the economic valuation of the proposed ... - Nature Uganda
the economic valuation of the proposed ... - Nature Uganda
the economic valuation of the proposed ... - Nature Uganda
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
THE ECONOMIC VALUATION OF THE PROPOSED<br />
DEGAZETTEMENT OF MABIRA CENTRAL FOREST RESERVE<br />
<strong>Nature</strong><strong>Uganda</strong><br />
Lead Consultants<br />
Dr. Yakobo Moyini<br />
Mr. Moses Masiga<br />
Series No. 7
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira Central Forest Reserve<br />
With support from
THE ECONOMIC VALUATION OF THE<br />
PROPOSED DEGAZETTEMENT OF MABIRA<br />
CENTRAL FOREST RESERVE<br />
Reproduction <strong>of</strong> this publication for educational or o<strong>the</strong>r non commercial<br />
purposes is authorized only with fur<strong>the</strong>r written permission from <strong>the</strong> copyright<br />
holder provided <strong>the</strong> source is fully acknowledged. Production <strong>of</strong> this publication<br />
for resale or o<strong>the</strong>r commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written<br />
notice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> copyright holder.<br />
Citation: <strong>Nature</strong><strong>Uganda</strong> (2011). The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed<br />
Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira Central Forest Reserve. <strong>Nature</strong><strong>Uganda</strong> Kampala<br />
Copyright<br />
©<strong>Nature</strong><strong>Uganda</strong> – The East Africa Natural History Society<br />
P.O.Box 27034,<br />
Kampala <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
Plot 83 Tufnel Drive<br />
Kamwokya.<br />
Email nature@natureuganda.org<br />
Website: www.natureuganda.org
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<br />
This consultancy builds on <strong>Nature</strong><strong>Uganda</strong> earlier studies to identify important biodiversity areas in <strong>Uganda</strong> or key<br />
biodiversity areas. Thirty three (33) Important Bird Areas were identified including Mabira Forest Reserve.<br />
In this study, we make a case that policy formulation about natural resources needs to be informed with facts in <strong>the</strong><br />
present and full knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> future or predicted long term consequences. We are grateful to BirdLife<br />
International Partnership particularly Royal Society for <strong>the</strong> Protection <strong>of</strong> Birds (RSPB) whose initial support enabled<br />
<strong>Nature</strong><strong>Uganda</strong> to undertake this study on <strong>the</strong> <strong>economic</strong> e<strong>valuation</strong> <strong>of</strong> a section <strong>of</strong> Mabira Forest Reserve that was<br />
<strong>proposed</strong> for Degazzettement.<br />
The research work falls under our advocacy programme supported by various partners including BirdLife International<br />
through Jansen’s Foundation programme on ‘turning policy advantages into conservation gains’. It is our sincere<br />
hope that this report will trigger and sustain informed debate on conservation value <strong>of</strong> natural resources<br />
particularly critical ecosystems such as Mabira Forest Reserve. <strong>Nature</strong><strong>Uganda</strong> recognised <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> an<br />
<strong>economic</strong> e<strong>valuation</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mabira Central Forest Reseve at a time when <strong>the</strong>re was a debate pitting conservation <strong>of</strong><br />
natural resources against intensive use for agriculture and industry and this report will contribute useful information<br />
to <strong>the</strong> debate not only for Mabira Forest but for o<strong>the</strong>r natural resources in <strong>the</strong> country. We acknowledge <strong>the</strong> support<br />
received from <strong>Nature</strong><strong>Uganda</strong> secretariat especially <strong>the</strong> Executive Director Mr. Achilles Byaruhanga for coordinating<br />
<strong>the</strong> study and providing <strong>the</strong> consultants with all logistical requirements.<br />
We acknowledge contribution <strong>of</strong> Mr Telly Eugene Muramira who technically edited <strong>the</strong> report and Dr. Patrick Birungi<br />
<strong>of</strong> Makerere University for reading <strong>the</strong> earlier drafts as well as Dr. Panta Kasoma and Roger Skeen who pro<strong>of</strong> read <strong>the</strong><br />
report.<br />
Special tribute is paid to Dr. Yakobo Moyini (R.I.P) who was <strong>the</strong> lead consultant on this study that was conducted in<br />
2008. O<strong>the</strong>r persons who contributed to this report include Mr. Moses Masiga and Dr. Paul Segawa.<br />
We fur<strong>the</strong>r acknowledge EU support through <strong>the</strong> Important Bird Areas (IBA) monitoring project for providing <strong>the</strong><br />
funds towards printing <strong>of</strong> this report in 2011.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
V
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS<br />
SCOUL Sugar Corporation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> Limited<br />
VAT Value Added Tax<br />
PAYE Pay as You Earn<br />
CFR Central Forest Reserve<br />
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change<br />
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation<br />
CHOGM Commonwealth Heads <strong>of</strong> Government Meeting<br />
PFE Permanent Forest Estate<br />
CFR Central Forest Reserve<br />
CITES Convention on International Trade <strong>of</strong> Flora and Fauna<br />
TEV Total Economic Value<br />
NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product<br />
TCM Travel Cost Method<br />
CVM Contingent Valuation Method<br />
PV Present Value<br />
NFA National Forestry Authority<br />
FGD Focus Group Discussion<br />
RIL Reduced Impact Logging<br />
MPA Management Plan Area<br />
FD Forest Department<br />
PA Protected Area<br />
THF Tropical High Forest<br />
WTP Willingness To Pay<br />
GEF Global Environment Facility<br />
Vi The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />
The Government <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> received and tabled for discussion a proposal to degazette and change <strong>the</strong> land use <strong>of</strong><br />
part <strong>of</strong> Mabira Central Forest Reserve to sugar cane production. The proposal proved very contentious and resulted<br />
in civil unrest and a raging debate on <strong>the</strong> merits and demerits <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>proposed</strong> land use change. Those in favour <strong>of</strong><br />
degazettement cited <strong>the</strong> numerous direct, indirect and multiplier <strong>economic</strong> impacts or benefits <strong>the</strong> change in land<br />
use will bring to <strong>Uganda</strong>. Those for conservation, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, cited <strong>the</strong> need to preserve <strong>the</strong> rich biodiversity<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forest, and <strong>the</strong> need to respect both regional and international agreements on <strong>the</strong> conservation <strong>of</strong> forests and<br />
<strong>the</strong> biodiversity <strong>the</strong>rein. They also cited <strong>the</strong> public trust doctrine that charges government to manage and maintain<br />
forestry resources on behalf <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> citizens <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>.<br />
Whereas those in favour <strong>of</strong> degazettement have been quite eloquent in enumerating <strong>the</strong> <strong>economic</strong> benefits <strong>of</strong><br />
sugarcane growing, <strong>the</strong> pro-conservation groups have largely focused on <strong>the</strong> physical side <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> argument and<br />
presented little <strong>economic</strong> data to support <strong>the</strong>ir arguments. The purpose <strong>of</strong> this study was to assess and compare <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>economic</strong> implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two competing land use options.<br />
To undertake <strong>the</strong> assessment, a Total Economic Value (TEV) framework was applied. This was in view <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that<br />
forests are complex ecosystems that generate a range <strong>of</strong> goods and services. The TEV framework is able to account<br />
for both use and non-use values <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forest and elaborate <strong>the</strong>m into direct and indirect use values, option, bequest<br />
and existence values.<br />
Lack <strong>of</strong> knowledge and awareness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> goods and services provided by forests previously<br />
obscured <strong>the</strong> ecological and social impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> conversion <strong>of</strong> forests into o<strong>the</strong>r land uses. The TEV framework helps<br />
us to understand <strong>the</strong> extent to which those who benefit from <strong>the</strong> forest or its conversion also bear <strong>the</strong> associated<br />
management costs or opportunities foregone.<br />
In undertaking this study, <strong>the</strong> biophysical attributes <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR in general and <strong>the</strong> area <strong>of</strong> impact in particular were<br />
reviewed. The most current and relevant inventory data available for <strong>the</strong> production zone <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR was used.<br />
The <strong>economic</strong>s <strong>of</strong> sugarcane production in <strong>Uganda</strong> and globally was also reviewed. Additional data and information<br />
were derived from an extensive survey <strong>of</strong> available literature. All this background data and information were <strong>the</strong>n<br />
used to derive <strong>the</strong> total <strong>economic</strong> value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> impact area within Mabira CFR and compare it with <strong>the</strong> potential<br />
<strong>economic</strong> yield <strong>of</strong> growing sugarcane.<br />
The analysis concluded that <strong>the</strong> benefits <strong>of</strong> conserving Mabira CFR far exceeded those <strong>of</strong> sugarcane growing. The<br />
respective total <strong>economic</strong> value <strong>of</strong> conservation was estimated at US$ 45.1 compared to US$ 29.9 million which<br />
was <strong>the</strong> net present value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> annual benefits from sugar cane growing. The study <strong>the</strong>refore concluded that<br />
maintaining Mabira Central Forest Reserve under its current land use constituted a better option than sugarcane<br />
growing. This was <strong>the</strong> case when <strong>the</strong> total <strong>economic</strong> value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forest was considered, but also when just timber<br />
values alone were counted. The study noted however, that <strong>the</strong> degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR could still be favoured<br />
for o<strong>the</strong>r reasons o<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>economic</strong> considerations. The study recommended that should such a situation arise,<br />
<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> developer (who is SCOUL) must undertake to compensate <strong>the</strong> National Forestry Authority for <strong>the</strong> total<br />
<strong>economic</strong> value (TEV) lost due to <strong>the</strong> change <strong>of</strong> land use. This requirement for compensation is legally provided<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
Vii
for in <strong>the</strong> National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, <strong>the</strong> National Environment Act and provisions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> multilateral<br />
environmental agreements, especially <strong>the</strong> Convention on Biological Diversity. The compensation would also<br />
conform to <strong>the</strong> social and environmental safeguard policies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Government <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> and its development<br />
partners, including <strong>the</strong> need to conduct a thorough environmental impact assessment (EIA). The appropriate level <strong>of</strong><br />
compensation <strong>the</strong> developer will be required to pay is US$45.1 million, payable to <strong>the</strong> NFA to support conservation<br />
activities in <strong>the</strong> remaining part <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR and o<strong>the</strong>r reserves.<br />
