared to the amount foreign and foreign residents 

of Uganda are currently charged (US$5) to visit Mabira 

CFR (Naidoo & Adamowicz 2005). This dramatic under- 

valuation of the willingness to pay of tourist visitors is 

consistent with results from other tropical areas and 

suggests much room for improvement in entrance fee 

policy (Naidoo & Adamowicz 2005). 

From the above, the consumer surplus for foreigners 

and foreign residents is US$42 per tourist. In the absence 

of data on the local tourists’ willingness-to-pay and 

considering their low income levels, this study assumes 

a zero consumer surplus pertaining to local tourists. For 

foreigners and foreign residents US$ 42 or UShs 71,400 

(at exchange rate of UShs 1700 to the US$) – was used. 

Furthermore, using the 2005/06 data for foreigners and 

foreign residents of 1,989 tourists, the annual value of 

ecotourism for the whole Mabira CFR was estimated 

at UShs 142,014,600/year. Mabira CFR is about 30,000 

ha in size and it would be incorrect to allocate all the 

annual value lost due to the impact area of 7186 ha. 

Hence, the proportionate share of ecotourism benefits 

lost was estimated as a fraction of the value for Mabira 

as a whole (that is, UShs 142,014,600/year x 7186/30000) 

giving a value of UShs 34,083,504/year. Subsequently 

the present value of the ecotourism benefits foregone 

translates into Ushs 284,029,200 (or US$167,076). 

This estimate must be considered a very conservative 

one and demonstrates the room available for ecotourism 

to grow in Mabira CFR. It is quite possible that once the 

planned and the on-going ecotourism development 

projects are completed there will be a dramatic increase 

in tourist numbers and Ugandan tourists will also begin 

to register significant consumer’s surpluses. These 

developments are likely, therefore, to propel the annual 

value of ecotourism closer to the $360/ha mark which 

was registered in Madagascar. 

F. CARBON STORAGE AND SEQUESTRATION 

When a forest is under threat of conversion, it is important 

to distinguish two values. The first is the value of the 

carbon stored in a standing forest that is close to ‘carbon 

balance’. The second is the value of carbon sequestered 

in a growing forest. In other words the carbon storage 

value is the value held in the growing stock or standing 

timber volume. The sequestration value is the value of 

the amount of additional carbon absorbed by the forest 

as it adds more volume annually. 

Brown and Pearce (1994) provide some benchmark 

figures for carbon content and loss for tropical forest 

conversion situations (Table 21). A closed primary forest 

has 283tC/ha of carbon and if converted to permanent 

agriculture would release 220tC/ha (283tC/ha less 63tC/ 


ha). 

Table 20: Carbon content and loss for tropical forest conversion 

Forest type 

Forest Original 

Carbon (tC/ha) 

Permanent Agriculture 

Carbon (tC/ha) 

Closed primary forest 283 /a 63 /c -220 

Closed secondary forest 194 /b 63 -131 

Open forest 115 63 -52 

/ a – 116 soil, 167 biomass; / b – 84 soil, 110 biomass; / c – mainly soil 

Source: Brown and Pearce (1994) 

Quantity of Carbon Released by 

conversion (tC/ha) 

For closed secondary and open forests, the corresponding figures are 131tC/ha and 52tC/ha, respectively. A large

part of the area proposed for degazettement in Mabira 

may be characterised as a combination of open forest 

and closed secondary forest. Taking the carbon loss 

value of open forest (52tC/ha) the conversion of 7186ha 

of Mabira to permanent agriculture would release 

373672tC. Using this value as a benchmark, the next 

question is what the economic value of such carbon 

stock is. A significant literature exists on the economic 

value of global warming damage and the translation of 

these estimates into the economic value of a marginal 

tonne of carbon (Pearce & Pearce 2001). According to 

Zhang (2000) if there were no limitations placed on 

worldwide carbon trading, carbon credits would by then 

have exchanged at just under $10tC. If ‘hot air’ trading 

were excluded, the price would be $13tC. Therefore, 

taking $10tC as a conservative estimate, the one-off 

value of carbon released into the atmosphere would be 

$3,736,720 (or Ushs 6,352,424,000). 

Secondly, once the area is converted into permanent 

agriculture, then its annual carbon sequestration 

capacity is severely restricted. The removal of tree cover 

as a result of the permanent agriculture (plantation) will 

result in a loss of some of the carbon storage capacity of 

Mabira CFR. According to Bush et al (2004), at the global 

level, the forestry sub-sector is an important carbon 

sink, helping to reduce accumulation of greenhouse 

gases and hence global warming which will lead to 

adverse changes in climate. Emerton & Muramira 

(1999) and Bush et al (2004) give the following carbon 

sequestration values for different Ugandan vegetation 

types: primary closed forest UShs 54,660/ha/year; 

degraded forest UShs 32,538/ha/year; and woodland, 

bushland and grassland UShs 2,603/ha/year. The forest 

conversion is expected to leave the cleared impact area 

under grassland (sugarcane) instead of bare ground. 

Furthermore, the Production Zone should have a carbon 

sink value of UShs 40,996/ha/year, using the average 

value for a primary closed forest and a degraded forest 

and deducting grassland values. 

Multiplying the carbon sink value by the size of the 

applicable impact area, is expected to result in a loss 

44 

of carbon sink values equivalent to UShs 294,597,256/ 

year. Capitalised at the social opportunity cost of 

capital, the annual stream gives a present value of UShs 

2,454,977,133 (or $1,444,104). 

G. WATERSHED PROTECTION 

Typically, the functions forests play in watershed 

regulation include: soil conservation (siltation and 

sedimentation), water flow regulation (including flood 

and storm protection, water supply, water quality 

regulation – including nutrient outflow). The effects of 

forest cover removal can be dramatic. Unfortunately, 

economic studies of watershed protection functions are 

few, nonetheless progress is being made. From existing 

studies Krieger (nd) was able to arrive at average values 

of tropical forests as follows: water regulation ($6/ 

ha); water supply/quality ($8/ha); erosion control and 

sediment retention $245/ha, resulting in a total of $259/ 

ha. When these average values for all tropical forests of 

the world are applied to the Mabira case, it translates 

into annual watershed protection values of $1,760,570 

and present value of $14,671,417. According to Hamilton 

& King (1983), care needs to be taken not to exaggerate 

these estimates. Yaron (2001) estimated the value of 

flood protection (using the value of avoidable crop and 

tree losses as a basis) and came up with a figure of $0- 

24/ha. Using Yaron’s upper estimate of $24/ha, the flood 

protection value for the Mabira impact area would be 

$172,464/year (or UShs 293,188,800 using exchange rate 

of 1 US$ = UShs 1700) and present value of $1,437,200. 

While this conservative estimate applies to flood 

protection and not the other watershed functions, it 

may be used for watershed protection values lost in the 

Mabira impact area. 

H. OPTION AND EXISTENCE VALUES 

According to Pearce &Pearce (2001), the notion of 

economic value includes willingness to pay for the 

conservation of a forest or ecosystem even though the 

individual expressing the willingness to pay secures 

no use value from the forest. The authors went on to 


describe three contexts in which such values might 

arise. They are: 

» someone may express a willingness to pay to 

conserve the forest in order that they may make 

some use of it in the future, e.g. for recreation. 

This is known as an option value; 

» someone may express a willingness to pay to 

conserve a forest even though they make no 

use of it, nor intend to. Their motive may be that 

they wish their children or future generations to 

be able to use it. This is a form of option value 

for others’ benefit, sometimes called a bequest 

value; and 

» someone may express a willingness to pay 

to conserve a forest even though they make 

no use of it, nor intend to, nor intend it for 

others’ use. They simply wish the forest to 

exist. Motivations may vary, from some feeling 

about the intrinsic value of the forest through 

to notions of stewardship, religious or spiritual 

value, the rights of other living things, etc. This 

is known as existence value (Pearce & Pearce 

2001). 

While extremely difficult to determine the relevance 

of the option and existence values is that they may 

be ‘capturable’ through mechanisms such as debt-for- 

nature swaps, official aid, donations to conservation 

agencies, and pricing mechanisms (Pearce &Pearce 

2001). According to Swanson & Kontoleon (2000), an 

example of using a price is the suggestion that visitors 

to China would have the option of paying $1 extra 

for a panda stamp’ in their passports, along with their 

visa, to indicate that they have donated towards panda 

conservation in China. 

Some option and existence value estimates for the 

world’s tropical forests have been reported elsewhere 

including: Sri Lankan forests (villagers, rural and urban 

groups of use, bequest and existence values) by 

Gunawardena et al (1999) using a contingent valuation 

method (CVM); and US residents’ willingness to pay ‘one- 

off’ payment of $21-31 per household for protection of 5 

percent more of the world’s tropical rain forests (Kramer 

&Mercer 1997). However, for purposes of arriving at a 

relevant estimate for the impact area in Mabira three 

studies are particularly pertinent. The first concerns use 

of a willingness to pay study to estimate the implied 

‘world’ willingness to pay for limited forest areas covered 

by debt-for-nature swaps at $5/ha (Pearce 1996). 

The second study is a similar one by the same author 

on implied ‘world’ willingness to pay via the Global 

Environmental Facility (GEF) of $2/ha. 

The third study was estimates of option and existence 

values revealed in a study of debt-for-nature swaps 

and grant aid to Mexico forest conservation of $12/ha. 

For the impact area in Mabira, the implied willingness 

to pay via the GEF facility was chosen mainly because 

it represents the most conservative estimate but also 

because Uganda has been a beneficiary of several GEF 

funding arrangements 9 . 

From the foregoing, the unit option and existence 

value for the Mabira impact area would be $2/ha, 

which when multiplied by the 7186ha translates into 

$14,372/annum (or UShs 24,432,400/year using 1 US$ 

= UShs 1,700) and a present value of about $119,767 

(or UShs 203,603,900). 

5.4. SUMMARY 

The results of the foregoing analysis are summarised 

in Table 21. The value of the timber growing stock in 

the impact area (40 cm dbh+) was estimated at about 

US$35.2 million. Irrespective of the use to which the 

timber maybe put, it holds a stored carbon value of 

US$3.7 million. For purposes of comparing the merits 

and demerits of the proposed land conversion, the 

stored carbon value will be ignored. It is assumed that the 

growing timber stock will be converted into sawnwood 

and used further in other processes or products (e.g. 

9 Including part of the World Bank support to Uganda under 

the Environment Management Capacity Building Project (EMCBP) 

for NEMA; and the Protected Area Management and Sustainable Use 

(PAMSU) whose beneficiaries include UWA, MTTI, Museums & 

Antiquities and UWEC, among others. 



___________________________________________________________________________________ 

furniture, 

Both the 

building, 

actual 

construction, 

and potential 

etc.) hence 

(pharmaceutical 

retaining Community 

values) stream 

benefits in 


terms 

net 


benefits 

poles and 

were 

firewood, 

its estimated stored carbon at values. US$ 1,081,243/year The value of the growing of which stock 54 non-timber percent represents forest products the annual and water value supplies of were 

becomes exploitable relevant timber for purposes value, of whereby any compensation the amount as harvested estimated to does represent not another exceed 10 mean percent annual of the annual 

discussed increment in Chapter (MAI) 5.0. and a further 16 percent each benefits are contributed stream. by carbon sequestration 

and watershed protection values. Community benefits in terms of poles and firewood, 

Both non-timber the actual forest and potential products (pharmaceutical and water values) supplies The were present estimated value to of the represent annual another stream of 10 benefits 

stream 

percent 

of net 


benefits 

the annual 

were 

benefits 

estimated 

stream. 

at US$ 1,081,243/ was estimated at about US$10 million, which when 

year of which 54 percent represents the annual value combined with the value of growing stock would give a 

The present value of the annual stream of benefits was estimated at about US$10 million, 

of exploitable timber value, whereby the amount total net present value of US$45.1 million for the area of 

which when combined with the value of growing stock would give a total net present 

harvested value of does US$45.1 not exceed million mean for the annual area increment of impact in impact Mabira in Mabira CFR. CFR. 

(MAI) and a further 16 percent each are contributed by 

carbon sequestration and watershed protection values. 

Table 21: 21: Summary of Values of Values 

One 

– off 

Values 

Amount 

Ushs US $ 

Timber Stock 

59, 

902, 

000, 

000 

35, 

236,471 

Value of Carbon Stored 6,352,424,000 3,736,720 

Annual Stream of Benefits 

Amount/ 

Year 

Ushs 

US 

$ 

Timber 

986, 

349, 

333 

580, 

205 

Poles & Firewood 61,045,070 35,909 

Non – Timber forest products (NTFP) 68,834,694 40,491 

Ecotourism 

18, 

324, 

300 

10, 

779 

Community water supplies 57,258,416 33,681 

Pharmaceutical values 34,083,504 20,049 

Carbon Sequestration 294,597,256 173,293 

Watershed protection 293,188,800 172,464 

Option/existence values 24,432,400 14,372 

1,838,113,773 1,081,243 

Net Present Value of Annual Benefits Streams 

Amount 

Ushs 

US$ 

1. 

Timber 

8, 

219, 

577, 

775 

4, 

835, 

046 

2. Poles & Firewood 508,708,917 299,241 

3 . NTFP 

573, 

622, 

450 

337,425 

4. Domestic water supply for communities 157,702,500 898,825 

5. Pharmaceutical values 477,153,468 280,679 

6. 

Ecotourism 

value 

284, 

029, 

200 

167, 

076 

7. Carbon sequestration values 2,454,977,133 1,444,104 

8. Watershed protection values 2,443,240,000 1,437,200 

9. Option/Existence values 203,603,900 119,767 

15,322,615,343 9,819,363 

_____________________________________________________________________ 


46 


53

6.0. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION 

6.1. DISCUSSIONS 

The decision to degazette or not to degazette part of 

Mabira CFR for sugar cane growing involves a range 

of considerations. The most important consideration is 

the comparative net returns to land from the different 

land uses, the others being national policy, equity 

and environmental considerations and international 

obligations. The following section clearly demonstrates 

that whereas sugar cane growing is an important 

investment area for the economy, conservation of 

Mabira Central Forest Reserve is an equally important 

land use option. 

• Why favour SCOUL only? 

A very disturbing question arising from a review of the 

Mabira issue is why of all things the GoU feels SCOUL is the 

producer best equipped to fill the production shortfall 

of 40,000 mt that currently exists when there is ample 

evidence to show that despite being the oldest factory 

in the country and perhaps because of this, SCOUL is the 

least efficient in terms of yield and conversion. It is true 

that SCOUL can point to some precedents in allocation 

of CFR land to agriculture, including sugarcane 

production. However, the argument is not sufficient to 

encourage the repeat of what obviously would appear 

to be a less than socially optimum decision. 

• Is sugarcane production superior? 

The first level of analysis is to ascertain whether it is 

better to convert 7,186 ha of Mabira CFR into sugarcane 

production instead of leaving it intact for conservation. 

The proposed land conversion to permanent agriculture 

would mean losing about US$ 35,236,471 of timber 

growing stock. It would also mean foregoing US$ 

9,819,363 in form of annual benefits. Hence a total loss 

of about US$ 45,055 834 of conservation benefits would 

be incurred. 

On the other hand, converting a part of Mabira CFR 

for sugarcane production will require extensive land 

clearing which itself will be a significant cost to SCOUL. 

Secondly, benefit streams from sugarcane growing 

would start flowing about 18 to 24 months after land 

clearing (assuming planting is immediate). This time lag 

also represents opportunities foregone. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the land clearing 

costs and those costs associated with the length of time 

it would take to harvest the first crop of sugarcane are 

set aside, it is possible to estimate the future net benefits 

realisable from sugarcane growing. In Chapter 3.0 of this 

report, it was reported that the average gross profit from 

sugarcane production by out-growers was US$ 490/ 

ha. Therefore, the annual benefit stream of sugarcane 

growing would be US$ 3,593,000/year, over three times 

the estimated annual value from conservation. This 

probably is the justification by those who advocate 

for the conversion of forest land to agricultural use. 

However, this is a partial story, a rather narrow view 

of the benefits attributable to conservation.The net 

present value of the total benefits of conservation was 

estimated at US$ 45.1 million (standing timber stock plus 

present value of annual benefits). It is this value, rather 

than annual benefits alone which need to be compared 

with the alternative of agriculture. The net present value 

of the annual benefits from agriculture was estimated at 

US$ 29.9 million without making any deductions for the 

initial costs associated with establishing the sugarcane 

plantation plus the time it would take for the first crop 


to mature. Subsequently, conservation is superior to 

agriculture; and converting 7,186 ha of Mabira CFR 

into agriculture would result into a net loss of US$ 15.2 

million to society. In fact, because sugarcane is a ratoon 

crop the value of the cane lasts only the five years of the 

ratoon and a new crop is replanted. Therefore, the true 

value of a sugar crop is US$ 12.3 milion, which is US$ 

32.8 milion inferior to the conservation option. 

• What if degazettement goes ahead? 

The National Forestry and Tree Planting Act has provisions 

for compensatory measures in case of degazettement 

– that is, fair and equal value. Also, Uganda’s social 

and environmental safeguard policies are clear on 

compensation. Hence, despite the evidence that the 

conservation is a superior alternative to sugarcane 

growing, if other reasons compel the degazettement 

of the 7186 ha of Mabira CFR, then the developer must 

compensate for the values lost from the conservation 

alternative. This total value is estimated at US$ 45.1 

million, payable to the NFA for conservation activities in 

general and Mabira in particular. However, before doing 

so, the land use change should in addition be subjected 

to the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process 

to satisfy legal, and social and environmental safeguard 

policies of GoU. 

The pertinent question for SCOUL is whether paying 

the US$ 45.1 million represents a cheaper alternative to 

buying or leasing private land. An expenditure of US$ 

45.1 million would purchase 30,668 ha of land (at Ushs 

2,500,000 per hectare assuming an exchange rate of 

1US$ = Ushs 1,700) compared to the 7,186 ha at Mabira 

CFR. 

• Can SCOUL or the sugar industry 

48 

meet the national requirements for 

sugar? 

An answer to the above question is a resounding ‘no’. 

The reason is that even if the four sugar companies 

can produce volumes of sugar equal to the national 

requirement, imports will still be necessary. At the 

moment the factories are unable to produce all grades 

of sugar in sufficient quantities to meet the aggregate 

national demand. The firms, therefore, need to first invest 

in processing capacity for the different grades of sugar 

before consideration can be given to self-sufficiency in 

sugar production (assuming this is a socially desirable 

goal). 

• Is there a national sugar industry 

strategy? 

What one may call the ‘Mabira saga’ has over-shadowed 

an important debate about the sugar industry. This is 

wrong. Mabira is an issue because a single firm SCOUL, 

and not the whole industry wants an access to some 

of the CFR land. There are important industry issues 

to be addressed. For example, is a strategy towards 

self-sufficiency in sugar production desirable? Is it 

efficient? Can Uganda produce all the grades of sugar 

required by both household and industrial consumers? 

If the GoU is fully satisfied that the country has a clear 

and demonstrable comparative advantage in sugar 

production, then why not produce as much sugar as 

possible to satify both domestic and export demands? 

Where should the incremental sugar production come 

from? In other words, are there other parts of the 

country where sugar can be produced competitively? 

Can increased sugar production be used as one strategy 

to promote poverty reduction and satisfy the ‘wealth for 

all’ objective? 

Answering the foregoing questions will require an 

examination of the whole sugar industry and not just 

the tribulations of SCOUL alone. By devoting exclusive 

energy to the Mabira debate, an opportunity to examine 

the whole sugar industry is lost and it forces GoU to make 

some rather obscure ‘seat of the pants’ decisions. There is, 

therefore, a need to re-direct the Mabira debate to focus 

on the entire sugar industry and not just SCOUL alone 

so as to come up with more comprehensive solutions to 

the challenges facing, and the opportunities presented 

by, the sugar industry. 


6.2. CONCLUSION 

Despite the difficulties of estimating some of the goods 

and services provided by a forest, an attempt was made 

to arrive at the TEV of the area of impact in Mabira 

CFR and compare it with the alternative of growing 

sugarcane. In doing so, effort was made to ensure 

that very conservative estimates were used for the 

ecological services offered by the forest. On the other 

hand, in arriving at net benefits of sugarcane growing, 

the cost of land preparation was recognised but then 

excluded from the calculations. The two actions in effect 

meant that very conservative estimates were used in 

estimating the benefits of conservation, while generous 

allowances were made for those of sugarcane growing. 

From the analysis carried out, it was clear that the benefits 

of the conservation of Mabira CFR far exceeded those of 

sugarcane growing. The respective total economic value 

of conservation was estimated at US$ 45.1 compared to 

US$ 29.9 million which is the net present value of the 

annual benefits from the proposed sugar cane growing. 

As already indicated, in addition to the economic 

values, a number of policy issues were also raised or 

highlighted. They include the need for compensation 

at ‘fair and equal’ value, the current implied objective of 

national self-sufficiency in sugar production; and land 

acquisition options available to the developer. 


REFERENCES 

Adger, N., Brown, K., Carvigni, R and D. Moran. 1995. 

Total economic value of forests in Mexico, Ambio 24 

(5): 286-296. 

AfDB (2002) Uganda: Review of the Bank Group 

Assistance to the Agricultural and Rural 

Development Sector in Uganda, Tunis Tunisia ADB/ 

ADF/OPEV/02/11 July 2002 

AfricaBiz (2007) Sugarcane and products: Sugarcane as 

an economic catalyst to developing African countries, 

AfricaBiz Monthly Issue. http://businessafrica.net 

Newsletter ISSN 1563-4108, January 2007 

Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S. & Solow, A. 1998. Species 

distribution, land values and efficiency conservation. 

Science 279, 5359, 2126 - 2128 

Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P, Costanza R, Farber S, 

Green RE, Jenkins M, Jefferies P, Jessamy V, Madden 

J, Munro K, Myers N, Naeem S, Paavola J, Rayment 

M, Rosendo S, Roughgarden J, Trumper K, Turner RK 

(2002) Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. 

Science 297:950–953 

Balmford, A., Gaston, K.J., Blyth, S., James, A. & Kapos, V. 

2003. Conservation conflicts across Africa. Science 

291, 5513, 26616 - 2619. 

Beccaloni, G.W. and Gaston, K.J. 1995. Predicting the 

species richness of neotropical forest butterflies: 

Ithomiinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) as indicators. 

Biological Conservation. 71, 77-86. 

Bennon, L., Dranzoa, C. and Pomeroy, D. (in prep.). The 

Forest Birds of Kenya and Uganda.. Scopus. 

Beukering, P.Van & Cesar, H. 2002. Economic Valuation 

of the Leuser Ecosystem on Sumatra, Indonesia: 

A stakeholder Perspective. Amsterdam, The 

Netherlands. 

50 

Britton, P.L. (Ed.) 1980. Birds of East Africa. East Africa 

Natural History Society, Nairobi. 

Britton, P.L. (Ed.) 1980. Birds of East Africa. East African 

Natural History Society, Nairobi. 

Brown, J. and Pearce, D.W. 1994. The economic value 

of carbon storage in tropical forests, in J. Weiss 

(ed), The Economics of Project Appraisal and the 

Environment, Cheltenham: Edward Edgar, 102-23. 

Brown, L.H., Urban, E.K. and Newman, K. 1982. The Birds 

of Africa. Vol. 1. London, Academic Press. 

Buckley, P. and McNeilage, A. 1989. An ornithological 

survey of Kasyoha-Kitomi and Itwara forests, Uganda. 

Scopus 13: 97-108. 

Buckley, P., McNeilage, A. and Walker, C. 1989. Additional 

ornithological records from five western Ugandan 

forests. Scopus 13: 109-113. 

Bush, G. Nampindo, S., Aguti, C. & Plumptre, A. 2004. 

The Value of Uganda’s Forests: A livelihoods and 

ecosystems approach. Wildlife Conservation Society, 

Albertine Rift Programme/EU Forest Resources 

Management and Conservation Programme/ 

National Forestry Authority. Kampala, Uganda. 

Bwanika, J. 1995. A study of the butterflies of Mabira 

Forest. MSc Thesis, Makerere University, Kampala. 

Byaruhanga A, Kasoma, P., Pomeroy, D. (2001). The 

Important Bird Areas in Uganda. East Africa Natural 

History, Kampala. 

Carcasson, R.H. 1961. The Acraea Butterflies of East 

Africa (Lepidoptera, Acraeidae). I E. Africa Nat. Hist. 

Soc. Special Supplement. No 8. 

Carcasson, R.H. 1975. The Swallowtail Butterflies of East 

Africa (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). E W Classey Ltd, 

Faringdon, Oxon, England. 

Carcasson, RH. 1963. The Milkweed Butterflies of East 

Africa (Lepidoptera, Danaidae). I E. Africa Nat. Hist. 

Soc. Vol 24. (106) 19-32. 

Carswell, M. 1986. Birds of the Kampala area. Scopus. 


Special supplement No.2. Nairobi Ornithological 

SubCommittee. EANHS. 

Carswell, M. 1986. Birds of the Kampala Area. SCOPUS 

Special Supplement No. 2. EANHS. Nairobi, Kenya. 

Carswell, M. and Pomeroy, D. 1984. Check-list of the 

birds of Uganda. Ornithological Sub-Committee of 

the East Africa Natural History Society. 

Collar, N.J. and Stuart, SN. 1985. Threatened Birds of 

Africa and Related Islands. The ICBP/IUCN Red Data 

Book, Part 1. 3rd ed. ICBP, Cambridge, UK., and IUCN, 

Gland, Switzerland. 

Collar, N.J., Crosby, M.J. & Stattersfield, A.J. 1994. Birds to 

Watch 2. The World List of Threatened Birds. Birdlife 

International. 

Collar, N.J., Crosby, M.J. and Stattersfield, A.J. 1994. Birds 

to Watch 2: The World List of Threatened. Birdlife 

International. Birds. Cambridge, U.K 

Collins, N.M. and Morris, MG. 1985. Threatened 

Swallowtail Butterflies of the World. The IUCN Red 

Data Book. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, 

UK 

Colwell, R.K. and Coddington, J.A. 1994. Estimating 

terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Phil. 

Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 345: 101-1 18. 

Constanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, 

M., Hannon, B., Limberg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V. & 

Paurelo, J., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem 

services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260 

D’Abrera, B. (1980). Butterflies of the Afrotropical Region. 