The study also noted that Government could also waive <strong>the</strong> requirement for compensation. The study however,<br />
noted that such an action would tantamount to provision <strong>of</strong> a subsidy to SCOUL amounting to US$45.1 million or <strong>the</strong><br />
total <strong>economic</strong> value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lost value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forest due to <strong>the</strong> <strong>proposed</strong> change in land use. The waiver would also<br />
tantamount to a gross policy failure, particularly in view <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> efficiency questions surrounding SCOUL.<br />
The study also noted that if <strong>the</strong> developer paid <strong>the</strong> US$45.1 million compensation, <strong>the</strong>y would in effect be purchasing<br />
7,186 ha <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR at a fairly high cost per hectare. Land in <strong>the</strong> vicinity currently goes for UShs 500,000 to 1,000,000<br />
per acre (or Ushs 1,250,000 –2,500,000 per hectare). If SCOUL were to pay UShs 2,500,000 per hectare, double <strong>the</strong><br />
upper range, <strong>the</strong> company would purchase 30,668 ha <strong>of</strong> land. For <strong>the</strong> equivalent <strong>of</strong> 7,186 ha, if SCOUL purchased <strong>the</strong><br />
land from private sources <strong>the</strong> company would pay UShs.17,965 million (or US$10.6 million), an amount less than <strong>the</strong><br />
compensation figure calculated in <strong>the</strong> study.<br />
The study finally noted that in addition to <strong>the</strong> financial and <strong>economic</strong> questions presented above, o<strong>the</strong>r equally valid<br />
issues needed fur<strong>the</strong>r investigation. They include <strong>the</strong> need for compensation at ‘fair and equal’ value, <strong>the</strong> current<br />
implied objective <strong>of</strong> national self-sufficiency in sugar production; and land acquisition options available to <strong>the</strong><br />
developer.<br />
Viii The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
Acknowledgements iv<br />
Acronyms and Abbreviations v<br />
Executive Summary vi<br />
Table <strong>of</strong> Contents vii<br />
List <strong>of</strong> Figures viii<br />
List <strong>of</strong> Tables ix<br />
List <strong>of</strong> Boxes x<br />
1.0. INTRODUCTION 1<br />
1.1. BACKGROUND 1<br />
1.2. THE Degazettement PROPOSAL 3<br />
1.3 SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT 5<br />
1.4. METHODOLOGY 6<br />
2.0. BIOPHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MABIRA CFR 7<br />
2.1. SIZE AND LOCATION 7<br />
2.2. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 7<br />
2.3. PLANTS 8<br />
2.4. BIRDS 8<br />
2.5. MAMMALS 10<br />
2.6. AMPHIBIANS 10<br />
2.7. REPTILES 10<br />
2.8. BUTTERFLIES 10<br />
3.0. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE SUGAR SECTOR IN UGANDA 13<br />
3.1. Global Sugar Production Trends 13<br />
3.2 History <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sugar Industry in <strong>Uganda</strong> 14<br />
3.3 Sugar Production and Consumption Trends in <strong>Uganda</strong> 17<br />
3.4. Performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>’s Sugar Sector 16<br />
4.0. EVALUATION OF DECISION TO CONVERT MABIRA CFR FOR SUGARCANE<br />
PRODUCTION 18<br />
4.1 Sugar Production Model for <strong>Uganda</strong> 18<br />
4.2. The Value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sugar Sector in <strong>Uganda</strong> 20<br />
4.2.1 Value <strong>of</strong> Reproducible Tangible Assets ( sugarcane) 20<br />
4.2.2 Value <strong>of</strong> non-reproducible assets <strong>of</strong> sugar factory (Land at <strong>the</strong> Company owned nucleus<br />
sugarcane estate) 21<br />
4.3. Cost <strong>of</strong> Production and <strong>the</strong> Determinants <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Competitiveness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sugar Sector in <strong>Uganda</strong> 22<br />
4.4. Options for Improving <strong>the</strong> Competitiveness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sugar Coorporation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> Limited (SCOUL) 25<br />
4.5. CONCLUSIONS 29<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
ix
5.0. THE CONSERVATION OPTION 31<br />
5.1. CONSERVATION OPTIONS FOR MANAGING FOREST RESOURCES 31<br />
5.2. CONSERVATION ECONOMICS 31<br />
5.2.1 Importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>economic</strong> <strong>valuation</strong> 31<br />
5.2.2 The Total Economic Value 32<br />
5.2.3 Analytical framework 35<br />
5.3. VALUATION 37<br />
6.0. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION 47<br />
6.1. DISCUSSIONS 47<br />
6.2. CONCLUSION 49<br />
x The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
REFERENCES 50<br />
Annexes 59<br />
Annex 1 Biodiversity Report 59<br />
Annex 2 Inventory Data 79<br />
List <strong>of</strong> Figures<br />
Figure 1 Map <strong>of</strong> Mabira and <strong>the</strong> Proposed Area for Degazettement 4<br />
Figure 2: Cost-benefit analysis <strong>of</strong> an alternate project, to continued conservation 6<br />
Figure 3: Centralised and contract farming model in sugar companies in <strong>Uganda</strong> 18<br />
Figure 4: Value chain for sugar cane to sugar 27<br />
Figure 5: Framework <strong>of</strong> specialisation for sugar industries 23<br />
Figure 6: The Total Economic Value <strong>of</strong> Forests 33<br />
Figure 7: Graphic Illustration <strong>of</strong> Willingness to Pay 37<br />
List <strong>of</strong> Tables<br />
Table 1: Mabira CFR Area Proposed for Degazettement 3<br />
Table 2: Species numbers recorded in Mabira from each family 11<br />
Table 3: World production and consumption <strong>of</strong> sugar (million tonnes, raw value) 13<br />
Table 4: <strong>Uganda</strong> Sugar and Sugar Crops production between 2002 and 2005 15<br />
Table 5: Sugar Companies and Production in <strong>Uganda</strong> at a glance 15<br />
Table 6: Sugarcane yield in <strong>Uganda</strong>’s sugar factory nucleus estate 15<br />
Table 7: Projected sugarcane production 16<br />
Table 8: Status <strong>of</strong> land ownership <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>’s sugar factories 19<br />
Table 9: Value <strong>of</strong> sugarcane for SCOUL out-growers in Mukono district, 2006 21<br />
Table 10: Sugar production costs in selected Least Developing Countries 21<br />
Table 11: Cost structure for a Kinyara Out-grower family 24<br />
Table 12: Average out-grower’s sugarcane production returns for SCOUL 26<br />
Table 13: Value for leases <strong>of</strong> land likely to be <strong>of</strong>fered to SCOUL 28<br />
Table 14: Land resource values in Kitoola 29<br />
Table 15: Example <strong>of</strong> links between value category, functions and <strong>valuation</strong> tools 34<br />
Table 16: Value <strong>of</strong> Growing Stock 38<br />
Table 17: Value <strong>of</strong> Annual Exploitable Timber Yield 38<br />
Table 18: Value <strong>of</strong> standing Timber crop, Area Proposed for degazettement in Mabira CFR 39<br />
Table 19: Visitor statistics 42<br />
Table 21: Summary <strong>of</strong> Values 46<br />
Table 20: Carbon content and loss for tropical forest conversion 46<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
xi
List <strong>of</strong> Boxes<br />
Box 1: Out-growers production and earnings with SCOUL 20<br />
Box 2: SCOUL sets terms to abandon Mabira CFR 23<br />
Box 3: SCOUL Sugar Corporation Press release summarised 27<br />
Box 4: Kabaka Land Offer Not a Donation – Govt 27<br />
Box5: Land Resource values 28<br />
xii The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
1.0. INTRODUCTION<br />
1.1. BACKGROUND<br />
The Government <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> received and tabled for<br />
discussion a proposal to expand sugar production by<br />
<strong>the</strong> Sugar Corporation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> Limited (SCOUL) in<br />
2007. The key elements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposal were to expand<br />
<strong>the</strong> acreage under sugar cane by <strong>the</strong> corporation by<br />
7,100 hactares within <strong>the</strong> Mabira Central Forest Reserve.<br />
The <strong>proposed</strong> expansion would however have to be<br />
preceded by <strong>the</strong> degazettement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> affected area<br />
to pave way for private use by <strong>the</strong> Sugar Corporation <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Uganda</strong> Limited.<br />
The proposal sparked <strong>of</strong>f a lot <strong>of</strong> controversy, with<br />
<strong>the</strong> key contentions centred on <strong>the</strong> clear need to<br />
conserve biodiversity and <strong>the</strong> permanent forest estate,<br />
notwithstanding <strong>the</strong> equally important need to expand<br />
sugar production to benefit from <strong>the</strong> large local, regional<br />
and international sugar commodity market.<br />
Mabira Central Forest Reserve was gazetted as a central<br />
forest reserve in 1900 under <strong>the</strong> famous Buganda<br />
agreement between <strong>the</strong> British Colonizers and <strong>the</strong><br />
Buganda Kingdom. The reserve is found in Buikwe and<br />
Mukono Districts in Central <strong>Uganda</strong> and covers an area<br />
<strong>of</strong> 306 Km 2 across an altitudinal range <strong>of</strong> 1070 – 1340 m<br />
above sea level. The forest reserve is currently <strong>the</strong> largest<br />
natural high forest in <strong>the</strong> Lake Victoria crescent.<br />
The Sugar Corporation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> Limited on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
hand is a limited liability company jointly owned by <strong>the</strong><br />
Mehta Family (76%) and <strong>the</strong> Government <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
(24%). Increased sugar production by <strong>the</strong> corporation<br />
should <strong>the</strong>refore, in <strong>the</strong>ory benefit both <strong>the</strong> Mehta<br />
Family as majority shareholders and <strong>Uganda</strong>ns as<br />
minority shareholders. The converse is also true that<br />
a degradation to <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> SCOUL affects both <strong>the</strong><br />
Mehta family and <strong>Uganda</strong>ns.<br />
The Sugar Corporation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> Limited argues and as<br />
published in <strong>the</strong> press (The Monitor Newspaper, 2007;<br />
New Vision News Paper, 2007; East African News Paper,<br />
2007): that <strong>the</strong> allocation <strong>of</strong> an additional 7,186 ha out <strong>of</strong><br />
Mabira Central Forest Reserve will:<br />
1. Increase sugar production and save foreign<br />
exchange <strong>of</strong> US$ 20 – 25m per annum.<br />
2. Enable <strong>the</strong> generation <strong>of</strong> an additional 1-12<br />
MW <strong>of</strong> electricity which can be supplied to<br />
<strong>the</strong> national grid and onward to a number <strong>of</strong><br />
industries in and around Lugazi Town.<br />
3. Create an additional 3,500 jobs with an annual<br />
earning <strong>of</strong> Shs 3 billion.<br />
4. Lead to <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> additional<br />
infrastructure investments (schools, houses,<br />
dispensaries) worth Shs. 3.5 billion;<br />
5. Require <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> 300 km <strong>of</strong> road in<br />
<strong>the</strong> newly allotted areas, an investment <strong>of</strong> Shs.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 1<br />
2bn.<br />
6. Generate additional taxes in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> value<br />
added tax (VAT), Excise Duty, pay as you earn<br />
(PAYE) and import duty in <strong>the</strong> range <strong>of</strong> Shs. 11.5m<br />
(per year).<br />
7. Enable <strong>the</strong> production <strong>of</strong> ethyl alcohol which can<br />
be blended with petrol to <strong>the</strong> extent <strong>of</strong> 10-15%,<br />
to form gasohol, an alternative vehicle fuel.<br />
8. Commit SCOUL and <strong>the</strong> Government <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
not to develop any more areas near <strong>the</strong> banks<br />
<strong>of</strong> River Nile and <strong>the</strong> shores <strong>of</strong> Lake Victoria and<br />
hence preserve <strong>the</strong> ecology <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> Mabira<br />
CFR.<br />
9. Commit SCOUL to participate in tree planting on<br />
those areas which are not suitable for sugarcane<br />
production.