Lansdowne Press, Melbourne. 

Daily, G.C. and Ehrlich, P.R. 1995. Preservation of 

biodiversity in small rainforest patches: rapid 

evaluations using butterfly trapping. Biodiversity 

and Conservation. 4, 35-55. 

Davenport, T., Howard , P.C. & Baltzer, M. (eds). 1996. 

Mabira Forest Reserve Biodiversity Report No. 13. 

Forest Department. Kampala, Uganda. 

Davenport, T.R.B. 1993. The Butterflies of Uganda - An 

Annotated Checklist. Uganda Forest Department, 

Kampala, Uganda. 

Davies, G. and Vanden Berghe, E. 1994. Check-list of the 

Mammals of East Africa. East African Natural History 

Society, Nairobi, Kenya. 

Delany, M.J. 1975. The Rodents of Uganda. British Natural 

History Museum, London. 

Delany, M.J. 1975. The Rodents of Uganda. Trustees of 

the British Museum (Natural History). 

DfID 2004 EU Sugar Reform: The Implications for 

the Development of LDCs, The Department for 

International Development. 1 Palace Street London, 

LMC International Ltd, http://www.lmc.co.uk 

Dollman, G. 1915-16. On the African shrews belonging 

to the genus Crocidura. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 8: 15-17. 

ED&F Man 2004 in Illovo (2006): Annual Report 

2006, http://www.illovosugar.com/financial/ 

annualreport/form.htm 

Eggeling, W. J. and Dale, I. R. 1952. The Indigenous 

Trees of the Uganda Protectorate. 49lpp. Government 

Printer, Entebbe. 

Emerton, L. & Muramira, E.T. 1999. Uganda Biodiversity: 

An Economic Assessment Report for IUCN World 

Conservation Union, Biodiversity Economics for 

Eastern Africa. Nairobi, Kenya. 

FAO 2006 World Food Outlook 2006, United Nations 

Food and Agriculture Organisation, June, 2006. 

FAO 2007 Sugar and Sugar Crops production for Uganda 

between 2002 and 2005, Food and Agriculture 

Organisation of the United Nations http://www.fao. 


org. 

Fashoyin, T., Herbert, A. and Pinoargote, P. 2004 

Multinational enterprises in the plantation sector: 

Labour relations, employment, working conditions 

and welfare facilities, Working Paper No. 93, 

International Labour Office – Geneva 

Fashoyin, T., Herbert, A. and Pinoargote, P. 2004

Multinational enterprises in the plantation sector: 

Labour relations, employment, working conditions 

and welfare facilities, Working Paper No. 93, 

International Labour Office – Geneva 

Francis, IS. and Penford, N. 1991. Summary report of 

ornithological survey visits to forest reserves in 

Uganda, April to August 1991. Unpublished Report. 

Uganda Forest Dept. Kampala. 

Fry. C.H.. Keith.Sand Urban. E.K. 1988. The Birds of Africa. 

Vol. 3. London. Academic Press. 

Garrod, G. and Willis, K. 1997. The recreational value of 

tropical forests in Malaysia. Journal of World Forest 

Resource Management. 8: 183-201. 

Groombridge, B. (Ed.) 1993. 1994 IUCN Red List of 

Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and 

Cambridge, UK. 

Grubb, P. 1983. The biogeographic significance of forest 

mammals in eastern Africa. In: Proceedings of the 

3rd international colloquium on the ecology and 

taxonomy of African small mammals, Antwerp, 20- 

24 July 1981, Ed. E. van der Straeten, W. N. Verheyen 

and F. de Vree, pp. 75-85. Annales, Musee Royal de 

I’Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques. 237 (i-iv), 

1-227. 

Guggisberg, C.A.W. 1986. Birds of East Africa. Volume 

2. 2 nd ed. Sapra Safari Guide No.6. Mount Kenya 

Sundries Ltd., Nairobi. 

Gunawardena, U., Edwards-Jones, G. and McGregor, M. 

1999. A contingent valuation approach for a tropical 

rainforest: a case study of Sinharaja rainforest reserve 

in Sri Lanka. In Roper S. and Park, A (eds), The Living 

Forest: the Non-Market Benefits of Forestry, London: 

The Stationery Office, 275-284. 

Hadker, N. Sharma, S. David, A. & Muraleedharan, T.R. 

1997. Willingness-to-pay for Borivli National Park: 

evidence from a Contingent Valuation. Ecological 

Economics 21:105-122. 

Hamel, P.J. 1980. Avifauna of the Kifu and Mabira Forests. 

Uganda. Proc. IV. Pan-Aft. Ornithological Congress. 

135-145. 

Hamilton, A. 1981. A Field Guide to Uganda Forest Trees. 

52 

279 pp. Makerere University Press, Kampala. 

Hamilton, A.C. 1981. The quaternary history of African 

forests: its relevance to conservation. Afr. I Ecol. 19: 

1-6. 

Hamilton, L. and King, P. 1983. Tropical Forest 

Watersheds: Hydrologic and Soil Responses to Major 

Uses or Conversions, Boulder: Westview Press. 

Henning, S. F. 1988. The Charaxinae Butterflies of Africa. 

Aloe Books, Johannesburg, South Africa. 

Hodgson, G. and Dixon, J. 1988. Measuring economic 

losses due to sediment pollution: logging versus 

tourism and fisheries, Tropical Coastal Area 

Management, April 5-8. 

Holmes. J. and Kramer, S. (in prep). Maintenance of wild 

genetic resources in the Mabira Forest, Uganda. 

Report of the Centre for Conservation Biology. Forest 

Diversity Project. Stanford University. 

Howard, P. 1995. The Economics of Protected Areas 

in Uganda: Costs Benefits and Policy Issues. 

Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, University of Edinburgh. 

Howard, P. C. 1991. Nature Conservation in Uganda’s 

Tropical Forest Reserves. IUCN Gland, Switzerland. 

Howard, P. C. 1994. An Annotated Checklist of Uganda’s 

Indigenous Trees and Shrubs. Uganda Forest 

Department, Kampala. 

Howard, P. C., and Davenport 2000. Protected area 

planning in the tropics: Uganda’s national system 

of forest nature reserves. Conservation Biology 

14(3):858-875. 

Howard, P. C., and Davenport, T. R. B. (eds) 1996. Forest 

Biodiversity Reports. Volumes 1 - 33. Uganda Forest 

Department, Kampala. 

Howard, P.C. 1991. Nature Conservation in Uganda’s 

Tropical Forest Reserves. 3l3pp. IUCN, Gland, 

Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

Howell, K. and Kingdon, J. 1993. Mammals in the forests 

of East Africa. In: Lovett, J.C. and S.K. Waser (Eds.). 

Biogeography and Ecology of the Rain Forests 

of Eastern Africa. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge. 

Gillson, I., Hewitt, A., and Page, S. 2005 Forthcoming 

Changes in the EU Banana/Sugar Markets: A Menu 


of Options for an Effective EU Transitional Package 

IIED 2004 Better Management Practices Project for IFC 

and WWF-US: Phase 2 Commodity Guides, ProForest, 

Rabobank 29th March International Agricultural 

Centre (IAC), Wageningen / National Reference 

Centre for Agriculture, Nature Management and 

Fisheries (EC-LNV), Ede, The Netherlands. 

Illovo 2006: Annual Report 2006, http://www.illovosugar. 

com/financial/ annualreport/form.htm 

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 

2006. The 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 

. Downloaded on 22 July 

2006. 

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 

2000. Confirming the Global Extinction Crisis: A call 

for International Action as the most authoritative 

global assessment of species loss in released. http:// 

www.iucn.org/redlist/news.html. 

Isingoma, B. J. 2004 Potential for Cogeneration in 

Uganda, Possibilities and Barriers to its Development, 

A report sponsored by Sida/SAREC and AFREPREN/ 

FW Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 

Kampala, Uganda December, 2004 

Janssen, R. & Padilla, J.E. 1999. Preservation or conversion? 

Valuation and evaluation of a mangrove forest in the 

Philippines. Environmental and Resource Economics 

14: 297-331. 

Karani, P.K., Kiwanuka, L.S. & Sizomu-Kagolo, M.E. 

1997. Forest Management Plan for Mabira Forest 

Reserve, Mukono District, Uganda for the period 1 st 

July 1997 to 30 th June 2007 (Second Edition). Forest 

Department, Ministry of Natural Resources, Republic 

of Uganda, with support from the EC-Financed 

Natural Forest Management and Conservation 

Project. Kampala, Uganda. 

Keith, S., Urban, E.K. and Fry, C.H. 1992. The Birds of 

Africa. Vol. 4. London, Academic Press. 

Kenya Sugar Board in the East African Standard, 2007 

Kenya: SOS for Sour Sugar Industry. The East African 

Standard, Nairobi, Kenya 

Kielland, J. 1990. Butterflies of Tanzania. Hill House, 

Melbourne and London. 

Kingdom, J. 1971. East African Mammals. An Atlas 

of Evolution in Africa. Volume 1. The University of 

Chicago Press. 

Kingdon, J. 1971-74. East African Mammals: An Atlas of 

Evolution. Academic Press, London. 

Kingdon, J. 1971-74. East African Mammals: An Atlas 

of Evolution, Vols. I, hA and IIIB. Academic Press, 

London. 

Kramer, R and Mercer, E. 1997. Valuing a global 

environmental good: US residents’ willingness to 

pay to protect tropical rainforests, Land Economics, 

XXXX. 

Kramer, R.A., Mercer, E. & Sharma, N. 1993. Valuing 

Tropical Rainforests Protection as a Global 

Environmental Good. Durham, NC: Centre for 

Resource and Environmental Policy Research, Duke 

University, USA. 

Kramer, R.A., Sharma, N. & Munasinghe, M. 1995. Valuing 

Tropical Forests. Methodology and Case Study of 

Madagascar. World Bank Environment Paper No. 13. 

The World Bank. Washington. D.C., USA. 

Kremen, C. 1992. Assessing the indicator properties of 

species assemblages for natural areas monitoring. 

Ecological Applications. 2(2), 203-217. 

Kremen, C. 1994. Biological inventory using target 

taxa: a case study of the butterflies of Madagascar. 

Ecological Applications. 4(3), 407-422. 

Krieger, D.J. n.d. Economic Value of Forest Ecosystems: 

A Review. An analysis prepared for The Wilderness 

Society. Washington, D.C. 

Langdale-Brown, I., Osmaston, H. A., and Wilson, J. G. 

1964. The Vegetation of Uganda and Its Bearing on 

Land-use. 159 pp. Government Printer, Entebbe. 

Larsen, TB. 1991. The Butterflies of Kenya. Oxford 

University Press. 

Lee, P.C., Thornbach, J. and Bennett, EL. 1988. Threatened 


Primates of Africa. The IUCN Red Data Book. IUCN, 

Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

Lette, H & de Boo, H. 2002. Economic Valuation of 

Forests and Nature – A Support Tool for Decision- 

making. Theme Studies Series 6: Forests, Forestry 

and Biodiversity Support Group. 

Mackworth-Praed, C.W. and Grant, C.H.B. 1957, 1960. 

Birds of Eastern and North-Eastern Africa. 2nd ed. 

(African Handbook of Birds; series one). 2 Volumes. 

Longman, London. 

Magurran, A.E. 1987. Ecological Diversity and its 

Measurement. Chapman and Hall, London. 

Maille, P. and Mendelsohn, R. 1991. Valuing Ecotourism 

in Madagascar, New Haven : Yale School of Forestry, 

mimeo. 

Malzebender, D 2003 Reforming the EU Sugar regime: 

Will Southern Africa still feature? Organisation for 

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/45/36581609. 

pdf. 

McNeely, J.A., Miller, K.R., Reid, W.V., Mittermeier, R.A. and 

Werner, T.B. 1990. Conserving the World’s Biological 

Diversity. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 

Meetser, A.J. and Setser, A.W. (Eds.), 1971-77. The 

Mammals of Africa: An Identification Manual. 

Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC, USA. 

Mendelsohn, R. & Balik, M.J. 1997. Notes on economic 

plants. Economic Botany 51(3). 

Menkhaus, S. & Lober, D.J. 1995. International ecotourism 

and the valuation of tropical rainforests in Costa Rica. 

Journal of Environmental Management 47:1-10. 

Migdoll, I. 1987. Field Guide to the Butterflies of Southern 

Africa. Struik, Cape Town, South Africa. 

Montgomery, C.A., Pollak, R.A., Freemark, K. & White, D. 

1999. Pricing Biodiversity Management. Journal of 

environmental economics 38, 1 - 19 

Moyini, Y 2006 Economic Assessment of Resource 

Values Affected by the 220 KV Powerline Wayleave 

Traversing Mabira, Kifu and Namyoya Central 

54 

Forest Reserves, Bujagali Hydro-Electric Power 

Project, Appendix D SEA Report, Kampala, Uganda 

November 2006 

Moyini, Y. & Uwimbabazi, B. 2001. The Economic Value 

of Mountain Gorilla Tourism in Bwindi Impenetrable 

Forest National Park. Study prepared for the 

International Gorilla Conservation Programme. 

Kampala, Uganda. 

Mrema, May, David Wafula, and Hillary Agaba, 2001. 

Livelihood strategies and the use of forest and tree 

products in the Mabira forest buffer zone. Kabale: 

Agroforestry Programme FORRI/ICRAF Collaborative 

Project. 

Munasinghe, M. 1992. Environmental Economics 

and Valuation in Development Decisionmaking. 

Environment Working Paper No. 51. Environment 

Department. Sector Policy and Research Staff, The 

World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA. 

Muramira, E.T. 2000. Environmental Economic 

Assessment of the 220KV Electric Transmission Line 

Wayleave Through Mabira Forest Reserve. Bujagali 

Hydro-Electric Power Project. AES Nile Power. 

Muramira, T, 2001. Valuing the losses caused to Mabira 

Forest by hydropower development in Uganda. 

Innovation 8(2):28-30. 

Naidoo, R. & Adamowicz, W.L.2005. Economic benefits 

of biodiversity exceed costs of conservation at an 

African rainforest reserve. The National Academy of 

Sciences of the USA. Vol 102, N0. 46: 16712-16719. 

New Vision (2006) Kenyan consortium buys Kinyara 

Sugar for $33.5m, New vision Publishing Company 

Ltd., Kampala, Uganda 

New Vision 2006 Press Review Reports, New Vision 

Publications 


New Vision 2007 and Monitor 2007 Kabaka offers land 

to SCOUL and Church offers land to SCOUL 

Nicoll, M.E. and Rathbun, G. B. 1990. African Insectivora 

and Elephant shrews: An Action Plan for their 

Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 

Odek, O., Kegode, P. and Ochola, S. 2003 The Challenges 

and Way Forward for the Sugar Sub-sector in Kenya, 

Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES),Nairobi, Kenya. 

OECD 2004 Agricultural Policy Reform in South Africa, 

OECD Review of Agricultural Policies: South Africa, 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/45/36581609. 

pdf. 

Owiunji I. (Ed.) 2000. African Tropical Biodiversity 

Ptrograme: Inventory of flora and fauna of Mabira 

Forest Reserve. Unpublished Report. Makerere 

University Institute of Environment and Natural 

Resources. Kampala. 

Pagiola, S., Ritter, V. K. and Bishop, J 2004 Assessing 

the Ecnomic Value of Conservation, World Bank 

Environment Department in collaboration 

with Nature Conservancy and IUCN- The World 

Conservation Union, International Bank for 

Reconstruction and Development/ the World Bank 

1818 Street, NW Washington D.C. 

Pearce, D.W. 1996. Global environmental value and 

the tropical forests: demonstration and capture, 

in W. Adamowicz, P. Boxall, M. Luckert, W. Phillips 

and White, W. (eds), Forestry, Economics and the 

Environment, Willingford: CAB International, 11-48. 

Pearce, D.W., Pearce, C.G.T. 2001. The Value of Forest 

Ecosystems. A Report to the Secretariat, Convention 

on Biological Diversity. Background Document. 

United Kingdom. 

Pearson, D.L. and Cassola, F. 1992. World-Wide Species 

Richness Patterns of Tiger Beetles (Coleoptera: 

Cicindelidae): Indicator Taxon for Biodiversity and 

Conservation Studies. Conservation Biology 6: 376- 

391. 

Pimentel, D., C. Wilson, C. McCullum, R. Huang, P. 

Owen, J. Flack, Q. Tran, T. Saltman and B. Cliff. 

1997. Economics and Environmental Benefits of 

Biodiversity. BioScience 47(11): 747-757. 

Polhill, R.M., Milne-Redhead, E., Turrill, W.B., and Hubbard, 

C.E. 1954. Flora of Tropical East Africa (in many parts). 

Crown Agents, London and Balkema, Rotterdam. 

Pomeroy, D. 1993. Centres of high biodiversity in Africa. 

Conservation Biology 7(4): 901-907. 

Rodgers, W.A., Owen, C.F. and Homewood, K.M. 1982. 

Biogeography of East African forest mammals. I 

Biogeography. 9: 4 1-54. 

Rogers, K. St.A. and van Someren, V.G.L. 1925b. The 

butterflies of Kenya and Uganda, part 2. 1 E. Africa 

Nat. Hist. Soc. 23: 105-145. 

Rosevear, D. 1969. Rodents of West Africa. 

British Natural History Museum, London. 

Skinner, J.D. and Smithers, R.N.H. (1990). The 

Mammals of the Southern African Sub-Region. 

University of Pretoria, Pretoria, RSA. 

Ruitenbeck, J. 1989. Social Cost Analysis of the Korup 

Project, Cameroon. A Report prepared for the 

World Wildlife Fund for Nature and the Republic of 

Cameroon, London. 

Sserunkuma, R. and Henry Richard Kimera 2006 Impact of 

EU sugar trade on developing countries: A study with 

focus on East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda), 

German Watch, Global Food Security Programme) 

of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation 

& Development. http://www.germanwatch.org/tw/ 

zu-afr06.htm 

Shultz, W., Pinazzo, J. and Cifuentes, M. 1998. 

Opportunities and limitations of continent valuation 

surveys to determine national park entrance 

fees: evidence from Costa Rica, Environment and 

Development Economics, (3): 131-149. 

Sikoyo, G.M. 1995. Economic Valuation of Community 

Direct Use Benefits from Bwindi-Impenetrable Forest 

National Park, Southwestern Uganda. Unpublished 

M.Sc. Thesis. Ecological Economics Dissertation of 


Edinburgh University, Scotland. 

Simpson, D., Sedjo, R. and Reid, J. 1994. Valuing 

Biodiversity: An Application to Genetic Prospecting, 

Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper, 94-120, 

Washington D.C. (Early version of Simpson et al 

1996). 

Sinclair, I., Hockey, P. and Tarboton, W. 1993. Birds 

of Southern Africa. New Holland, London. 

Soberon, J.M. and Llorente, B.J. 1993. The use of 

species accumulation functions for the prediction of 

species richness. Conservation Biology 7(3): 480-488. 

Sparrow, H.R., Sisk, T.D., Ehrlich, P.R. and Murphy, D.D. 

1994. Techniques and guidelines for monitoring 

neotropical butterflies. Conservation Biology. 8(3), 

800-809. 

Ssegawa P. 2006. Inventory of Plants in the proposed 

Bujagali transmission line area in Mabira Central 

Forest Reserve. Bujagali Hydropower Dam 

Environmental Impact Assessment Report. Kampala. 

Swanson, T. and Kontoleon, A. 2000. Why did the 

protected areas fail the Giant Panda? The Economics 

of Conserved Endangered Species in Developing 

Countries, World Economics, (1) 4: 135-148. 

Tanzania Ministry of Agriculture, Food and 

Cooperatives, 2007Some crops grown in 

Tanzania/ Sugar. http://www.kilimo.go.tz 

The Monitor 2007 Uganda: Mehta Needs Shs345 Billion 

to Back off Mabira Forest, The Monitor (Kampala), 

April 13, 2007, http://www.allafrica.com Posted to 

the web April 12, 2007 

Tindyebwa N.B. 1993. Forestry rehabilitation project - 

Forest inventory report for Mabira Forest Reserve. 

Unpubl. report. Forest Department, Kampala. 

UBOS (Uganda Bureau of Statistics). 2002. Housing 

and Population Census 2002: Preliminary Report. 

Entebbe, Uganda. 

Uganda Land Coalition 2006 Agriculture Works and 

56 

Access to Land: Changing Patterns of Agricultural 

Production, Employment and Working Conditions 

In The Ugandan Sugar Industry. http://www. 

landcoalition.org 

UN 1991 Handbook of National Accounting, 

Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics 

Division of the United Nations, Series F No. 81 from 

‘UN (1979) Guidelines on statistics of tangible assets, 

Statistical papers Series M No. 68’, United Nations, 

New York 

UNCTAD 2005 Effects of the ‘Everything But Arms’ 

initiative on the Sugar industries of the Least 

Developed Countries, Report by the UNCTAD, 

Geneva, Switzerland Secretariat, 11 April 2005 

Urban, E.K., Fry, C.H.and Keith, 5. 1986. The Birds of Africa. 

Vol. 2. London, Academic Press. 

USCTA 2003 The Uganda Sugar Cane Technologists 

Association Fifth Annual Report, Kampala, Uganda 

USCTA 2005 The Uganda Sugar Cane Technologists 

Association Seventh Annual Report, Kampala, 

Uganda 

USDA 2006 World Sugar Situation, United States 

Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture 

Service (USDA, FAS), Washington D.C, USA 

USDA 2007 World Sugar Situation, United States 

Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture 

Service (USDA, FAS), Washington D.C, USA 

Van Someren, V.G.L. 1939. Butterflies of Kenya and 

Uganda vol. II, part II (Nymphalinae). I E. Africa Nat. 

Hist. Soc.14, 15-100. 

Van Someren, V.G.L. and Rogers, K. St.A. 1932. The 

butterflies of Kenya and Uganda, part 10. 1 E. Africa 

Nat. Hist. Soc.42: 141-172. 

Vane-Wright, R. and Ackery, P. (Eds.). 1984. Biology of 

Butterflies. (Symposium of the Royal Entomological 

Society of London, 11). Academic Press, London. 

Welch M., D. 2005 Three Communities, Two Corporations, 


One Forest: Forest Resource Use and Conflict, Mabira 

Forest, Uganda, Agroforestry in Landscape Mosaics, 

Working Paper Series Department of Ecological and 

Environmental, Anthropology, University of Georgia, 

and the Tropical Resources Institute, School of 

Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University 

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

Williams, J.G. 1967. A field guide to the National Parks of 

East Africa.: Collins, London 

Williams, J.G. 1969. A Field Guide to the 

Butterflies of Africa. Collins, London. 

Williams, J.G. and Arlott, N. (1980). A Field Guide to 

the Birds of East Africa. Collins, London. 

Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M. 1993. Mammal Species of 

the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 

Second Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, in 

association with American Society of Mammalogists, 

Washington and London. 

Yaron, G. 2001. Forest, plantation crops or small-scale 

agriculture? An economic analysis of alternative land 

use options in the Mount Cameroun area. Journal of 

Environmental Planning and Management, 44 (1), 

85-108. 

Zhang, Z.X. 2000. Estimating the Size of the Potential 

Market for the Kyoto Flexibility Mechanisms. Faculty 

of Law and Faculty of Economics, University of 

Groningen, mimeo. 


ANNEXES 

ANNEX 1 BIODIVERSITY DATA 

Table A1: Species list of plants recorded from Mabira Forest Reserve 

Family Species Family Species 

Malvaceae Abuitilon Africana Sapindaceae Lecaniodiscus fraxinifolius 

Fabaceae Acacia brevispica Meliaceae Lepidotrichilia volkensii 

Fabaceae Acacia hecatophylla Icacinaceae Leptaulus daphnoides 

Fabaceae Acacia hockii Sterculiaceae Leptonychia mildbraedii 

Fabaceae Acacia polyacantha Flacourtiaceae Lindackeria bukobensis 

Euphorbiaceae Acalypha bipartite Flacourtiaceae Lindackeria mildbraedii 

Euphorbiaceae Acalypha neptunica Flacourtiaceae Lindackeria schweinftirthii 

Euphorbiaceae Acalypha ornate Oleaceae Linociera johnsonii 

Acanthaceae Acanthus arborescens Celastraceae Loeseneriella africana 

Rutaceae Aeglopsis eggelingii Celastraceae Loeseneriella africanum 

Zingiberaceae Afromomum mildbraedii Poaceae Loudetia kagerensis 

Rubiaceae Aidia micrantha Meliaceae Lovoa swynnertonii 

Alangiaceae Alangium chinense Meliaceae Lovoa trichilioides 

Fabaceae Albizia coriaria Sapindaceae Lychnodiscus cerospermus 

Fabaceae Albizia ferruginea Euphorbiaceae Macaranga barteri 

Fabaceae Albizia glaberrima Euphorbiaceae Macaranga monandra 

Fabaceae Albizia grandibracteata Euphorbiaceae Macaranga schweinfurthii 

Fabaceae Albizia gummifera Euphorbiaceae Macaranga spinosa 

Fabaceae Albizia zygia Capparaceae Maerua duchesnei 

Euphorbiaceae Alchornea cordifolia Myrtaceae Maesa lanceolata 

Euphorbiaceae Alchornea floribunda Rhamnaceae Maesopsis eminii 

Euphorbiaceae Alchornea hirtella Sapindaceae Majidea fosteri 

Euphorbiaceae Alchornea laxiflora Euphorbiaceae Mallotus oppositifolius 

Sapindaceae Allophylus dummeri Sapotaceae Manilkara dawei 

Sapindaceae Allophylus macrobotrys Sapotaceae Manilkara multinervis 

Apocynacedae Alstonia boonei Sapotaceae Manilkara obovata 

Araceae Amorphophallus abyssinicus Euphorbiaceae Margaritaria discoideus 

Sapotaceae Aningeria adolfi-friederici Bignoniaceae Markhamia lutea 

Sapotaceae Aningeria altissima Celastraceae Maytenus senegalensis 

Moraceae Antiaris toxicaria Celastraceae Maytenus serratus 

Euphorbiaceae Antidesma laciniatum Celastraceae Maytenus undata 



Euphorbiaceae Antidesma membranaceum Sapindaceae Melanodiscus sp. 