The pro-conservation groups who are are opposed to<br />
<strong>the</strong> degazettement <strong>of</strong> part <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
hand argue that:<br />
1. Mabira Central Forest Reserve has unique bird,<br />
2<br />
plant, primate, butterfly and tree species;<br />
2. Mabira Central Forest Reserve is located in a<br />
heavily settled agricultural area close to large<br />
urban centres including Kampala, Lugazi,<br />
Mukono and Jinja. This makes it a very important<br />
refugium and eco-tourist destination;<br />
3. Whereas <strong>the</strong> forest suffered considerable<br />
destruction through illegal removal <strong>of</strong> forest<br />
produce and agricultural encroachment which<br />
activities threatened <strong>the</strong> integrity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forest,<br />
<strong>the</strong>se have now been controlled and <strong>the</strong> forest<br />
has regained its original integrity;<br />
4. The bird species list for Mabira Forest now stands<br />
at 287 species <strong>of</strong> which 109 were recorded during<br />
<strong>the</strong> 1992-1994 Forest Department Biodiversity<br />
Inventory (Davenport et al, 1996). These include<br />
three species listed as threatened by <strong>the</strong> Red Data<br />
Books (Collar et al, 1994) i.e. <strong>the</strong> blue swallow<br />
(Hirundo atrocaerulea), <strong>the</strong> papyrus Gonolek<br />
(Laniarius mufumbiri) and Nahan’s Francolin<br />
(Francolinus nahani);<br />
5. The present value <strong>of</strong> timber benefit streams<br />
obtained from long-run sustainable yield in<br />
Mabira CFR and timber values foregone in <strong>the</strong><br />
plantations <strong>of</strong> Kifu and Namyoya ; <strong>the</strong> present<br />
value <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r annual benefit streams from forest<br />
products, biodiversity, domestic water, carbon<br />
storage and ecotourism; and <strong>the</strong> present value<br />
<strong>of</strong> annual ground rent payments would have to<br />
be foregone if <strong>the</strong> land use for Mabira CFR was<br />
changed;<br />
6. The Mabira CFR in its entirerity is an important<br />
water catchment forest. The CFR is a source <strong>of</strong><br />
two main rivers – Musamya and Sezibwa – which<br />
flow into Lake Kyoga;<br />
7. Because <strong>of</strong> its strategic location close to <strong>the</strong> River<br />
Nile <strong>the</strong> Mabira CFR is a critical component <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> local and regional hydrological cycle. There is<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore a likelihood <strong>of</strong> reduced water retention<br />
<strong>of</strong> water flow to <strong>the</strong> lakes and rivers;<br />
8. A large population living in and around Mabira<br />
CFR relies on <strong>the</strong> extraction <strong>of</strong> forest products to<br />
sustain <strong>the</strong>ir livelihoods;<br />
9. <strong>Uganda</strong> is a signatory to a number <strong>of</strong> key<br />
Conventions that protect forests including <strong>the</strong><br />
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and<br />
<strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol among o<strong>the</strong>rs;<br />
10. Change <strong>of</strong> land use in part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forest will make<br />
it difficult to control fu<strong>the</strong>r encroachment.<br />
11. Any degradation <strong>of</strong> Mabira represents loss <strong>of</strong> a<br />
unique ecosystem and unique biodiversity and<br />
loss <strong>of</strong> known and unknown plants and animals<br />
<strong>of</strong> medicinal value;<br />
12. Mabira contributes to temperature regulation in<br />
<strong>the</strong> central part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country, and any reduction<br />
is likely to lead to changes in temperature;<br />
13. The publicity resulting from converting part<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CFR will result in tourism becoming less<br />
attractive;<br />
14. A number <strong>of</strong> individuals, NGOs and corporations<br />
currently licensed to carry out activities in line<br />
with sustainable forest management will have<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir investment and planned activities affected;<br />
15. Investors in industrial plantations elsewhere in<br />
<strong>the</strong> country may face hostility from local people<br />
who may <strong>the</strong>mselves desire to acquire forest<br />
land, which <strong>the</strong>y see as being allocated to foreign<br />
investors;<br />
16. There are no indications that <strong>the</strong> public<br />
opposition to <strong>the</strong> degazzettement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CFR will<br />
diminish;<br />
17. There could be insecurity to <strong>the</strong> investor over<br />
Mabira allocation;<br />
18. The <strong>proposed</strong> degazettement is likely to impact<br />
negatively on <strong>the</strong> image <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country<br />
As indicated above, both sides <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> contention<br />
have strong arguments for <strong>the</strong>ir case. The arguments<br />
have however, not been translated into a common<br />
denominator to allow for impartial comparison <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
benefits and costs <strong>of</strong> degazetting part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forest.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
The purpose <strong>of</strong> this study <strong>the</strong>refore is to use <strong>economic</strong><br />
analysis to determine <strong>the</strong> merits and demerits <strong>of</strong><br />
degazettement <strong>of</strong> part <strong>of</strong> Mabira Central Forest Reserve<br />
for sugar cane production.<br />
1.2. THE DEGAZETTEMENT PROPOSAL<br />
The request and <strong>proposed</strong> degazettement covers an<br />
area <strong>of</strong> 7100 ha <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> production zone <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> reserve<br />
representing about 24 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total area <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
forest. From <strong>the</strong> perspective <strong>of</strong> forest management and<br />
in order not to split any compartments, SCOUL’s request<br />
would involve <strong>the</strong> degazetting <strong>of</strong> 15 compartments,<br />
giving a total area <strong>of</strong> 7,186 hectares. The area requested<br />
by SCOUL for additional sugar production is <strong>the</strong>refore<br />
7186 ha (Table 1). This size <strong>of</strong> area will <strong>the</strong>refore be used<br />
in <strong>the</strong> analysis for purposes <strong>of</strong> this study. Figure 1 shows<br />
a spatial description <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> affected area.<br />
Table 1: Mabira CFR Area Proposed for Degazettement<br />
Compartment No. Name Size (ha)<br />
171 Wakisi 617<br />
172 Senda North 315<br />
173 Senda 488<br />
174 Luwala 515<br />
175 Bugule 381<br />
178 Sango East 667<br />
179 Kyabana South 424<br />
180 Kyabana Central 451<br />
181 Kyabana North 365<br />
182 Liga 403<br />
183 Naligito 415<br />
184 Mulange 611<br />
185 Kasota 679<br />
234 Ssezibwa South 586<br />
235 Nandagi 479<br />
Totals 7186<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 3
Figure 1: Map <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR showing <strong>the</strong> Proposed sections for Degazettement<br />
B<br />
B<br />
Namulaba<br />
F/stn<br />
B<br />
Maligita F/stn<br />
Maligito<br />
Cpt 183<br />
404.813Ha<br />
Wakisi<br />
Liga<br />
Cpt 171<br />
cpt 182 613.464Ha<br />
Kyabana North<br />
Senda North<br />
cpt 181<br />
Cpt 172<br />
341.291Ha<br />
320.394Ha<br />
Naluvule F/stn<br />
262.390Ha<br />
Kyabana F/Stn<br />
Kyabana Central<br />
Cpt 180<br />
447.251Ha<br />
Kyabana South<br />
Cpt 179<br />
403.050Ha<br />
Malunge<br />
Cpt 184<br />
579.919Ha<br />
4 The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
Senda<br />
cpt 173<br />
499.419Ha<br />
Nagojje F/tsn<br />
Luwala<br />
Cpt 174<br />
516.500Ha<br />
Kasota<br />
Cpt 185<br />
694.248Ha<br />
Luwala South<br />
Cpt 175<br />
357.846Ha<br />
Sango East<br />
Cpt 178<br />
653.244Ha<br />
Sesibwa<br />
Cpt 234<br />
563 Ha<br />
Buwoola<br />
F/Stn<br />
B<br />
Wanande F/stn<br />
Najjembe F/stn<br />
B<br />
Nandagi<br />
Cpt 235<br />
442Ha<br />
Scale 1:140,000M<br />
0 2,<br />
050<br />
4,100 8,200 Meters<br />
Lwankima<br />
F/stn<br />
Outlines <strong>of</strong> blocks Forest Station Blocks <strong>proposed</strong> for degazettement
1.3 SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT<br />
The overall purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> study was to compare <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>economic</strong> merits <strong>of</strong> degazetting a section <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR<br />
for sugar cane growing to those <strong>of</strong> maintaining it. This<br />
comparative study required <strong>the</strong> computation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
respective costs and benefits <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two alternative land<br />
uses with a view to determining <strong>the</strong> most preferable<br />
option. The benefits decision framework is summarised<br />
as follows:<br />
T<br />
T<br />
If∑ Bs∂t � ∑ Bc∂t<br />
, T<br />
T<br />
grow sugarcane; and if<br />
t = oB<br />
∂t<br />
� t = oB<br />
∂t<br />
, conserve<br />
∑<br />
t = o<br />
c<br />
Where:<br />
∑<br />
t = o<br />
s<br />
∑B s ∂t – sum <strong>of</strong> present value <strong>of</strong> net benefit <strong>of</strong> sugarcane<br />
growing<br />
∑B c ∂t – sum <strong>of</strong> present value <strong>of</strong> net benefit <strong>of</strong><br />
conservation<br />
The conceptual scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> study limited it to <strong>the</strong><br />
most direct costs and benefits <strong>of</strong> land use change to<br />
sugar cane farming or <strong>the</strong> converse. Hence <strong>the</strong> primary<br />
analysis in this study dealt with sugar cane farming vis a<br />
vis forest conservation and applied farm gate or forest<br />
gate prices to all transactions. The estimates <strong>of</strong> all costs<br />
and benefits <strong>the</strong>refore related to sugar cane production<br />
and excluded <strong>the</strong> associated production <strong>of</strong> sugar, sugar<br />
by-products and <strong>the</strong> respective inputs.<br />
The study assessed a number <strong>of</strong> questions on <strong>the</strong> two<br />
components <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> study viz? <strong>the</strong> sugar estate and <strong>the</strong><br />
forest estate. The key questions on <strong>the</strong> first component<br />
included:<br />
» What is <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> sugarcane estate <strong>of</strong> SCOUL?<br />
» Is it possible for SCOUL (and <strong>the</strong> sugar industry<br />
as a whole) to achieve increased output through<br />
options, such as increasing productivity, and<br />
increasing <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> out-growers, o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
than using Mabira CFR?<br />
» Are <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r sugar companies in <strong>Uganda</strong>, o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
than SCOUL, able to meet <strong>the</strong> demand sought<br />
without having to convert part <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR<br />
into permanent agriculture?<br />
» Are <strong>the</strong>re alternative pieces <strong>of</strong> land, to Mabira<br />
CFR, that could be used and <strong>the</strong> implications <strong>of</strong><br />
using <strong>the</strong>se alternative lands for SCOUL?<br />