Anacardiaceae Antrocaryon micraster Meliaceae Memecylon jasminoides 

Sapindaceae Aphania senegalensis Meliaceae Memecylon myrianthum 

Euphorbiaceae Argomuellera macrophylla Flacourtiaceae Mildbraediodendron excelsum 

Aristolochiaceae Aristolochia triactina Moraceae Milicia excelsa 

Davalliaceae Arthropteris palisota Flacourtiaceae Mimosa pigra 

Fabaceae Baikiaea insignis Sapindaceae Mimusops bagshawei 

Balanitaceae Balanites wilsoniana Annonaceae Monodora myristica 

Rutaceae Balsamocitrus dawei Rubiaceae Morinda lucida 

Fabaceae Baphiopsis parviflora Moraceae Morus mesozygia 

Lauraceae Beilschmiedia ugandensis Cecropiaceae Musanga cecropioides 

Rubiaceae Belonophora hypoglauca Cecropiaceae Myrianthus arboreus 

Sapotaceae 

Bequaertiodendron 

oblanceolatum 

Cecropiaceae Myrianthus holstii 

Meliaceae Bersama abyssinica Euphorbiaceae Neoboutonia macrocalyx 

Sapindaceae Blighia unijugata Ochnaceae Ochna afzelii 

Sapindaceae Blighia welwitschii Ochnaceae Ochna bracteosa 

Bombacaeae Bombax buonopozense Ochnaceae Ochna membranacea 

Poaceae Brachiaria scalaris Labiatae Ocimum suave 

Euphorbiaceae Bridelia micrantha Olacaceae Olax gambecola 

Euphorbiaceae Bridelia scieroneura Rubiaceae Oldenlandia corymbosa 

Cyperaceae Bulbostylis dense Oleaceae Olea welwitschii 

Fabaceae Caesalpina vollcensii Apocynaceae Oncinotis tenuiloba 

Palmae Calamus deeratus Flacourtiaceae Oncoba spinosa 

Burseraceae Canarium schweinftirthii Poaceae Oplismenus hiterlus 

Rubiaceae Canthium vulgare Poaceae Oreobambos buchwaldii 

Capparaceae Capparis tomentosa Ochnaceae Ouratea densiflora 

Fabaceae Cassia petersiana Rubiaceae Oxyanthus speciosus 

Rhizophoraceae Cassipourea congensis Rubiaceae Oxyanthus unilocularis 

Rhizophoraceae Cassipourea gummiflua Sapotaceae Pachystela brevipes 

Rhizophoraceae Cassipourea ruwensorensis Sapindaceae Pancovia turbinata 

Ulmaceae Celtis adolfi-fridericii Poaceae Panicum pleianthum 

Ulmaceae Celtis Africana Sapindaceae Pappea capensis 

Ulmaceae Celtis durandii Passifoliaceae Parapsia guineensis 

Ulmaceae Celtis mildbraedii Aristolochiaceae Parastolochia triactina 

Ulmaceae Celtis wightii Fabaceae Parkia filicoidea 

Ulmaceae Celtis zenkeri Passifloraceae Paropsia guineensis 


59


Rutaceae Chaetacme aristata Poaceae Paspalum conjugatum 

Sapotaceae Chrysophyllum albidum Sapindaceae Paulinia pinnata 

Sapotaceae Chrysophyllum delevoyi Rubiaceae Pavetta molundensis 

Sapotaceae 

Chrysophyllum 

gorungosanum 

Rubiaceae Pavetta oliveriana 

Sapotaceae Chrysophyllum muerense Thymelaeceae Peddiea fischeri 

Sapotaceae Chrysophyllum perpulchrum Piperaceae Peperomia molleri 

Rutaceae Citropsis articulate Palmae Phoenix reclinata 

Rutaceae Clausena anisata Euphorbiaceae Phyllanthus ovalifolius 

Euphorbiaceae Cleistanthus polystachyus Phytolaccaceae Phytolacca dodecandra 

Verbenaceae Clerodendrum formicarum Apocynaceae Picralima nitida 

Verbenaceae Clerodendrum rotundifolium Piperaceae Piper capensis 

Verbenaceae Clerodendrum silvanum Fabaceae Piptadeniastrum africanum 

Connaraceae Cnestis ugandensis Nyctaginaceae Pisonia aculeata 

Curcubitaceae Coccinea adoensis Pittosporacedae Pittosporum mannii 

Rubiaceae Coffea canephora Pittosporaceae Pittosporum mannii 

Rubiaceae Coffea eugenioides Polypodiaceae Platycerium elephantotis 

Sterculiaceae Cola gigantean Apocynaceae Pleiocarpa pyenantha 

Labiatae Coleus barbatus Commelinaceae Polia condensata 

Combretaceae Combretum molle Araliaceae Polyscias fulva 

Connaraceae Connarus longistipitatus Verbenaceae Premna angolensis 

Boraginaceae Cordia Africana Celastraceae Pristimera plumbea 

Boraginaceae Cordia millenii Rosaceae Prunus africana 

Orchidaceae Corymborkis corymbis Fabaceae Pseudarthria hoockeri 

Costaceae Costus afer Anacardiaceae Pseudospondias microcarpa 

Fabaceae Craibia brownie Guttiferae Psorospemum febrifugum 

Asteraceae Crassocephalum mannii Adiantaceae Pteris catoptera 

Rubiaceae 

Craterispermum 

schweinfurthii 

Adiantaceae Pteris dentata 

Euphorbiaceae Croton macrostachyus Fabaceae Pterolobium stellatum 

Euphorbiaceae Croton megalocarpus Sterculiaceae Pterygota mildbraedii 

Euphorbiaceae Croton sylvaticus Myrtaceae Pycnanthus angolensis 

Araceae Culcasia falcifolia Palmae Raphia farinifera 

Fabaceae Dalbergia lacteal Apocynaceae Rauvolfia oxyphylla 

Tiliaceae Desplatsia dewevrei Apocynaceae Rauvolfia vomitoria 

Orchidaceae Diaphananthe fragrantissima Flacourtiaceae Rawsonia lucida 

Fabaceae Dichrostachys cinerea Anacardiaceae Rhus natalensis 

Rubiaceae Dictyandra arborescens Anacardiaceae Rhus ruspolii 

Dioscoreaceae Dioscorea minutiflora Anacardiaceae Rhus vulgaris 



Ebenaceae Diospyros abyssinica Rubiaceae Rhytigynia butanguensis 

Sterculiaceae Dombeya goetzenii Euphorbiaceae Ricinodendron heudelotii 

Sterculiaceae Dombeya mukole Violaceae Rinorea beniensis 

Flacourtiaceae Dovyalis macrocalyx Violaceae Rinorea dentata 

Dracaenaceae Dracaena fragrans Violaceae Rinorea ilicifolia 

Dracaenaceae Dracaena laxissima Violaceae Rinorea oblongifolia 

Dracaenaceae Dracaena steudneri Capparaceae Ritehiea albersii 

Euphorbiaceae Drypetes bipindensis Rubiaceae Rothmannia urcelliformis 

Euphorbiaceae Drypetes gerrardii Rosaceae Rubus apetalus 

Euphorbiaceae Drypetes ugandensis Celastraceae Salacia elegans 

Acanthaceae Dyschoriste radicans Euphorbiaceae Sapium ellipticum 

Boraginaceae Ehretia cymosa Araliaceae Schefflera barteri 

Meliaceae Ekebergia senegalensis Oleaceae Schrebera alata 

Palmae Elaeis guineensis Flacourtiaceae Scolopia rhamnophylla 

Euphorbiaceae Elaeophorbia drupifera Rhamnaceae Scutia myrtina 

Fabaceae Entada abyssininca Asclepiadaceae Secamone africana 

Meliaceae Entandrophragma angolense Oleaceae Schrebera arborea 

Meliaceae Entandrophragma utile Fabaceae Sesbania sesban 

Papilionaceae Eriosema psoroloides Celastraceae Simirestis brianii 

Fabaceae Erythrina abyssinica Smilacaceae Smilax anceps 

Fabaceae Erythrina excelsa Solanaceae Solanum indicum 

Euphorbiaceae Erythrococca bongensis Solanaceae Solanum ineanum 

Euphorbiaceae Erythrococca sp. Bignoniaceae Spathodea campanulata 

Fabaceae Erythrophleum suaveolens Euphorbiaceae Spondianthus preussii 

Capparaceae Euadenia eminens Myrtaceae Staudtia kamemnensis 

Myrtaceae Eugenia bukobensis Umbelliferae Steganotaenia araliacea 

Rutaceae Fagaropsis angolensis Sterculiaceae Sterculia dawei 

Moraceae Ficus asperifolia Bignoniaceae Stereospermum kunthianum 

Moraceae Ficus barteri Olacaceae Strombosia scheffleri 

Moraceae Ficus conraui Loganiaceae Strychnos mitis 

Moraceae Ficus craterostoma Euphorbiaceae Suregada procera 

Moraceae Ficus cyathistipula Guttiferae Symphonia globulifera 

Moraceae Ficus dicranostyla Myrtaceae Syzygium guineense 

Moraceae Ficus exasperate Apocynaceae Tabemaemontana holstii 

Moraceae Ficus ingens Apocynaceae Tabemaemontana usambarensis 

Moraceae Ficus lingua Dichapetalacaeae Tapura fiseheri 

Moraceae Ficus mucuso Rubiaceae Tarenna pavettoides 


61


Moraceae Ficus natalensis Rutaceae Teclea eggelingii 

Moraceae Ficus ovarifolia Rutaceae Teclea grandifolia 

Moraceae Ficus ovata Rutaceae Teclea nobilis 

Moraceae Ficus polita Combretaceae Terminalia glaucescens 

Moraceae Ficus pseudomangifera Fabaceae Tetrapleura tetraptera 

Moraceae Ficus sansibarica Euphorbiaceae Tetrorchidium didymonstemon 

Moraceae Ficus saussureana Euphorbiaceae Thecacoris lucida 

Moraceae Ficus sur Belanophoraceae Thonningia coccinia 

Moraceae Ficus thonningii Menispermaceae Tiliacora latifolia 

Moraceae Ficus trichopoda Rutaceae Toddalia asiatica 

Moraceae Ficus vallis-choudae Moraceae Treculia africana 

Flacourtiaceae Flacourtia indica Ulmaceae Trema orientalis 

Euphorbiaceae Flueggea virosa Rubiaceae Tricalysia bagshawei 

Apocynaceae Funtumia Africana Meliaceae Trichilia dregeana 

Apocynaceae Funtumia elastica Meliaceae Trichilia martineaui 

Rubiaceae Geophila reniformis Meliaceae Trichilia prieureana 

Tiliaceae Glyphaea brevis Meliaceae Trichilia rubescens 

Annonaceae 

Greenwayodendron 

suaveolens 

Moraceae Trilepisium madagascariensis 

Tiliaceae Grewia mollis Tiliaceae Triumfetta macrophylla 

Tiliaceae Grewia pubescens Meliaceae Turraea floribunda 

Tiliaceae Grewia trichocarpa Meliaceae Turraea robusta 

Meliaceae Guarea cedrata Meliaceae Turraea vogelioides 

Rubiaceae Hallea stipulosa Rubiaceae Uncaria africana 

Simaroubaceae Harrisonia abyssinica Malvaceae Urena lobata 

Guttiferae 

Harungana 

madagascariensis 

Annonaceae Uvaria angolensis 

Malvaceae Hibiscus calyphyllus Annonaceae Uvaria welwitschii 

Malvaceae Hibiscus calyphyllus Annonaceae Uvariopsis congensis 

Phytollacaceae Hilleria latifolia Rutaceae Vangueria apiculata 

Ulmaceae Holoptelea grandis Rhamnaceae Ventilago africana 

Linaceae Hugonia platysepala Asteraceae Vernonia adoensis 

Euphorbiaceae Hymenocardia acida Asteraceae Vernonia amygdalina 

Simaroubaceae Irvingia gabonensis Asteraceae Vernonia auriculifera 

Rubiaceae Keetia venosa Verbenaceae Vitex amboniensis 

Meliaceae Khaya anthotheca Verbenaceae Vitex doniana 

Bignoniaceae Kigelia Africana Apocynaceae Voacanga thouarsii 

Simaroubaceae Klainedoxa gabonensis Canellaceae Warburgia ugandensis 

Cyperaceae Kylinga chrysantha Monimiaceae Xymalos monospora 



Cyperaceae Kylinga sphaerocephala Sapindaceae Zanha golungensis 

Ancardiaceae Lannea barteri Rutaceae Zanthoxylum gilletii 

Ancardiaceae Lannea welwitschii Rutaceae Zanthoxylum leprieurii 

Verbenaceae Lantana trifolia Rutaceae Zanthoxylum rubescens 

Rhamnaceae Lasiodiscus mildbraedii 


63

Table A2: Species list of birds recorded from Mabira Forest Reserve 

Britton No. Species Common Name 

23 Ixobrychus minutus Little Bittern 

27 Ardea melanocephala Black-headed Heron 

33 Butorides striatus Green-backed Heron 

36 Egrella garzetta Little Egret 

42 Scopus umbretta Hamerkop 

44 Ciconia abdimii Abdim’s Stork 

49 Leploptilos crumeniferus Marabou 

51 Bostrychia hagedash Hadada 

84 Gypohierax angolensis Palm-nut Vulture 

85 Gyps africanus African White-backed Vulture 

87 Necrosyrtes monachus Hooded Vulture 

96 Polyboroides typus African Harrier Hawk 

97 Circaetus cinerascens Western Banded Snake Eagle 

101 Terathopius ecaudalus Bateleur 

102 Accipiter badius Shikra 

106 Accipiter melanoleucus Great Sparrowhawk 

111 Accipiter tachiro African Goshawk 

120 Buteo augur Augur Buzzard 

125 Spizaetus africanus Cassin’s Hawk Eagle 

126 Hieraaetus ayresii Ayres’ Hawk Eagle 

128 Hieraaetus spilogaster African -Hawk Eagle 

129 Kaupfalco monogrammicus Lizard Buzzard 

130 Lophaetus occipitalis Long-crested Eagle 

131 Micronisus gabar Gabar Goshawk 

134 Polemaetus bellicosus Martial Eagle 

135 Stephanoaetus coronatus African Crowned Eagle 

137 Haliaeetus vocifer African Fish Eagle 

138 Milvus migrans Black Kite 

142 Elanus caeruleus Black-shouldered Kite 

143 Macheiramphus alcinus Bat Hawk 

161 Falco tinnunculus Kestrel 

174 Francolinus lathami Forest Francolin 

178 Francolinus nahani Nahan’s Francolin 

184 Francolinus squamatus Scaly Francolin 

188 Guttera pucherani Crested Guineafowl 

194 Balearica regulorum Grey Crowned Crane 

202 Porphyrio alleni Allen’s Gallinule 

211 Sarothrura elegans Buff-spotted Flufftail 



213 Sarothrura pulchra White-spotted Flufftail 

230 Charadrius asialicus Caspian Plover 

337 Aplopelia larvata Lemon Dove 

342 Columba livia Feral Pigeon 

344 Columba unicincta Afep Pigeon 

346 Streptopelia capicola Ring-necked Dove 

350 Streptopelia semitorquata Red-eyed Dove 

355 Turtur afer Blue-spotted Wood- Dove 

357 Turtur tympanistria Tambourine Dove 

358 Treron calva African Green Pigeon 

363 Agapornis pullarius Red-headed Lovebird 

371 Psittacus erithacus Grey Parrot 

372 Corythaeola cristata Great Blue Turaco 

376 Crinifer zonurus Eastern Grey Plantain- Eater 

377 Musophaga rossae Ross’s Turaco 

384 Tauraco schuetti Black-billed Turaco 

385 Cercococcyx mechowi Dusky Long-tailed Cuckoo 

388 Chrysococcyx caprius Didric Cuckoo 

389 Chrysococcyx cupreus Emerald Cuckoo 

391 Chrysococcyx klaas Klaas’s Cuckoo 

394 Oxylophus levaillantii Levaillant’s Cuckoo 

395 Cuculus canorus Eurasian Cuckoo 

396 Cuculus clamosus Black Cuckoo 

398 Cuculus rochii Madagascar Lesser Cuckoo 

399 Cuculus solitarius Red-chested Cuckoo 

401 Ceuthmochares aereus Yellowbill 

406 Centropus superciliosus White-browed Coucal 

416 Strix woodfordii African Wood Owl 

436 Caprimulgus pectoralis Fiery-necked Nightjar 

443 Apus affinis Little Swift 

444 Apus apus Eurasian Swift 

447 Apus caffer White-rumped Swift 

452 Cypsiurus parvus Palm Swift 

455 Neafrapus cassini Cassin’s Spinetail 

456 Rhaphidura sabini Sabine’s Spinetail 

457 Telacanthura ussheri Mottled Spinetail 

459 Colius striatus Speckled Mousebird 

462 Apaloderma narina Narina Trogon 

466 Alcedo cristata Malachite Kingfisher 


65


467 Alcedo leucogaster White-bellied Kingfisher 

468 Alcedo quadribrachys Shining-blue Kingfisher 

472 Halcyon chelicuti Striped Kingfisher 

473 Halcyon leucocephala Grey-headed Kingfisher 

474 Halcyon malimbica Blue-breasted Kingfisher 

475 Halcyon senegalensis Woodland Kingfisher 

477 Ispidina lecontei African Dwarf Kingfisher 

478 Ispidina picta African Pygmy Kingfisher 

479 Merops albicollis White-throated Bee-eater 

490 Merops persicus Blue-checked Bee-eater 

491 Merops pusillus Little Bee-eater 

493 Merops superciliosus Madagascar Bee-eater 

494 Merops variegatus Blue-breasted Bee-eater 

497 Coracias garrulus European Roller 

500 Eurystomus glaucurus Broad-billed Roller 

501 Eurystomus gularis Blue-throated Roller 

503 Phoeniculus bollei White-headed Wood- hoopoe 

504 Phoeniculus castaneiceps Forest Wood- Hoopoe 

513 Bycanistes subcylindricus Black- and- white- casqued Hornbill 

515 Tockus alboterminatus Crowned Hornbill 

519 Tockus fasciatus African Pied Hornbill 

529 Buccanodon duchaillui Yellow-spotted Barbet 

533 Gymnobucco bonapartei Grey-throated Barbet 

534 Lybius bidentatus Double-toothed Barbet 

538 Tricholaema hirsuta Hairy-breasted Barbet 

548 Pogoniulus bilineatus Yellow-rumped Tinkerbird 

553 Pogoniulus scolopaceus Speckled Tinkerbird 

555 Pogoniulus subsulphureus Yellow-throated Tinkerbird 

556 Trachylaemus purpuratus Yellow-billed Barbet 

562 Indicator exilis Least Honeyguide 

563 Indicator indicator Black-throated Honeyguide 

566 Indicator minor Lesser Honeyguide 

569 Indicator variegatus Scaly-throated Honeyguide 

572 Prodotiscus insignis Cassin’s Honeybird 

580 Campethera cailliautii Green-backed Woodpecker 

581 Campethera caroli Brown-eared Woodpecker 

582 Campethera nivosa Buff-spotted Woodpecker 

584 Campethera tullbergi Fine-banded Woodpecker 

585 Dendropicosfuscescens Cardinal Woodpecker 



587 Dendropicos poecilolaemus Uganda Spotted Woodpecker 

592 Dendropicos xantholophus Yellow-crested Woodpecker 

594 Dendropicos namaquus Bearded Woodpecker 

596 Smithornis capensis African Broadbill 

598 Pitta angolensis African Pitta 

599 Pitta reichenowi Green-breasted Pitta 

624 Hirundo abyssinica Lesser Striped Swallow 

627 Hirundo angolensis Angola Swallow 

628 Hirundo atrocaerulea Blue Swallow 

634 Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow 

635 Hirundo semirufa Rufous-chested Swallow 

639 Psalidoprocne albiceps White-headed Saw-wing 

641 Riparia cincta Banded Martin 

643 Riparia riparia Sand Martin 

644 Dicrurus adsimilis Fork-tailed Drongo 

645.1 Dicrurus modestus Velvet-mantled Drongo 

646 Oriolus auratus African Golden Oriole 

647 Oriolus brachyrhynchus Western Black-headed Oriole 

654 Corvus albus Pied Crow 

664 Parus funereus Dusky Tit 

666 Parus guineensis White-shouldered Black Tit 

668 Anthoscopus caroli African Penduline Tit 

674 Illadopsis albipectus Scaly-breasted Illadopsis 

675 Illadopsisfulvescens Brown Illadopsis 

677 Illadopsis rufipennis Pale-breasted illadopsis 

684 Turdoides plebejus Brown Babbler 

688 Campephaga flava Black Cuckoo-Shrike 

691 Campephaga quiscalina Purple-throated Cuckoo-Shrike 

697 Andropadus curvirostris Cameroon Sombre Greenbul 

698 Andropadus gracilirostris Slender-billed Greenbul 

699 Andropadus gracilis Little Grey Greenbul 

701 Andropadus latirostris Yellow-whiskered Greenbul 

705 Andropadus virens Little Greenbul 

706 Baeopogon indicator Honeyguide Greenbul 

707 Bleda eximia Green-tailed Bristlebill 

708 Bleda syndactyla Red-tailed Bristlebill 

709 Chlorocichla flavicollis Yellow-throated Leaflove 

711 Chlorocichla laetissima Joyful Greenbul 

714 Criniger calurus Red-tailed Greenbul 


67


716 Nicator chloris Western Nicator 

718 Phyllastrephus albigularis White-throated Greenbul 

719 Phyllastrephus hypochloris Toro Olive Greenbul 

720 Phyllastrephus cabanisi Cabanis’s Greenbul 

728 Pyrrhurus scandens Leaf-love 

732 Pycnonotus barbatus Common Bulbul 

734 Alethe diademata Fire-crested Alethe 

736 Alethe poliocephala Brown-chested Alethe 

750 Cossypha cyanocampter Blue-shouldered Robin -Chat 

751 Cossypha heuglini White-browed Robin- Chat 

752 Cossypha natalensis Red-capped Robin -Chat 

753 Cossypha niveicapilla Snowy-headed Robin- Chat 

761 Cossypha polioptera Grey-winged Robin-Chat 

775 Oenanthe isabellina Isabelline Wheatear 

784 Saxicola torquata Common Stonechat 

789 Stiphrornis erythrothorax Forest Robin 

790 Stizorhina fraseri Rufous Flycatcher-Thrush 

801 Turdus pelios African Thrush 

817 Apalis cinerea Grey Apalis 

819 Apalis jacksoni Black-throated Apalis 

823 Apalis nigriceps Black-capped Apalis 

826 Apalis rufogularis Buff-throated Apalis 

829 Bathmocercus rufus Black-faced Rufous Warbler 

834 Bradypterus carpalis White-winged Warbler 

837 Camaroptera brachyura Grey-backed Camaroptera 

838 Camaroptera chloronota Olive-green Camaroptera 

841 Camaroptera superciliaris Yellow-browed Camaroptera 

843 Chloropeta natalensis Yellow Warbler 

850 Cisticola brachypterus Siffling Cisticola 

853 Cisticola carruthersi Carruther’s Cisticola 

857 Cisticola erythrops Red-faced Cisticola 

864 Cisticola lateralis Whistling Cisticola 

869 Cisticola robustus Stout Cisticola 

873 Cisticola woosnami Trilling Cisticola 

875 Eminia lepida Grey-capped Warbler 

889 Hylia prasina Green Hylia 

891 Hyliota flavigaster Yellow-bellied Hyliota 