The key questions on <strong>the</strong> second component (<strong>the</strong> forest<br />
estate) included:<br />
» What annual benefit flows are associated with<br />
<strong>the</strong> Central Forest Reserve;<br />
» What are <strong>the</strong> potential consequences <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>proposed</strong> ecosystem degradation;<br />
» How will <strong>the</strong> annual flow <strong>of</strong> benefits change<br />
following <strong>the</strong> <strong>proposed</strong> degazettement?<br />
» What is <strong>the</strong> opportunity cost <strong>of</strong> maintaining <strong>the</strong><br />
forest estate?<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 5
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettment <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR<br />
___________________________________________________________________________________<br />
Figure 2: 2: Key Key Elements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong> Conservation <strong>the</strong> Conservation versus Degazettement versus Degazettment Options Options <strong>of</strong> Part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> Mabira Part Central<br />
Forest <strong>of</strong> Mabira Reserve Central Forest Reserve<br />
1.4. METHODOLOGY<br />
This <strong>economic</strong> analysis was carried out in three phases including a detailed review <strong>of</strong><br />
1.4. METHODOLOGY<br />
literature and media reports on <strong>the</strong> subject, assessment <strong>of</strong> standing stock and inventory<br />
This <strong>economic</strong> analysis was carried out in three phases<br />
information on <strong>the</strong> potential impact on <strong>the</strong> forest, key informant interviews, community<br />
including<br />
consultations<br />
a detailed<br />
followed<br />
review<br />
by<br />
<strong>of</strong><br />
data<br />
literature<br />
computations<br />
and media<br />
and interpretation. The study also involved<br />
reports detailed on <strong>the</strong> description subject, assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> biodiversity <strong>of</strong> standing stock <strong>of</strong> Mabira Central Forest Reserve, <strong>economic</strong><br />
and e<strong>valuation</strong> inventory <strong>of</strong> information <strong>the</strong> agricultural on <strong>the</strong> potential impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> area and detailed analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sugar<br />
on commodity <strong>the</strong> forest, market. key informant interviews, community<br />
Description <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> biodiversity <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR relied on literature reviews. The<br />
agricultural <strong>economic</strong> e<strong>valuation</strong> relied on both budgeting techniques and cost benefit<br />
analysis, using <strong>the</strong> Net Present Value as <strong>the</strong> decision-making<br />
chapters.<br />
criteria. Assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
conservation value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forest estate relied on both cost benefit analysis and <strong>the</strong><br />
concept <strong>of</strong> total <strong>economic</strong> value (TEV). The detailed analytical frameworks are<br />
described in subsequent chapters.<br />
____________________________________________________________________<br />
By Yakobo Moyini, PhD<br />
6<br />
Biodiversity<br />
Conservation<br />
Down stream<br />
water services<br />
Recreation<br />
Extraction <strong>of</strong><br />
forest products<br />
Cost <strong>of</strong><br />
conservation<br />
Net decrease in<br />
ecosystem benefits<br />
Biodiversity<br />
Conservation<br />
Down stream<br />
water services<br />
Recreation<br />
Extraction <strong>of</strong><br />
forest products<br />
Decreased<br />
Biodiversity<br />
Conservation<br />
Decreased Down<br />
stream water<br />
services<br />
Decreased<br />
Recreation<br />
Reduced Extraction<br />
<strong>of</strong> forest products<br />
Less foregone cost<br />
<strong>of</strong> conservation<br />
Gross<br />
decrease in<br />
ecosystem<br />
benefits<br />
Opportunity<br />
cost <strong>of</strong><br />
foregone<br />
ecosystem<br />
benefits<br />
Cost <strong>of</strong><br />
conservation<br />
With Conservation Without Conservation Cost benefit analysis <strong>of</strong> conservation<br />
Source: Pagiola et al., (2004)<br />
decision<br />
consultations followed by data computations and<br />
interpretation. The study also involved detailed<br />
description <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> biodiversity <strong>of</strong> Mabira Central Forest<br />
Reserve, <strong>economic</strong> e<strong>valuation</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> agricultural<br />
potential <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> area and detailed analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sugar<br />
commodity market.<br />
Description <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> biodiversity <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR relied on<br />
literature reviews. The agricultural <strong>economic</strong> e<strong>valuation</strong><br />
relied on both budgeting techniques and cost benefit<br />
analysis, using <strong>the</strong> Net Present Value as <strong>the</strong> decisionmaking<br />
criteria. Assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> conservation value <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> forest estate relied on both cost benefit analysis and<br />
<strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> total <strong>economic</strong> value (TEV). The detailed<br />
analytical frameworks are described in subsequent<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
7
2.0. BIOPHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS<br />
OF MABIRA CFR<br />
2.1. SIZE AND LOCATION<br />
Mabira Central Forest Reserve covers an area <strong>of</strong> 306<br />
square kilometers (km 2 ) (30,600ha) mostly in Mukono<br />
and Buikwe Districts <strong>of</strong> Central <strong>Uganda</strong>. The forest lies<br />
in an altitudinal range <strong>of</strong> 1,070 to 1,340 metres above<br />
sea level. The dominant vegetation in <strong>the</strong> forest may<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore be broadly classified as medium altitude moist<br />
semi-deciduous forest. Mabira CFR is predominantly a<br />
secondary forest with <strong>the</strong> most distinctive vegetation<br />
types representing sub-climax communities following<br />
several decades <strong>of</strong> human influence. Three forest types<br />
are discernable including a young forest dominated<br />
by Maesopsis eminii (about 25 percent); a successional<br />
forest represented by young mixed Celtis-Holoptelea<br />
tree species (about 60 percent) and riverine forests<br />
dominated by Baikiaea insignis (about 15 percent).<br />
Although <strong>the</strong> forest suffered extensive human<br />
interference in <strong>the</strong> seventies and early eighties, <strong>the</strong><br />
forest remains a significant conservation forest system.<br />
This report is aimed at providing a comprehensive<br />
account <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> present state <strong>of</strong> knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> flora and<br />
fauna <strong>of</strong> Mabira Forest Reserve in Mukono District. There<br />
has been a considerable amount <strong>of</strong> previous work in this<br />
forest and effort has been made to document all <strong>the</strong><br />
information. The main body <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> report provides fairly<br />
detailed accounts on <strong>the</strong> following taxa: plants; birds;<br />
mammals and butterflies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> reserve. Compared with<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Uganda</strong>n forests, Mabira is relatively biodiverse,<br />
with total species diversity (an index <strong>of</strong> species richness<br />
per unit area) being average for all taxa except butterflies<br />
which were above average. In terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ‘conservation<br />
value’ <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> species represented (based on knowledge<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir world-wide distributions and occurrence in<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong>n forests), Mabira is above average for birds, and<br />
butterflies, and average for <strong>the</strong> remaining taxa. As a basis<br />
for fur<strong>the</strong>r comparison with o<strong>the</strong>r sites, 81 species may<br />
be classified as restricted-range (recorded from no more<br />
than five <strong>Uganda</strong>n forests). Details <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> biodiversity<br />
attributes <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR are presented in Annex 1.<br />
Site description<br />
Mabira Forest Reserve lies in <strong>the</strong> counties <strong>of</strong> Buikwe and<br />
Nakifuma in <strong>the</strong> administrative district <strong>of</strong> Mukono. It was<br />
established under <strong>the</strong> Buganda Agreement in 1900 and<br />
is situated between 32 52° - 33 07° E and 0 24° - 0 35° N. It<br />
is found 54 km east <strong>of</strong> Kampala and 26 km west <strong>of</strong> Jinja.<br />
Mabira Central Forest Reserve is <strong>the</strong> largest remaining<br />
forest reserve in Central <strong>Uganda</strong> (Roberts, 1994) and<br />
lies in an area <strong>of</strong> gently undulating land interrupted by<br />
flat-topped hills that are remnants <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ancient African<br />
peneplain (Howard, 1991). Although <strong>the</strong> reserve lies<br />
close to <strong>the</strong> shores <strong>of</strong> Lake Victoria it drains to <strong>the</strong> north<br />
eventually into Lake Kyoga and <strong>the</strong> Victoria Nile. The<br />
vegetation in <strong>the</strong> reserve may be classified as medium<br />
altitude moist semi-deciduous forest. The dominant tree<br />
vegetation is mostly sub-climax tree species, with clear<br />
signs <strong>of</strong> previous disturbance and human interference.<br />
The reserve has a number <strong>of</strong> community enclaves. The<br />
enclaves are however, not part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> gazetted area <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> forest. Mabira Central Forest Reserve is covered by<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> Lands and Surveys Department map sheets<br />
61/4, 62/3, 71/2 and 72/1 (series Y732) at 1:50,000.<br />
2.2. GEOLOGY AND SOILS<br />
Pallister (1971) indicated that <strong>the</strong> principal rock types<br />
underlying Mabira Forest Reserve are granitic gneisses<br />
and granites with overlying series <strong>of</strong> metasediments<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 7
which include schist’s, phyllites, quartzites and<br />
amphibolites. The gneisses and granites are generally<br />
fairly uniform and give rise to little variation in resistance<br />
to soil erosion o<strong>the</strong>r than along joints and fracture<br />
planes. Under humid conditions, granitic rocks are very<br />
liable to chemical decomposition and, in most parts <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> area, <strong>the</strong> rocks are now wea<strong>the</strong>red to a considerable<br />
depth. The overlying metasediments, by contrast, are<br />
heterogeneous and include hard resistant bands <strong>of</strong><br />
quartzite and, to a lesser extent, amphibolite, alternating<br />
with s<strong>of</strong>t, easily eroded schist’s.<br />
Soils<br />
The soils in <strong>the</strong> forest reserve are strongly influenced<br />
by <strong>the</strong> local topography. The forest lies on <strong>the</strong> Buganda<br />