895 Macrosphenus concolor Grey Longbill 

896 Macrosphenus fiavicans Yellow Longbill 



901 Pholidornis rushiae Tit -Hylia 

907 Phylloscopus sibilatrix Wood Warbler 

911 Prinia leucopogon White-chinned Prinia 

913 Prinia subflava Tawny-flanked Prinia 

917 Sylvia atricapilla Blackcap 

921 Sylvietta brachyura Northern Crombec 

924 Sylvietta virens Green Crombec 

926 Muscicapa infuscata Sooty Flycatcher 

934 Melaenornis edolioides Northern Black Flycatcher 

936 Muscicapa adusta African Dusky Flycatcher 

938 Muscicapa caerulescens Ashy Flycatcher 

940 Muscicapa comitata Dusky Blue Flycatcher 

942 Myioparus griseigularis Grey-throated Flycatcher 

946 Myioparus plumbeus Lead-coloured Flycatcher 

949 Batis minor Black-headed Batis 

955 Bias musicus Black and White Shrike- Flycatcher 

956 Megabias fiammulatus AfricanShrike Flycatcher 

957 Dyaphorophyia jamesoni Jameson’s Wattle-eye 

958 Dyaphorophyia castanea Chestnut Wattle-eye 

960 Platysteira cyanea Brown-throated Wattle-eye 

961 Platysteira peltata Black-throated Wattle-eye 

963 Elminia longicauda African Blue Flycatcher 

967 Terpsiphone rufiventer Red-bellied Paradise -Flycatcher 

968 Terpsiphone viridis African-Paradise Flycatcher 

972 Trochocercus nigromitratus Dusky Crested- Flycatcher 

973 Trochocercus nitens Blue-headed Crested- Flycatcher 

978 Anthus leucophrys Plain-backed Pipit 

984 Anthus trivialis Tree Pipit 

988 Macronyx croceus Yellow-throated Longclaw 

991 Motacilla aguimp African Pied Wagtail 

996 Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail 

998 Dryoscopus angolensis Pink-footed Pufflack 

1004 Laniarius aethiopicus Tropical Boubou 

1007 Laniarius leucorhynchus Sooty Boubou 

1008 Laniarius luehderi Luhder’s Bush -Shrike 

1009 Laniarius mufumbiri Papyrus Gonolek 

1013 Malaconotus bocagei Grey-green Bush Shrike 

1022 Tchagra australis Brown-crowned Tchagra 

1035 Lanius mackinnoni Mackinnon’s Fiscal 


69


1038 Lanius senator Woodchat Shrike 

1048 Cinnyricinclus leucogaster Violet-backed Starling 

1052 Creatophora cinerea Wattled Starling 

1058 Lamprotornis purpureiceps Purple-headed Starling 

1061 Lamprotornis splendidus Splendid Starling 

1063 Onychognathus fulgidus Chestnut-winged Starling 

1080 Hedydipna collaris Collared Sunbird 

1081 Deleornis axillaris Grey-headed Sunbird 

1082 Anthreptes longuemarei Western Violet-backed Sunbird 

1087 Anthreptes rectirostris Green Sunbird 

1093 Cinnyris bouvieri Orange-tufted Sunbird 

1094 Cinnyris chloropygia Olive-bellied Sunbird 

1096 Cinnyris cuprea Copper Sunbird 

1097 Cyanomitra cyanolaema Blue-throated Brown Sunbird 

1098 Cinnyris erythrocerca Red-chested Sunbird 

1103 Cinnyris kilimensis Bronze Sunbird 

1112 Cinnyris olivacea Olive Sunbird 

1120 Chalcomitra rubescens Green-throated Sunbird 

1121 Anthreptes seimundi Little Green Sunbird 

1122 Chalcomitra senegalensis Scarlet-chested Sunbird 

1125 Cinnyris superba Superb Sunbird 

1128 Cinnyris venusta Variable Sunbird 

1130 Cyanomitra verticalis Green-headed Sunbird 

1133 Zosterops senegalensis Yellow White-eye 

1134 Amblyospiza albifrons Grosbeak Weaver 

1140 Euplectes axillaris Fan-tailed Widowbird 

1155 Malimbus rubricollis Red-headed Malimbe 

1159 Ploceus baglafecht Baglafecht Weaver 

1165 Ploceus cucullatus Black-headed Weaver 

1173 Ploceus melanocephalus Yellow-backed Weaver 

1174 Ploceus melanogaster Black-billed Weaver 

1175 Ploceus nigerrimus Vieillot’s Black Weaver 

1176 Ploceus nigricollis Black-necked Weaver 

1177 Ploceus ocularis Spectacled Weaver 

1184 Ploceus superciliosus Compact Weaver 

1186 Ploceus tricolor Yellow-mantled Weaver 

1188 Ploceus weynsi Weyns’s Weaver 

1206 Passer griseus Grey-headed Sparrow 

1211 Vidua chalybeata Village Indigobird 

1216 Vidua macroura Pin-tailed Whydah 

1226 Estrilda astrild Common Waxbill 



1230 Estrilda nonnula Black-crowned Waxbill 

1231 Estrilda paludicola Fawn-breasted Waxbill 

1233 Estrilda rhodopyga Crimson-rumped Waxbill 

1239 Lagonosticta rubricata African Firefinch 

1242 Mandingoa nitidula Green-backed Twinspot 

1246 Nigrita canicapilla Grey-headed Negrofinch 

1247 Nigrita fusconota White-breasted Negrofinch 

1254 Pyrenestes ostrinus Black-bellied Seedcracker 

1259 Spermophaga rujicapilla Red-headed Bluebill 

1265 Lonchura bicolor Black -and -White Mannikin 

1266 Lonchura cucullata Bronze Mannikin 

1283 Serinus citrinelloides African Citril 

1293 Serinus sulphuratus Brimstone Canary 


71

Table A3: Species list of Mammals (small and large) in Mabira Forest Reserve 

Species 

Insectivora 

Northern Swamp Musk Shrew (Crocidura maurisca) 

Northern Giant Musk Shrew (Crocidura olivieri) 

Hero Shrew (Scutisorex somereni) 

Chiroptera 

Straw colored Fruit Bat (Eidolon helvum) 

Little epauletted Fruit Bat (Epomophorus labiatus) 

Franquet’s Fruit Bat (Epomops franqueti) 

Short Pallate fruit bat (Casinycteris argynnis) 

Hammer-headed fruit Bat (Hypsignathus monstrosus) 

African Long-tongued Fruit Bat (Megaloglossus woermanni) 

Greater collared Fruit Bat (Myonycteris torquarta) 

Bocage’s Fruit Bat (Rousettus angolensis) 

Bates’ Slit-faced Bat (Nycteris argae) 

Dwarf Slit-faced Bat (Nycteris nana) 

Sundevall’s Leaf-nosed bat (Hipposideros caffer) 

Noack’s Leaf-nosed Bat (Hipposideros rubber) 

Halcyon Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus alcyone) 

Pel’s Pouched Bat (Saccolaimus peli) 

Schlieffen’s Bat (Nycticeinops schliefeni) 

Banana Bat (Pipistrellus nanus) 

Cape Serotine (Pipistrellus capensis) 

Forest Brown House Bat (Scotophilus nux) 

Little Free tailed Bat (Chaerophon pumila) 

Primates 

Red tailed Monkey (Cercopithecus ascanius) 

Potto (Perodictictus potto) 

Galago (Galago senegalensis) 

Grey Cheeked Mangabey (Cercocebus abigena) 

Baboons (Papio anubis) 

Carnivora 

Side Striped Jackal (Canis adustus) 

Marsh Mongoose (Atilax paludinosus) 

Forest Genet (Genetta victoriae) 

Dwarf Mongoose (Hologale parvula) 

Slender Mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon) 


Serval (Felis serval) 

Leopard (Panthera pardus) 

Pholidota 

Tree Pangolin (Manis tricupsis) 

Hyracoidea 

Tree Hyrax (Dendrohyrax aboreaus) 

Artiodactyla 

Blue Duiker (Cephalophus monticola) 

Bushpig (Potamochoerus porcus) 

Red Forest Duiker (Cephalophus harveyi) 

Bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) 

Rodentia 

Congo forest Rat (Deomys ferugeneous) 

Stella Wood Mouse (Hylomyscus stella) 

Eastern Brush-furred Mouse (Lophuromys flavopunctatus) 

Common Brush furred Mouse (Lophuromys sikapusi) 

Peter’s Stripped Mouse (Hybomys univitattus) 

Long footed rat (Malacomys longipes) 

Jackson’s Soft-furred Rat (Praomys jacksoni) 

Striped Ground Squirrel (Xerus erythropus) 

Crested Porcupine (Hystrix cristata) 

Brush tailed Porcupine (Atherurus africanus ) 

Macroscelidea 

Giant Elephant Shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei) 


73

Table A4: Amphibians of Mabira Forest Reserve - 

LC = Least Concern 

DD = Data Deficient 

FAMILY SPECIES COMMON NAME 

BUFONIDAE Bufo regularis Square-marked Toad LC 

HYPEROLIDAE Afrixalus fulvovitattus 

Hyperolius 

Four-lined Leaf Frog 

Dimorphic Reed Frog 

LC 

LC 

cinnamomeoventris 

Hyperolius kivuensis Kivu Reed Frog LC 

Hyperolius nasutus Gunther’s Sharp-nosed Reed Frog LC 

Kassina senegalensis Bubbling Kassina LC 

Leptopelis bocagii Bocage’s Burrowing Frog LC 

RANIDAE Haplobatrachus occipitalis Groove-crowned Bullfrog LC 

Ptychadena oxhyrhynchus DD 

Ptychadena porossissima Mascarene Rigded Frog DD 

Ptychadena mascarenieneis Grassland Ridged Frog LC 

Phrynobatrachus natelensis Snoring Puddle Frog LC 

Phrynobatrachus acridoides East African Puddle Frog LC 

PIPIDAE Xenopus laevis African Clawed Toad LC 

ARTHROLEPTIDAE Artholeptis adolfifriederici LC 

Table A5: Reptiles of Mabira Forest Reserve - 

LC = Least Concern 

DD = Data Deficient 

IUCN (Red List) 

STATUS 

FAMILY SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS* 

CHMAELEONIDAE Chamaeleo bitaneatus Side-striped chameleon LC 

GECKONIDAE Hemidactylus mabouia House Gecko LC 

SCINCIDAE Mabouia maculilabris Speckle-lipped Skink LC 

LACERTIDAE Lacerta jacksonii Jackson’s Forest Lizard LC 

VARANIDAE Varanus niloticus Nile Monitor LC 

TYPHLOPIDAE Typholps punctatus Spotted Blind Snake LC 

LEPTYPHLOPIDAE Leptotyphlops sp DD 

COLUBRIDAE Lamprophis olivaceous Olive House Snake DD 

Philothamnus semivaruiagatus Variable Green Snake LC 

Thrasops jacksonii Jackson’s Tree Snake LC 

Dispholidus typus Boomslang LC 

Natriceteres olivaceous Olive Marsh Snake LC 

Dasypeltis scabra Egg-eater Snake LC 

Bothrophthalmus lineatus Red and Black-striped Snake DD 

PYTHONIDAE Python sebae African Rock Python LC 

ELAPIDAE Dendroaspis jamesoni Jameson’s Forest Mamba LC 

Pseudohaje goldii Gold’s Tree Cobra LC 

Naja melanoleuca Forest Cobra LC 

Boiga blandignii Fanged Tree Snake LC 

VIPERIDAE Atheris squamiger Bush Viper LC 

Bitis gabonica Gaboon Viper LC 

Bitis nasicornis Rhinoceros Viper LC 

Causus rhombeatus Rhombic night Adder LC 

*IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2006. Global Amphibian Assessment. 


Table A6: Species list of butterflies recorded in Mabira Forest Reserve 

PAPILIONIDAE 

Papilioninae 

Papilio bromius Broad-banded Swallowtail 

Papilio cynorta 

Papilio dardanus Mocker Swallowtail 

Papilio demodocus Citms Swallowtail 

Papilio lormieri Central Emperor Swallowtail 

Papilio nireus Narrow G-Banded Swallowtail 

Papilio phorcas Green Patch Swallowtail 

Papilio zoroastres Zoroaster Swallowtail 

Graphiumpolicenes Small Striped Swordtail 

PIERIDAE 

Coliadinae 

Eurema hapale Marsh Grass Yellow 

Eurema hecabe Common Grass Yellow 

Eurema senegalensis Forest Grass Yellow 

Pierinae 

Nepheronia argia Large Vagrant 

Nepheronia pharis 

Nepheronia thalassina Cambridge Vagrant 

Colotis elgonensis Elgon Crimson Tip 

Belenois calypso Calypso Caper White 

Belenois creona African Caper 

Belenois solilucis 

Belenois subeida 

Belenois theora 

Belenois thysa False Dotted Border 

Belenois victoria Victoria White 

Dixeia charina African Small White 

Dixeia orbona 

Appias epaphia African Albatross 

Appias sabina Sabine Albatross 

Appias sylvia Albatross 

Mylothris continua 

Leptosia alcesta African Wood White 

Leptosia hybrida Hybrid Wood White 

Leptosia nupta Immaculate Wood White 

Leptosia wigginsi Opaque Wood White 

LYCAENIDAE 

Lipteninae 

Pentilapauli Spotted Pentila 

Epitola catuna 

Miletinae 

Megalopalpus zymna 

Lachnocnema bibulus Woolly Legs 

Theclinae 

Tanuetheira timon 

Hypolycaena ant faunus 

Hypolycaena hatita 

Polyommatinae 

Anthene definita Common Ciliate Blue 

Anthene indejinita 

Anthene larydas Spotted Ciliate Blue 

Anthene ligures 

Anthene schoutedeni Schouteden’s Ciliate Blue 

Uranothaumafalkensteini 

Phlyaria cyara 

Cacyreus audeoudi Audeoud’s Bush Blue 

Cacyreus lingeus Common Bush Blue 

Tuxentius cretosus 

Tuxentius margar`itaceus 

Azanus isis 

Azanusjesous African Babul Blue 

Azanus mirza Pale Babul Blue 

Azanus moriqua Black-Bordered Babul Blue 

Azanus natalensis Natal Babul Blue 

Eicochrysops hippocrates White Tipped Blue 

Oboronia punctatus 

NYMPHALIDAE 

Danainae 

Danaus chrysippus African Queen 

Amauris albimaculata Layman 

Amauris hecate Dusky Danaid 

Amauris niavius Friar 

Amauris tartarea Monk 

Tirumalaformosa Beautiful Tiger 


Tirumala petiverana African Blue Tiger 

Satyrinac 

Gnophodes betsimena Banded Evening Brown 

Melanitis leda Common Evening Brown 

Bicyclus auricrudus 

Bicyclus campinus 

Bicyclus funebris 

Bicyclus graueri 

Bicyclus jefferyi Jeffery’s Bush Brown 

Bicyclus mesogena 

Bicyclus mollitia 

Bicyclus sajitza Common Bush Brown 

Bicyclus sambulus 

Bicyclus sandace 

Bicyclus sebetus 

Bicyclus smithi Smith’s Bush Brown 

Bicyclus sop hrosyne 

Bicyclus unformis 

Bicyclus vulgaris 

Henotesiapeitho 

Ypthima albida Silver Ringlet 

Ypthima asterope Common Three Ring 

Charaxinae 

Charaxes ameliae 

Charaxes bipunctatus Two Spot Charaxes 

Charaxes boueti Red Forest Charaxes 

Charaxes brutus White Barred Charaxes 

Charaxes candiope Green Veined Charaxes 

Charaxes castor Giant Charaxes 

Charaxes cedreatis 

Charaxes cynthia Western Red Charaxes 

Charaxes etesipe Savannah Charaxes 

Charaxes etheocles Demon Charaxes 

Charaxes eupale Common Green Charaxes 

Charaxesfulvescens Forest Pearl Charaxes 

Charaxes lucretius Violet Washed Charaxes 

Charaxes numenes 

Charaxes pleione 

Charaxes porthos 

Charaxes protoclea Flame Bordered Charaxes 

76 

Charaxes pythodoris Powder Blue Charaxes 

Charaxes subornatus Ornata Green Charaxes 

Charaxes tiridates 

Charaxes varanes Pearl Charaxes 

Charaxes virilis 

Charaxes zingha 

Euxanthe crossleyi Crossley’s Forest Queen 

Palla ussheri 

Apaturinae 

Apaturopsis cleochares Painted Empress 

Nymphalinae 

Euryphura albimargo 

Euryphura chalcis 

Cymothoe caenis Migratory Glider 

Cymothoe herminia 

Cymothoe hobarti Hobart’s Red Glider 

Harma theobene 

Pseudathyma plutonica 

Pseudoneptis bugandensis Blue Sailer 

Bebearia cocalia Spectre 

Euphaedra eleus Orange Forester 

Euphaedra harpalyce 

Euphaedra medon Common Forester 

Euphaedra preussi 

Euphaedra uganda Ugandan Forester 

Aterica galene Forest Glade Nymph 

Catuna crithea 

Pseudacraea clarki 

Pseudacraea eurytus False Wanderer 

Pseudacraea lucretia False Diadem 

Neptisconspicua 

Neptis melicerta Streaked Sailer 

Neptis metella 

Neptis nemetes 

Neptis nicomedes 

Neptis saclava Small Spotted Sailer 

Neptis trigonophora 

Cyrestis camillus African Map Butterfly 

Sallya boisduvali Brown Tree Nymph 


Sallya garega 

Sallya natalensis Natal Tree Nymph 

Sallya occidentalium Velvety Tree Nymph 

Byblia anvatara African Joker 

Ariadne enotrea African Castor 

Ariadne pagenstecheri Pagenstecher’s Castor 

Neptidopsis ophione Scalloped Sailer 

Eurytela dryope Golden Piper 

Eurytela hiarbas Pied Piper 

Hypolimnas dinarcha 

Hypolimnas dubius Variable Diadem 

Hypolimnas misippus Diadem 

Hypolimnas salmacis Blue Diadem 

Salamis cacta Lilac Beauty 

Salamis parhassus Forest Mother-of-Pearl 

Junonia chorimene Golden Pansy 

Junonia Sophia Little Commodore 

Junonia stygia Brown Pansy 

Junonia terea Soldier Commodore 

Junonia westermanni Blue Spot Pansy 

Antanartia delius Orange Admiral 

Phalanta eurytis African Leopard Fritillary 

Acraeinae 

Acraea aganice Wanderer 

Acraea althoffi Althoffs Acraea 

Acraea aurivilli Aurivillius’ Acraea 

Acraea cabira Yellow Banded Acraea 

Acraea egina Elegant Acraea 

Acraea epaea 

Acraea eponina Orange Acraea 

Acraeajodutta 

Acraeajohnstoni Johnston’s Acraea 

Acraea lycoa 

Acraea macaria 

Acraea macarista 

Acraea natalica Natal Acraea 

Acraea orinata 

Acraea peneleos 

Acraea penelope Penelope’s Acraea 

Acraea pharsalus 

Acraea pseudegina 

Acraea guirinalis 

Acraea rogersi Rogers’ Acraea 

Acroeo semivitreo 

Acraea servono 

Acroeo tellus 

Acroeo viviono 

Libytheinae 

Libytheo lobdoco African Snout 

HESPERHDAE 

Coeliadinae 

Coeliodesforeston Striped Policeman 

Pyrginae 

Celoenorrhinus bettoni 

Celoenorrhinus golenus Orange Sprite 

Celoenorrhinus proximo 

Eretis lugens 

Sorongeso bouvieri 

Sorongeso Jucidello Marbled Fifin 

Hesperiinae 

Gomolio elmo African Mallow Skipper 

Cerotrichio mobirensis 

Acleros mockenii Macken’s Skipper 

Coenides doceno 

Monzo cretoceo 

Borbo gemello Twin Swift 


ANNEX 2 INVENTORY DATA 

Table III 

Mabira Forest Reserve 

Stand table of Total volume (m3) for Cpt 184 (605.6 ha, 33 plots) 

Species Diameter class (cm) Quality (50cm+) 

Code Botanical name 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90+ 10+ 50+ 70+ Relict Fair Good Merchandable 

volume 

241 Celtis zenkeri 633 1,091 1,589 1,885 0 5,199 4,566 3,475 2,977 1,589 4,566 

240 Celtis mildbraedii 229 252 400 1,110 886 1,325 0 4,202 3,321 1,325 555 2,766 2,766 

228 Alstonia boonei 1,629 0 1,629 1,629 1,629 1,629 1,629 

243 Chrysophyllum albidum 90 1,582 0 1,673 1,582 791 791 1,582 

465 Ficus spp 806 1,190 925 592 865 0 4,378 1,458 865 1,458 

238 Celtis durandii 608 868 637 849 0 2,962 849 849 

231 Antiaris toxicaria 123 60 425 555 0 1,163 555 555 555 

204 Albizia gummifera 477 0 477 477 477 

308 Broussonetia papyrifera 3,216 4,984 7,896 545 397 0 17,037 397 397 

212 Markhamia lutea 327 889 321 0 1,537 

542 Trema orientalis 210 332 270 0 812 

423 Bosquiea phoberos 50 320 705 0 1,075 

242 Celtis wightii 302 297 316 0 916 

Magaritaria (Phyllanthus) 

510 

306 43 0 349 

discoideus 

444 Croton macrostachys 64 463 0 527 

604 Croton oxypetalus (sylivaticus) 190 218 0 408 

549 Uvariopsis congensis 230 0 230 

545 Trichilia prieuriana 72 138 0 210 

420 Blighia unijugata 131 0 131 

205 Albizia zygia 104 79 0 182 

286 Spathodea campanulata 53 88 0 140

264 Funtumia elastica 111 0 111 

272 Morus (lactea) mesozygia 93 0 93 

245 Chrysophyllum mnerense 78 0 78 

583 Maerua duchensii 57 0 57 

Sub total of common spp 6,484 9,825 12,246 2,189 3,388 4,152 3,779 3,515 0 45,578 14,835 7,294 3,736 4,323 6,776 11,099 

Sub total of other spp 0 

TOTAL 6,484 9,825 12,246 2,189 3,388 4,152 3,779 3,515 0 45,578 14,835 7,294 3,736 4,323 6,776 11,099 

Sampling error % 14.7% 10.2% 17.6% 34.8% 44.6% 59.5% 57.6% 100.0% 13.1% 31.6% 55.3% 39.3% 53.1% 42.8% 

RME (P=95.0%) 4,537 7,777 7,867 639 312 33,448 5,297 745 874 519 

Table IV: Summary Table of Key Timber Species and Paper Mulberry in Compartment 184 for graphical analysis 

Botanical Names Midpoint 39375 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90+ 

Celtis zenkeri 15 0 0 0 633 0 1091 1589 1885 0 

Celtis mildbraedii 25 229 252 400 0 1110 886 1325 0 0 

Chrysophyllum albidum 35 0 90 0 0 0 1582 0 0 0 

Celtis durandii 45 608 868 637 0 849 0 0 0 0 

Antiaris toxicaria 55 123 60 0 425 555 0 0 0 0 

Broussonetia papyrifera 65 3216 4984 7896 545 397 0 0 0 0 

Celtis wightii 75 0 302 297 316 0 0 0 0 0 

Trichilia prieuriana 85 72 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Albizia zygia 105 104 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | March 2008 79

Fig AI 

Icut id nonsimu sperurbitiac rei cus, fuium tuastio in publibus sterace remover essimissatin at. Mulego 

ex sedo, Catum crentro hala nonsule simius publicut omnostandest perritam prips, quius cupiostod im 

in tionsus nos Mulica; halestistori ingultus et, veriorum occhilicae ficient? Qua cae quem consupie tuis 

Distribution of Paper Mulberry, Key Timber Species and Total Volume by Diameter Classes, 

cae, nocurente at. Sp. Hossimihica vivit ius cernum publicit. 

Compartment 184 

Estro ca L. Sendam pra, sa enat vit. ete, Cast faccissente, et? in ducid coentiu is, nos actus iu videpervivid 

Cato condam mo urnis. 

14000 

Ectum teste consulic maximpotia? Hus porentra vendestrum ius, pato incere pultorum inatum octum in 

senatis eribunt. 

Lut viverte 12000mperioribus; 

nonsunticaet nes, ca inte, norditu mum Roma, clut factuiurbis, nocaper fernum 

quam horum sena, quam me ad C. Overo, consus, orest pris, coneniu et Catiena tilnem rem trari patus 

nos erebatuit quam, consuam verit, seniam nox muntum ocaed re tam. Verit; hos horibus, Catusa L. Mae 

condacrei 10000 publicu pplicienit, cont dessena, dempl. Sulis estere mus publi, oc, aris. 

Dem perrio, quam deo ermius, cri ta, que ma, te in vaterebatus es reo Cat. 

Dectemque constis cavemo a Sima, qui seniculegere acture me con viviriondam in Etractuam di con re 

priampe 8000 rtemquam hos mediestem tem te re, Casdam scrum reo, furs adduc facerem mantis conemus 

labulium senervider que iam ad caetici ses adhuspiorum iu mist accis Mae hori cupplist L. Halessuperes 

mor iaelabul vilnes hos, octe, vide ex sa publissolus, quos anulictaris aut castrestris? Viu vissolinpro 

horituidies 6000contemuri 

isseniu mus, con huciis con suliconfecii in tem facios etemei popte ium que es 

ex mandi pri pra? An venatu consce remei sesi ideatam moruntil con horum pero mum ore am is vem 

prorum postracci in publiura? Nam ve, simus, ubitis bonsulatius constri sunita, quam conde iu verit. 

4000 

Terferfiris cusquasterte me quodien terrarid cientrac teremus am nonum Romanti ferobse nimulem auc 

fachilin Ita L. Sa nox serital arbis, conture, Ti. Vivis dit. 

Irmium, moenderi st que porterei silin viverni quastis me deri simantemura re audem popublicam ilis. 

2000 

Sime quius, sesua prae patus actus cone con trum senatur hacchil convent, optimanum dervirtus C. 

Ibunclerce con anum curox mentic iu clus, C. Torum intium ter ac trendam. Ostorio iae consilin horte 

hordie ia? Etratus 0 culissolus ellem tuus, nos veret rebus confice ca me derteri es coeniam con teroptis 

spiossu liquos, noniu 15 cupici 25 cotis bonte 35nequam 45 tem etodius, 55 iam arissenatror 65 75 iam hinatum 85 il veniam 105 

inaterfinte inatque no. Nam es confex niri, contra Diameter peres cae Mid-Point iam re conc (cm) factam. Catum quidendie orbit, 

faci probut publicaequo pubita ca; nequiti stanum factu consulvita, quamenterit? Nam diu condeo 

patabit. Sendum, ompordi caedo, sentemu ntiacci consul hostemquis, seres dicae tur, quidem idiu vid 

Key Timber Species 

Paper Mulberry 

Total Volume 

Volume (m 3 )

dem quastanum publicaet publici orbit? Tum, quem cleris? Mantero pticast notessentem sulto C. 

Fig AII 

Distribution of Paper Mulberry, Key Timber Species ,Total Volume By Diameter Mid Point Classes in 

Compartment 184 

Celtis zenkeri 

Celtis midbraedii 

Chrysophyllum albidum 

Celtis durandii 

Antiaris toxicaria 

Broussonetia papyrifera 

Celtis wightii 

Trichilia prieuriana 

13000 

12500 

12000 

11500 

11000 

10500 

10000 

9500 

9000 

8500 

8000 

7500 

7000 

6500 

6000 

5500 

5000 

4500 

4000 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

Volume (M 3 ) 

Albizia zygia 

Total Volume 

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 105 

Diameter Mid Point (Cm) 

The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | March 2008 81

About NatureUganda 

NatureUganda, the East Africa Natural History Society is the oldest conservation organization 

in East Africa having been set up in 1909 as a scientific organization with the 

primary aim of documenting the diversity of wildlife in East Africa. Although the activities 

of the society were disrupted by political instability in Uganda in 1970s-1980s, the 

activities were rejuvenated in early 1990s with the identification of Key Biodiversity 

Areas (KBAs) such as the Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Ramsar sites. Over the past 

20 years, the activities of the organization have diversified to embrace biodiversity 

conservation and sustainable Natural Resource Management. 

The organization implements research, conservation and advocacy programmes with 

particular focus on priority species, sites and habitats across the country. This is 

achieved through conservation projects, environmental education together with government 

lead agencies, local government and local communities, and membership 

programmes activities such as Public Talks, excursions and Nature-walks that are key 

advocacy and public awareness tools. 

Our mission is to promote the understanding, appreciation and conservation of nature. 

In pursuing this mission NatureUganda strives to: 

• Create a nature-friendly public 

• Enhance knowledge of Uganda’s natural history 

• Advocate for policies favorable to the environment 

• Take action to conserve priority species sites and habitats 

NatureUganda is the BirdLife International partner in Uganda and a member of IUCN. 

Contact address: 

NatureUganda, The East African Natural History Society 

P. O Box 27034, Kampala, Plot 83 Tufnell Drive, Kamwokya, 

Tel.: +256-414-540719, Fax: +256-414-533528, 

Website: www.natureuganda.org or email: nature@natureuganda.org 

Promoting the Understanding, Appreciation and Conservation of Nature

the economic valuation of the proposed ... - Nature Uganda

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?