catena which comprises <strong>of</strong> red soils with incipient<br />
laterisation? on <strong>the</strong> slopes and black clay soils in <strong>the</strong><br />
valley bottoms. There are four principal members <strong>of</strong><br />
this catena which are described as follows, starting with<br />
those at <strong>the</strong> highest altitude:<br />
a. Shallow Lithosols <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> highest ridge crests<br />
8<br />
consisting <strong>of</strong> grey and grey brown sandy loams<br />
overlying brashy, yellowish or reddish brown<br />
loam with laterite or quartzite fragments and<br />
boulders.<br />
b. Red Earths (Red Latosols) which cover most<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> land surface and are strikingly apparent<br />
in <strong>the</strong> large conical termitaria dotting a ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />
monotonously green landscape. The soil pr<strong>of</strong>ile<br />
consists <strong>of</strong> up to 30 cm <strong>of</strong> brown sandy or clay<br />
loam overlying uniform orange-red clay to a<br />
depth <strong>of</strong> 3 m or more.<br />
c. Grey Sandy Soils appearing at <strong>the</strong> base <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
slopes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> catena <strong>the</strong>se may be derived from<br />
hill-wash or river alluvium. Underlying <strong>the</strong> sandy<br />
topsoils are fine sandy clays <strong>of</strong> a very pale grey<br />
colour mottled to orange brown.<br />
d. Grey clay usually water logged and occupied by<br />
papyrus stand at <strong>the</strong> base <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> catena. Below<br />
this are sandy and even pebbly clays. Despite<br />
<strong>the</strong> waterlogged condition for most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> year,<br />
surface peat accumulation is rarely more than a<br />
few inches thick. The last two members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
catena are very acid in reaction (pH 3.8 – 4.8) and<br />
are deficient in all plant nutrients except sulphur<br />
and magnesium.<br />
Due to <strong>the</strong> wea<strong>the</strong>ring, <strong>the</strong> soils are not so fertile and<br />
<strong>the</strong> fertility that is <strong>the</strong>re is because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forest litter<br />
that decomposes and releases nutrients. However, <strong>the</strong><br />
cutting away <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forest will result into fur<strong>the</strong>r soil<br />
degradation because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forest cover<br />
and subsequent loss <strong>of</strong> litter. It will also lead to quicker<br />
leaching <strong>of</strong> nutrients and higher soil erosion levels.<br />
2.3. PLANTS<br />
Three hunded sixty five plant species are known to occur<br />
in Mabira forest as recorded by Howard & Davenport<br />
(1996) and Ssegawa (2006). Of <strong>the</strong> species recorded in this<br />
reserve, nine are uncommon and have been recorded<br />
from not more than five <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 65 main forest reserves in<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong> (Howard & Davenport, 1996). Trees and shrubs<br />
recorded in Mabira but not previously known in <strong>the</strong><br />
floral region include Acacia hecatophylla, Aeglopsis<br />
eggelingii, Alangium chinense, Albizia glaberrima,<br />
Aningeria adolfi-friederici, Bequaertiodendron<br />
oblanceolatum, Cassipourea congensis, Celtis adolfi-<br />
fridericii, Chrysophyllum gorungosanum, Dombeya<br />
goetzenii, Drypetes bipindensis, Elaeis guineensis,<br />
Elaeophorbia drupfera, Ficus dicranostyla, Khaya<br />
antho<strong>the</strong>ca, Lannea barteri, Manilkara multinervis,<br />
Musanga cecropioides,Myrianthus holstii, Neoboutonia<br />
macrocalyx, Rawsonia lucida, Rhus ruspolii, Rinorea<br />
beniensis, Schrebera alata, Tapura fischeri and Warburgia<br />
ugandensis. Restricted-range trees and shrubs recorded<br />
from Mabira include Caesalpinia volkensii, Antrocaryon<br />
micraster, Chrysophyllum delevoyi, Elaeis guineensis,<br />
Lecaniodiscus fraxinfolius, Tricalysia bagshawei,<br />
Chrysophyllum perpulchrum, Ficus lingua and Picralima<br />
nitida. The Mahogany species namely, Entandrophrama<br />
cylindricum, Entandrophragma angolense and Khaya<br />
antho<strong>the</strong>ca are listed as globally threatened species<br />
(IUCN, 2000). O<strong>the</strong>rs include Hallea stipulosa, Lovoa<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
swynnertonii and Milicia excelsa. The species that are<br />
known to occur in Mabira forest are given in Table A1.<br />
2.4. BIRDS<br />
Mabira Forest Reserve is an Important Bird Area<br />
(Byaruhanga et al 2001), globally recognized as an<br />
important site for conservation <strong>of</strong> biodiversity (key<br />
biodiversity area) using birds as indicators. Over 300<br />
species <strong>of</strong> birds is known to occur in Mabira forest with<br />
one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> highest diversity <strong>of</strong> species in <strong>Uganda</strong>. It is<br />
<strong>the</strong> biggest block <strong>of</strong> forest in central <strong>Uganda</strong> which<br />
makes Mabira Forest a refugium <strong>of</strong> species that existed<br />
in central <strong>Uganda</strong> forests. Forty-eight per cent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se<br />
are forest dependent representing 45% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
total. Nahan’s Francolin (Francolinus nahani) is a globally<br />
endangered species occurring only in Mabira in central<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong>. O<strong>the</strong>r globally threatened species include Blue<br />
Swallow (Hirundo atrocaerrulea, Grey Parrot (Psittacus<br />
erithacus) and Hooded Vulture (Necrosyrtes monanchus<br />
listed as globally Vulnerable. Also listed are Papyrus<br />
Gonolek (Laniarius mufumbiri) a ‘near-threatened’<br />
species.<br />
Mabira Forest Reserve supports a rich avifauna <strong>of</strong><br />
significant conservation value. O<strong>the</strong>r regionally<br />
threatened species include Brown Snake-Eagle<br />
(Circaetus cinereus), Crowned Eagle (Stephanoaetus<br />
coronatus), White-headed Saw-wing (Psalidoprocne<br />
albiceps), Toro Olive Greenbul (Phyllastrephus<br />
hypochloris), and Green-tailed Bristlebill (Bleda eximia).<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> species are known to occur in Mabira that<br />
are o<strong>the</strong>rwise associated with different regions and<br />
altitudes. Their presence can possibly be explained by<br />
<strong>the</strong> fact that Mabira may have been connected to <strong>the</strong><br />
refugium forest once forming part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> extensive<br />
forest that existed across East Africa, now isolated since<br />
its retreat. Tit Hylia (Philodornis rushiae) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> race denti<br />
is a West African species and is only known in East Africa<br />
from two specimens, both collected in Mabira (Britton,<br />
1981). Purple-throated Cuckoo Shrike (Camphephaga<br />
quiscalina) is also known from West Africa where it<br />
is uncommon. It is known in East Africa in scattered<br />
locations where it is generally found in high altitude<br />
sites. In <strong>Uganda</strong> it is also known from lower altitude<br />
sites such as Mabira and Sango Bay Forest Reserves.<br />
Two species, Fine-banded Woodpecker (Campe<strong>the</strong>ra<br />
tulibergi) and Grey Apalis (Apalis cinerea) recorded in<br />
Mabira are normally restricted to high altitude areas.<br />
Mabira is a particularly valuable forest for lowland forest<br />
species sharing many rare species with o<strong>the</strong>r lowland<br />
forests in <strong>Uganda</strong> such as Semliki National Park and<br />
Sango Bay Forest Reserve. Examples <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se include<br />
White-bellied Kingfisher (Alcedo leucogaster), Blue-<br />
headed Crested -Flycatcher (Trochocercus nitens).<br />
Restricted-range birds recorded from Mabira include<br />
Little Bittern (Ixobrychus minutus), Banded Snake Eagle<br />
(Circaetus cinerascens), African Hawk Eagle (Hieraaetus<br />
spilogaster), Gabar Goshawk (Micronisus gabar),<br />
Nahan’s Francolin(Francolinus nahani), Allen’s Gallinule<br />
(Porphyrio alleni), Caspian Plover(Charadrius asiaticus),<br />
European Cuckoo(Cuculus canorus), Madagascar Lesser<br />
Cuckoo(Cuculus rochii), Cassin’s Spinetail(Neafrapus<br />
cassini), White-bellied Kingfisher(Alcedo leucogaster),<br />
African Dwarf Kingfisher (Ispidina lecontei), Blue-<br />
cheeked Bee-eater (Merops persicus), Eurasian Roller<br />
(Coracias garrulous), Little SpottedWoodpecker<br />
(Campe<strong>the</strong>ra cailliautii), Bearded Woodpecker<br />
(Dendropicos namaquus), Blue Swallow(Hirundo<br />
atrocaerulea), Banded Martin (Riparia cincta), African<br />
Penduline Tit (Anthoscopus caroli), Purple-throated<br />
Cuckoo-Shrike (Campephaga quiscalina), Leaflove<br />
(Pyrrhurus scandens), Isabelline Wheatear (Oenan<strong>the</strong><br />
isabellina), Black-capped Apalis (Apalis nigriceps),<br />
White-winged Warbler (Bradypterus carpalis), Carru<strong>the</strong>rs’<br />
Cisticola (Cisticola carru<strong>the</strong>rsi), Stout Cisticola (Cisticola<br />
robustus), Trilling Cisticola(Cisticola woosnami), Grey<br />
Longbill (Macrosphenus concolor), Yellow Longbill<br />
(Macrosphenus flavicans), Tit Hylia (Pholidornis rushiae),<br />
Wood Warbler (Phylloscopus sibilatrix), Blue-headed<br />
Crested Flycatcher (Trochocercus nitens), Plain-backed<br />
Pipit(Anthus leucophrys), Papyrus Gonolek (Laniarius<br />
mufumbiri), Woodchat Shrike(Lanius senator),<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 9
Wattled Starling(Creatophora cinerea), Red-chested<br />
Sunbird(Cinnyris erythrocerca)<br />
2.5. MAMMALS<br />
A total <strong>of</strong> fifty (50) large and small mammal species<br />
are known to occur in Mabira Forest Reserve. A high<br />
proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> species list are forest-dependent,<br />
and includes Deomys ferrugineus and Scutisorex<br />
somereni, closed forest-dependent specalists <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
regarded as two <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most sensitive indicators <strong>of</strong> forest<br />
disturbance. The <strong>Uganda</strong>n endemic shrew Crocidura<br />
selina, only previously recorded from Mabira Forest<br />
(Nicoll and Rathbun, 1990) has not been recorded since<br />
but has been recorded in o<strong>the</strong>r forests. Species with high<br />
conservation value include Crocidura maurisca and<br />
Casinycteris argynnis – a new record for Mabira forest.<br />
O<strong>the</strong>rs protected under <strong>the</strong> CITES include Red-tailed<br />
Monkey (Cercopi<strong>the</strong>cus ascanius), Potto (Perodictictus<br />
potto), Galago (Galago senegalensis), Leopard (Pan<strong>the</strong>ra<br />
pardus), Grey Cheeked Mangabey (Cercocebus abigena)<br />
and Baboons (Papio anubis).<br />
2.6. AMPHIBIANS<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> common amphibian species are associated<br />
with permanent wetlands, rivers or water points. Species<br />
<strong>of</strong> genera Afrana, Hyperolius, Xenopus, Hoplobatrachus<br />
and Afrixalus seem to select habitats with water all year<br />
round. The commonest species were members <strong>of</strong> family<br />
Hyperoliidae. Members <strong>of</strong> family Ranidae were also<br />
found to be common.<br />
The most common species <strong>of</strong> family Hyperoliidae<br />
are generally associated with permanent water<br />
sources. Members <strong>of</strong> genera Xenopus, Afrana and<br />
Hoplobatrachus were also quite common. Members <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>se genera are commonly found near water, more so<br />
for <strong>the</strong> bullfrog, which only gets out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> water to feed.<br />
Afrana angolensis is a riverine species found mainly<br />
along rivers and this was encountered along rivers in<br />
Mabira Forest Reserve (Table A4). One member <strong>of</strong> family<br />
Arthroleptidae, Artholeptis adolfifriederici is a new<br />
record for Mabira Forest Reserve.<br />
10<br />
2.7. REPTILES<br />
Mabira Central Forest Reserve has a variety <strong>of</strong> reptiles.<br />
More than 23 species <strong>of</strong> reptiles have been identified in<br />
<strong>the</strong> reserve. Reptiles are highly mobile and live in a range<br />
<strong>of</strong> habitats. They may be encountered in aquatic, bush,<br />
forest, rocky or riverine terrain. The tolerance <strong>of</strong> reptiles<br />
to a range <strong>of</strong> habitat types explains <strong>the</strong> large diversity<br />
<strong>of</strong> reptile species in <strong>the</strong> forest reserve.The key reptiles<br />
in <strong>the</strong> reserve however, include chameleons, geckos,<br />
forest and nile monitor lizards, skinks, snakes including<br />
tree and house snakes, pythons, cobras, mambas, puff<br />
adders and vipers. A list <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> key reptile species in<br />
<strong>the</strong> forest reserve toge<strong>the</strong>r with an indication <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
respective conservation status is included in Table A5 in<br />
<strong>the</strong> annex.<br />
2.8. BUTTERFLIES<br />
A total <strong>of</strong> 199 species <strong>of</strong> butterflies is known to occur<br />
in Mabira forest. Nine (9) Papilioidae, twenty four (24)<br />
Pieridae, twenty five (25) Lycaenidae, one hundred<br />
and twenty eight (128) Nymphalidae aud thirteen (13)<br />
Hesperiidae. A relatively high proportion (73 percent) <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> total were forest-dependent butterflies. Details <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> species taken from each family, and each<br />
subfamily in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Papilionidae, Pieridae and<br />
Nymphalidae, are provided in Table 2.<br />
It can be seen that <strong>the</strong> reserve supports at least 16 percent<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>’s Rhopaloceran fauna, including 24 percent<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country’s Pieridae, 29 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nymphalidae<br />
and 38 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subfamily Charaxinae (Howard<br />
& Davenport, 1996). Of <strong>the</strong> species registered, those<br />
<strong>of</strong> particular interest included Sallya natalensis a new<br />
record for <strong>Uganda</strong> (Howard & Davenport, 1996). This<br />
butterfly is a migratory insect so unusual distribution<br />
records are not too surprising, however, its previous<br />
known range was from Natal to parts <strong>of</strong> Kenya (Larsen,<br />
1991). Charaxes boueti, meanwhile, a member <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> more commonly studied subfamilies, represents a<br />
new record for this forest (Howard & Davenport, 1996):<br />
one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> few areas in <strong>the</strong> country which have been<br />
comparatively well investigated for <strong>the</strong>ir Rhopaloceran<br />
fauna.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
At least two sub-species endemic to <strong>Uganda</strong> were<br />
registered, Tanue<strong>the</strong>ira timon orientius; <strong>Uganda</strong>n<br />
forests being <strong>the</strong> eastern limit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> species’ range and<br />
Acraea lycoa entebbia, known only from central and<br />
eastern <strong>Uganda</strong>. Acraea agan ice ugandae, meanwhile,<br />
an uncommon butterfly is restricted to <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
shoreline <strong>of</strong> Lake Victoria (Howard & Davenport, 1996).<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r species <strong>of</strong> limited range include <strong>the</strong> skipper<br />
Ceratrichia mabirensis (Mabira being <strong>the</strong> Type Locality)<br />
with a patchy distribution, limited to parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>,<br />
Tanzania and western Kenya (Larsen, 1991), and<br />
Pseudathyma plutonica a scarce insect ranging from<br />
eastern Democratic Republic <strong>of</strong> Congo (DRC) to western<br />
Kenya. Moreover, Fseudacraea clarki, a comparatively<br />
large and conspicuous butterfly has records from<br />
Cameroon to Gabon and West Kenya, although Larsen<br />
(1991) maintains its absence from <strong>the</strong> latter. It is certainly<br />
not a common insect in East Africa.<br />
Mabira Forest Reserve may be considered rich in terms<br />
<strong>of</strong> its butterfly fauna, supporting a high percentage <strong>of</strong><br />
forest-dependent butterflies, as well as a number <strong>of</strong><br />
uncommon and restricted-range species (Howard &<br />
Davenport, 1996). Despite a recent history <strong>of</strong> intensive<br />
human disturbance in this forest (as reflected by <strong>the</strong><br />
fact that almost a quarter <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> species recorded are<br />
associated with forest edge and woodland habitats), <strong>the</strong><br />
butterfly fauna has shown marked resilience (Howard &<br />
Davenport, 1996). Two species <strong>of</strong> Nymphalidae Acraea<br />
rogersi and Bicyclus mesogena, both reliant on dense,<br />
undisturbed forest demonstrate <strong>the</strong> environmental<br />
flexibility <strong>of</strong> some invertebrate communities (Howard &<br />
Davenport, 1996).<br />
Table 2: Species numbers recorded in Mabira from each family and from Papilionidae, Pieridae and<br />
Nymphalidae subfamilies<br />
Family <strong>Uganda</strong> Forest % <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
Subfamily Total Total Total<br />
Papilionidae 31 9 29<br />
Papilioninae 31 9 29<br />
Pieridae 100 24 24<br />
Coliadinae 10 3 30<br />
Pierinae 90 21 23<br />
Lycaenidae 460 25 5<br />
Nymphalidae 447 128 29<br />
Danainae 13 7 54<br />
Satyrinae 71 20 28<br />
Charaxinae 65 25 38<br />
Apaturinae 1 1 100<br />
Nymphalinae 195 50 26<br />
Acraeinae 101 24 24<br />
Liby<strong>the</strong>inae 1 1 100<br />
Hesperiidae 207 13 6<br />
TOTAL 1245 199 16<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 11
Restricted-range butterflies recorded from Mabira<br />
include Belenois victoria Victoria White, Dixeia charina<br />
African Small White, Epitola catuna, Lachnocnema<br />
bibulus Woolly Legs, Tanue<strong>the</strong>ira timon, Cacyreus<br />
audeoudi Audeoud’s Bush Blue, Amauris hecate Dusky<br />
Danaid, Charaxes port hos, Charaxes pythodoris Powder<br />
Blue Charaxes, Palla ussheri, Apaturopsis clenchares<br />
Painted Empress, Euryphura albimargo, Euryphura<br />
chalcis, Pseudathyma plutonica, Pseudacraea clarki,<br />
12<br />
Neptis trigonophora, Sallya natalensis Natal Tree<br />
Nymph, Hypolimnas dubius Variable Diadem, Acraea<br />
aganice Wanderer, Acraea rogersi Rogers’ Acraea,<br />
Acraea semivitrea, Acraea tellus, Celaenorrhinus bettoni,<br />
Celaenorrhinus proxima, Gomalia elma African Mallow<br />
Skipper, Ceratrichia mabirensis, and Caenides dacena.<br />
The list <strong>of</strong> known butterflies <strong>of</strong> Mabira forest are given<br />
in Table A6.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
3.0. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE<br />
SUGAR SECTOR IN UGANDA<br />
3.1. GLOBAL SUGAR PRODUCTION<br />
TRENDS<br />
More than 130 countries produce sugar world wide. Of<br />
<strong>the</strong>se, 66 percent process <strong>the</strong>ir sugar from sugarcane.<br />
The rest produce sugar from sugar beet. Sugarcane<br />
primarily grows in <strong>the</strong> tropical and sub-tropical zones<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn hemisphere, while sugar beet is<br />
largely grown in <strong>the</strong> temperate zones <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
hemisphere (ED&F Man, 2004). Prior to 1990, about 40<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> sugar was made from beet but sugarcane<br />
production has grown more rapidly over <strong>the</strong> last two<br />
decades because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lower costs associated with its<br />
production.<br />
The top seven sugar producing countries in <strong>the</strong> world<br />
include Brazil, India, <strong>the</strong> European Union, China,<br />
Thailand, South Africa and Mauritius. The above seven<br />
countries produce up to sixty (60) percent <strong>of</strong> total global<br />
output (USDA, 2006). Projections indicate increased<br />
sugar production in 2006/07 due to higher production<br />
in Brazil, India, China and Thailand. Production in <strong>the</strong><br />
EU was expected to decline by 5 million tonnes, from<br />
21.8 million metric tonnes to 16.8 million metric tonnes<br />
(USDA, 2007).<br />
Over seventy (70) percent <strong>of</strong> global sugar production<br />
is consumed in <strong>the</strong> country <strong>of</strong> origin, implying that<br />
only thirty (30) percent is traded in <strong>the</strong> world sugar<br />
market (ED&F Man, 2004). As indicated in Table 3, world<br />
consumption <strong>of</strong> sugar was higher than production for<br />
2005 and 2006 (Table 3). Africa, Asia, Greater Europe<br />
(outside EU) and North America were <strong>the</strong> regions<br />
with <strong>the</strong> largest sugar deficit (Table 3). In Africa, <strong>the</strong><br />
deficit was 2.8 and 2.7 million tonnes in 2005 and 2006<br />
respectively (FAO, 2006). More than 60 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
global consumption <strong>of</strong> sugar takes place in developing<br />
countries, with China and India leading <strong>the</strong> way. In<br />
addition, it is <strong>the</strong> developing countries particularly in<br />
Asia, which are expected to be <strong>the</strong> primary source <strong>of</strong><br />
future demand growth (Sserunkuma and Kimera, 2006).<br />
Table 3: World production and consumption <strong>of</strong> sugar (million tonnes, raw value)<br />
World’s Regions<br />
Production<br />
2005 2006<br />
Consumption<br />
2005 2006<br />
World 145.2 149.7 147.2 149.9<br />
Developing countries 101.9 106.9 99.5 102.0<br />
Latin America and <strong>the</strong> Caribbean 50.5 49.9 26.5 27.1<br />
Africa 5.3 5.6 8.1 8.3<br />
Near East 7.7 7.7 11.1 11.5<br />
Far East 38.1 43.4 53.6 55.1<br />
Oceania 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1<br />
Developed countries 43.3 42.8 47.7 47.9<br />
Europe, <strong>of</strong> which: 27.2 26.8 29.8 29.9<br />
European Union (25) 22.1 21.3 18.1 18.1<br />
Eastern Europe in Europe) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1<br />
North America 7.4 7.1 10.4 10.5<br />
Oceania 5.4 5.4 1.4 1.4<br />
O<strong>the</strong>rs 3.3 3.6 6.0 6.1<br />
Source: FAO (2006)<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 13
The demand for sugar has also been growing in <strong>the</strong><br />
eastern Africa region. In order to achieve growth targets<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore, <strong>the</strong> sugar industry has been classified as<br />
a sensitive industry that requires effective safeguard<br />
measures (Serunkuma and Kimera, 2006). In Kenya, <strong>the</strong><br />
area under sugarcane was 151,014 hectares by <strong>the</strong> end<br />
<strong>of</strong> 2006 and <strong>the</strong> average yield was 71.46 mts/ha. The<br />
amount <strong>of</strong> cane crushed was 4,850,333 mts. The amount<br />
<strong>of</strong> sugar produced by Kenyan sugar factories was<br />
475,669 mts. In 2006, production fur<strong>the</strong>r declined to 475<br />
653 mts against a demand <strong>of</strong> 718,396 mts (Kenya Sugar<br />
Board in <strong>the</strong> East African Standard, 2007). In Tanzania,<br />
<strong>the</strong> annual sugar production was about 115,000 tonnes,<br />
while <strong>the</strong> demand <strong>of</strong> sugar is estimated at 300,000<br />
tonnes. As such, Tanzania imports about 200,000 tonnes<br />
per annum to <strong>of</strong>fset <strong>the</strong> shortfall (Tanzania Ministry <strong>of</strong><br />
Agriculture, Food and Cooperatives, 2007).<br />
3.2 HISTORY OF THE SUGAR INDUSTRY IN<br />
14<br />
UGANDA<br />
Sugarcane production in <strong>Uganda</strong> dates back to 1924<br />
when <strong>the</strong> first sugar factory was established in <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
and East Africa. The factory was <strong>the</strong>n known as <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
Sugar Factory Limited. The factory has since changed<br />
to <strong>the</strong> Sugar Corporation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> Limited (SCOUL)<br />
(Serunkuma and Kimera, 2006). The Sugar Corporation<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> Limited was established by <strong>the</strong> late Najir<br />
Kalidas Mehta who came to <strong>Uganda</strong> from India in 1901.<br />
The second sugar factory opened at Kakira in 1930. It<br />
was started by <strong>the</strong> late Muljibhai Madhvani who also<br />
came to <strong>Uganda</strong> from India in 1908. Two o<strong>the</strong>r sugar<br />
establishments were made at Sango Bay in Rakai District<br />
and at Kinyara in Masindi District. Sugar production at<br />
Sango Bay started in 1972 but was shut down in 1973<br />
following <strong>the</strong> expulsion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Asian owners during<br />
<strong>the</strong> Idi Amin government. The National Sugar Works in<br />
Kinyara near Masindi (Kinyara Sugar Works) was initiated<br />
in <strong>the</strong> 1960s and implemented in <strong>the</strong> early 1970s.<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong> has good physical attributes for <strong>the</strong> successful<br />
production <strong>of</strong> sugar. Peak production reached 152,000<br />
mts in 1968, and by 1969, <strong>Uganda</strong> was able to export<br />
about 48,000 mts <strong>of</strong> sugar. In <strong>the</strong> 1950s and 1960s, with<br />
just SCOUL and Kakira Sugar Works, <strong>Uganda</strong> was one <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> world leaders in <strong>the</strong> sugar industry with production<br />
at a tune <strong>of</strong> 140,000 mts <strong>of</strong> sugar per year. For example,<br />
about 20,000 mts <strong>of</strong> sugar/year were exported to <strong>the</strong><br />
United States <strong>of</strong> America and regionally to neighbouring<br />
countries. <strong>Uganda</strong>’s premier position in <strong>the</strong> sugar sector<br />
declined following <strong>the</strong> <strong>economic</strong> and political upheavals<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Amin and Obote II regimes. Sugar production<br />
actually plummeted to almost zero by 1983. Sugar<br />
estates were abandoned, machinery fell into disrepair,or<br />
were looted, and <strong>the</strong> physical and social infrastructure<br />
deteriorated (AfDB, 2002). The country became entirely<br />
dependent on imported sugar. The sector has however<br />
partly recovered following <strong>the</strong> return <strong>of</strong> Asians in <strong>the</strong><br />
mid 1980s. In 1988, <strong>the</strong> Mehta Group repossessed and<br />
commissioned <strong>the</strong> rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SCOUL factory<br />
in Lugazi. Between 1985 and 1995 Kakira Sugar Works<br />
1985 Ltd underwent rehabilitation and Kinyara Sugar<br />
Works was rehabilitated between 1986 and 1996 1 .<br />
The Economic Recovery Program initiated in 1987 and<br />
<strong>the</strong> Structural Adjustment Programme <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> early<br />
1990s promoted <strong>the</strong> rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> agricultural<br />
sector, including <strong>the</strong> sugar industry. The rehabilitation<br />
in <strong>the</strong> sugar industry looked at <strong>the</strong> rehabilitation <strong>of</strong><br />
sugarcane yields <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nucleus plantation; e<strong>valuation</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
current systems and methods <strong>of</strong> sugarcane production<br />
and set up methods and means to achieve production<br />
<strong>of</strong> sugarcane at minimum costs. It also examed advice<br />
on options for <strong>the</strong> diversification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> industry and <strong>the</strong><br />
institutional and legislative requirements to improve<br />
management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> industry.<br />
The sugar industry employs about 21,749 persons<br />
on a permanent, contract and casual labour basis. Of<br />
<strong>the</strong>se eighty to ninety (80–90) percent are members<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> National Union <strong>of</strong> Plantation Workers <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
(NUPAWU) (<strong>Uganda</strong> Land Coalition, 2006). In addition,<br />
<strong>the</strong> sugar industry engages approximately 40,000<br />
1 Between 1985 and 1988, <strong>the</strong>re was no sugar production<br />
as all factories were under rehabilitation<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
workers, when both direct and indirect employment<br />
are considered, including out-grower farmers (Fashoyin<br />
et al., 2004). The total sugarcane production increased<br />
from 2002 to 2003 and 2003 to 2004 (Table 4) by nearly<br />
six percent and nine percent, respectively but declined<br />
by two and a half percent from 2004 to 2005 (FAO,<br />
2007). By late 2005, <strong>Uganda</strong> had three operational<br />
sugar factories SCOUL, Kakira Sugar Works (1985) Ltd,<br />
and Kinyara Sugar Works Ltd. In <strong>the</strong> second half <strong>of</strong> 2006,<br />
a new company known as G.M. Sugar Limited, located<br />
at Nakibizzi in Mukono District, emerged as <strong>the</strong> fourth<br />
local sugar factory. Unlike <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r three operators,<br />
this fourth factory does not have a nucleus sugarcane<br />
plantation. Instead G.M. Sugar Limited buys all its<br />
sugarcane from out-growers.<br />
Table 4: <strong>Uganda</strong> Sugar and Sugar Crops production between 2002 and 2005<br />
2002 2003 2004 2005<br />
Production quantity (000 tonnes) 1,877.62 1,995.08 2,202.88 2,149.67<br />
Increased sugarcane production (%) -- 5.89 9.43 -2.48<br />
Import quantity (000 tonnes) 82.25 60.17 88.18 180.01<br />
Export quantity (000 tonnes) 5.14 0.82 15.19 95.64<br />
Food consumption quantity (000 tonnes) 1,229.01 1,329.09 1,428.97 1,554.54<br />
Source: FAO (2007)<br />
Table 6: Sugarcane yield in <strong>Uganda</strong>’s sugar factory nucleus estate<br />
Cane yield<br />
(Tonnes/ha)<br />
Average Age <strong>of</strong><br />
Cane harvested<br />
(Months)<br />
Kakira Sugar Works 108.9 18.94 5.69<br />
Kinyara Sugar Works 89.9 18.7 4.78<br />
Sugar Corporation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> Ltd 83.3 18.1 4.64<br />
Source: (USCTA, 2003)<br />
Cane Productivity<br />
(Tonnes/ ha /m)<br />
Though yields remain low, short-term projections indicate anticipated growth in cane production for <strong>the</strong> three sugar<br />
plantations as indicated below:<br />
3.3 SUGAR PRODUCTION AND<br />
CONSUMPTION TRENDS IN UGANDA<br />
Three issues influence productivity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sugar sector in<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong>. They include yield per hectare, sugar recovery<br />
ratios and import export demand. Cane productivity in<br />
Ugnada may be ranked medium to low. Nucleus estate<br />
yields are normally higher than outgrower yields due<br />
to better agronomic practices. Typical nucleus estate<br />
yields range between 83.3 tonnes per hectare at Sugar<br />
Corporation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> Limited (Table 6), 89.9 mts per<br />
hectare at Kinyara Sugar Works to 108.9 tonnes per<br />
hectare at Kakira Sugar Works (Isingoma, 2004). Cane<br />
yields <strong>of</strong> 120 mts per hectare are however, achievable<br />
at nucleus estates (AfDB, 2002). The major factors<br />
influencing yield include rain and irrigation, <strong>the</strong> later<br />
being very underdeveloped.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 15
Table 7: Projected sugarcane production<br />
Sugar factories<br />
16<br />
Projected Sugarcane production<br />
2003 2004 2005<br />
(tonnes) % (tones) % (tonnes) %<br />
Kakira Sugar Works 980,854 49 1,067,417 46 1,235,955 47<br />
Kinyara Sugar Works 560,406 28 666,217 29 683,813 26<br />
Sugar Corporation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> Ltd 456,141 23 600,000 26 700,000 27<br />
Total Projection 1,997,401 100 2,333,687 100 2,619,768 100<br />
Adapted from: (USCTA, 2003)<br />
The average sugar recovery ratios are also low. Kinyara<br />
has <strong>the</strong> highest standing at 9.6 percent compared to<br />
Kakira’s 8.9 percent and SCOUL’s 8.4 percent. Following<br />
a crop improvement campaign, Kinyara improved its<br />
cane to sugar ratio to 10 percent in <strong>the</strong> financial year<br />
2004/05. The same campaign helped Kinyara to surpass<br />
its production target <strong>of</strong> 64,000 tonnes <strong>of</strong> sugar per year<br />
by 958 tonnes and to upgrade to a new production<br />
target <strong>of</strong> 93,000 tonnes per year for 2008. Although <strong>the</strong><br />
outgrower contribution also increased to eight hundred<br />
farmers (800), sugar producers remained wary <strong>of</strong> cheap<br />
imported sugar, which makes competition a nightmare.<br />
They also complained <strong>of</strong> a poor road network and argued<br />
that it made <strong>the</strong> expansion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> outgrower scheme<br />
very difficult. Similar issues were raised at both Kakira<br />
Sugar Works and at <strong>the</strong> Sugar Corporation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
Limited. Both factories however, suffered production<br />
short falls. The shortfalls were fur<strong>the</strong>r exercebated by<br />
<strong>the</strong> low cane to sugar conversion ratios.<br />
3.4. PERFORMANCE OF UGANDA’S<br />
SUGAR SECTOR<br />
Kakira Sugar Works Limited is <strong>the</strong> largest sugar factory<br />
in <strong>Uganda</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> yield and output. The company<br />
accounts for forty two (42) percent <strong>of</strong> overall national<br />
output and operates a nucleus estate <strong>of</strong> 12 000 hectares.<br />
The estate benefited from a contentious takeover <strong>of</strong><br />
1,200 hectares that were previously part <strong>of</strong> Butamira<br />
Central Forest Reserve 2 . The company also services up<br />
to 10,000 hectares <strong>of</strong> out-grower contract production.<br />
A systematic expansion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SCOUL nucleus plantation<br />
increased cultivable land by thirty three (33) percent<br />
from 9,000 to 12,000 hectares. In October 2006, RAI<br />
Holdings, a Kenyan consortium, paid Ush62 billion<br />
($33.5 million) for a fifty one (51) percent stake in Kinyara<br />
Sugar Works Limited 3 (KSWL) (New Vision Newspaper,<br />
2006). Kinyara Sugar Works factory produces more<br />
than 50,000 tonnes <strong>of</strong> sugar per year from over 500,000<br />
mts <strong>of</strong> sugarcane. The company collaborates with over<br />
800 outgrower farmers operating over 4,600 hectares<br />
<strong>of</strong> cane plantation. Among <strong>the</strong> three sugar factories,<br />
Kakira Sugar Works has <strong>the</strong> largest nucleus estate and<br />
cane output. SCOUL has <strong>the</strong> lowest output (Table 5).<br />
The overall sugar production output from <strong>the</strong> three<br />
factories was 198,000 metric tones. This fell short <strong>of</strong> total<br />
annual demand currently put at 240,000 metric tones by<br />
over 40,000 metric tonnes (East African, 2007).<br />
2 The land use in Butamira CFR changed to permanent<br />
agriculture. The move triggered a law suit by a civil society group. While<br />
<strong>the</strong> group won <strong>the</strong> case, it would appear this was a pyrrhic victory.<br />
3 10 % <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> shares in Kinyara Sugar Works were <strong>of</strong>fer to <strong>the</strong><br />
out-growers <strong>of</strong> Kinyara Sugar Works, ano<strong>the</strong>r 10 % to <strong>the</strong> Bunyoro Kitara<br />
Kingdom and 30 percnet <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> shares are to be traded to <strong>the</strong> public on <strong>the</strong><br />
Kampala Stock Exchange<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Table 5: Sugar Companies and Production in <strong>Uganda</strong> at a glance<br />
Company SCOUL Kakira Kinyara<br />
Location Lugazi; Mukono District<br />
Ownership<br />
Mehta Family (76%)<br />
GoU (24%)<br />
Kakira, Jinja<br />
Distict<br />
East African<br />
Holdings<br />
(100%)<br />
Area 15,000 ha 22,000 ha 11,000 ha<br />
Commissioned 1924 1930 1976<br />
Sugarcane tonnage 480,000 900,000 500,000<br />
Sugar tonnage 44,000 90,000 64,000<br />
Products<br />
Sugar, spirit, vegetables,<br />
and cut flowers<br />
Permanent & contract staff 6,000 2,300 3,900<br />
Casual workers 4,200<br />
Out-growers 700+ 3,600+ 800<br />
Out-grower area (ha) 3,000 10,000 4,600<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
Kinyara, Masindi District<br />
RAI Holdings (51%), Bunyoro Kitara<br />
Kingdom (10%), Kinyara sugar works<br />
out-growers (10%), and public (29%)<br />
Sugar, molasses, spirit<br />
Cane <strong>of</strong> out-growers 160,000 mts/year 200,000 tonnes/year<br />
Primary schools 13 1<br />
Secondary schools 1 1<br />
Health care<br />
Clinic & maternity with<br />
20 beds<br />
Company policy Against child labour<br />
*Conversion sugar (%) 9.1 10 10.91<br />
Source: Sserunkuuma and Kimera (2006) *calculated from existing data<br />
Clinic and maternity-primary health<br />
care only; 2 doctors, midwives and<br />
nurses plus ambulance<br />
17
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettment <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR<br />
___________________________________________________________________________________<br />
4.0. EVALUATION OF DECISION TO<br />
CONVERT MABIRA CFR FOR SUGAR<br />
CANE PRODUCTION<br />
4.0. EVALUATION OF DECISION TO CONVERT MABIRA CFR FOR<br />
SUGARCANE PRODUCTION<br />
4.1 Sugar Production Model for <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
<strong>Uganda</strong>’s sugar industry employs a mixed production model consisting <strong>of</strong> a nucleus sugar<br />
4.1 cane plantation SUGAR PRODUCTION which is MODEL normally FOR owned and production managed and quality by a depending sugar company on <strong>the</strong> soil fertility. and<br />
registered UGANDA and non-registered out-grower farms. The nucleus estate is <strong>of</strong>ten fairly large<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong>’s and supplies sugar industry more than employs 50% a mixed <strong>of</strong> sugarcane production to <strong>the</strong> The mill sugar in companies order to provide secure sugarcane some guarantee <strong>of</strong> a certain<br />
model <strong>of</strong> throughput consisting <strong>of</strong> for a <strong>the</strong> nucleus plant sugar (Figure cane 3). plantation The Sugar quantity Company and acceptable also owns quality a processing from out-growers plant by<br />
which (Serunkuma is normally and owned Kimera, and managed 2006). by For a sugar a farmer <strong>the</strong> to provision become <strong>of</strong> an standard out-grower land preparation, he has to seedlings, be<br />
company registered and at registered <strong>the</strong> out and grower non-registered Department out- <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> agrochemicals, Company. supervising The successful production applicant and technical<br />
receives a quota <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> expected production and<br />
grower farms. The nucleus estate is <strong>of</strong>ten fairly large assistance quality depending to all out-growers. on <strong>the</strong> The soil supporting fertility. service<br />
and supplies more than 50% <strong>of</strong> sugarcane to <strong>the</strong> mill costs are deducted from <strong>the</strong> total price to be paid to<br />
The sugar companies secure sugarcane <strong>of</strong> a certain quantity and acceptable quality from<br />
in order to provide some guarantee <strong>of</strong> throughput for small farmers at <strong>the</strong> harvest time. With <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong><br />
out-growers by <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> standard land preparation, seedlings, agrochemicals,<br />
<strong>the</strong> plant (Figure 3). The Sugar Company also owns a follow up on extension, farm practices and cane quality;<br />
supervising production and technical assistance to all out-growers. The supporting<br />
processing plant (Serunkuma and Kimera, 2006). For a it is envisaged that <strong>the</strong> sugar processing companies are<br />
service costs are deducted from <strong>the</strong> total price to be paid to small farmers at <strong>the</strong> harvest<br />
farmer time. to become With <strong>the</strong> an out-grower level <strong>of</strong> follow he has to up be registered on extension, able farm to establish practices production and conditions cane quality; on <strong>the</strong> registered it is<br />
at envisaged <strong>the</strong> out grower that Department <strong>the</strong> sugar <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> processing Company. The companies out-grower are farms able that to are establish identical to <strong>the</strong> production<br />
conditions on<br />
successful conditions applicant on <strong>the</strong> receives registered a quota out-grower <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> expected farms that are identical to <strong>the</strong> conditions on <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir own own nucleus plantation.<br />
Figure Figure 3: 3: Centralised Centralised and and contract contract farming farming model model in sugar in sugar companies companies in <strong>Uganda</strong> in <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
Sugar company nucleus plantation<br />
Source: <strong>Uganda</strong> Land Coalition (2006)<br />
Source: <strong>Uganda</strong> Land Coalition (2006)<br />
Sugar company – <strong>the</strong> sponsor<br />
Company owned sugar factory<br />
Company’s out growers Department<br />
Registered<br />
out growers<br />
Association<br />
Nonregistered<br />
out growers<br />
_____________________________________________________________________ 21<br />
18<br />
The By Economic Yakobo Valuation Moyini, <strong>of</strong> PhD <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
A registered out-grower is a self-employed farmer<br />
usually a smallholder who owns or leases land, and<br />
produces and supplies sugarcane under contract to a<br />
plantation sugar company. The size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> small farmer’s<br />
land varies from a minimum <strong>of</strong> 2 ha to larger farms with<br />
up to 400 hectares or even more. The company retains<br />
exclusive control over purchase and marketing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
out-grower–supplied sugar (Welch, 2004).<br />
The out-growers however, retain <strong>the</strong> risk <strong>of</strong> growing,<br />
harvesting and transporting <strong>the</strong>ir quota <strong>of</strong> cane to <strong>the</strong><br />
sugar mill as per production contract and under <strong>the</strong><br />
company’s supervision. The company engages to buy<br />
<strong>the</strong> estimated quota <strong>of</strong> cane agreed on, to provide<br />
technical advice, help with mechanical land preparation<br />
(bush clearing, ploughing and harrowing), planting<br />
(selection <strong>of</strong> seeds) and training and can, if required,<br />
provide financial aid in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> loans. The company<br />
charges for all <strong>the</strong>se services to <strong>the</strong> out-grower. It<br />
should also be noted that <strong>the</strong>re is ano<strong>the</strong>r category <strong>of</strong><br />
out-growers, <strong>the</strong> non-registered small farmers whose<br />
aggregate supply <strong>of</strong> sugarcane to companies is growing.<br />
These farmers are, however, not guaranteed a market<br />
from <strong>the</strong> companies.<br />
From <strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> land ownership by <strong>the</strong> three<br />
leading sugar production firms; SCOUL’s nucleus estate<br />
represents seventy five (75) percent <strong>of</strong> its total land<br />
compared to fifty nine (59) percent and 54.5 percent<br />
for Kinyara and Kakira, respectively. Kakira has <strong>the</strong><br />
largest combined sugar estate totalling 22,000 hectares<br />
followed by SCOUL totalling 15,000 hectares and Kinyara<br />
totalling 11,000 hectares (Table 8).<br />
The Sugar Corporation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> Limited (SCOUL)<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore has <strong>the</strong> largest nucleus estate and <strong>the</strong><br />
smallest area <strong>of</strong> outsourced cane (from 3,000 ha <strong>of</strong><br />
small outgrowers). SCOUL also utilizes 1,000 hectares<br />
<strong>of</strong> land that is directly leased from private suppliers.<br />
Among <strong>the</strong> three estates, <strong>the</strong>refore, SCOUL obtains only<br />
twenty five (25) percent <strong>of</strong> its cane from outgrowers<br />
compared to forty and forty five percent for Kakira<br />
and Kinyara, respectively. Since <strong>the</strong>y rely a lot more on<br />
<strong>the</strong> cane grown in <strong>the</strong> community, Kakira and Kinyara<br />
have to build strong links with local communities<br />
and authorities. The sugar companies depend on <strong>the</strong><br />
stability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> land tenure system and <strong>the</strong> contracts<br />
<strong>the</strong>y have with farmers. Kinyara has diversified sugarcane<br />
sources and has both large and small scale outgrowers,<br />
and large self funded groups. Kinyara may <strong>the</strong>refore<br />
have <strong>the</strong> most secure sugarcane estate. Both SCOUL<br />
and Kakira have little diverisification and carry <strong>the</strong> risk<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir farmers defecting to o<strong>the</strong>r processors, or as in<br />
<strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> Kakira forming <strong>the</strong>ir own sugar processing<br />
company. In addition, SCOUL still has 6.6 percent <strong>of</strong> its<br />
nucleus estate on private land, and as such relies on <strong>the</strong><br />
land owner’s willingeness to continue under <strong>the</strong> current<br />
arrangements. These conditions precipitate <strong>the</strong> desire<br />
for SCOUL to expand its nucleus estate into <strong>the</strong> forest<br />
reserve.<br />
Table 8: Status <strong>of</strong> land ownership <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>’s sugar factories<br />
Classification <strong>of</strong> land owned<br />
SCOUL<br />
(ha) (%)<br />
Kakira<br />
(ha) (%)<br />
Kinyara<br />
(ha) (%)<br />
Nucleus estate 12,000 75 11,000 54.5 6,400 59<br />
Government <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> lease 1,000 4.5<br />
Private land leases 1000 6.6<br />
Outsourcing 3,000 25 10,000 45.5 4,600 41<br />
Large private estates - 800 7.2<br />
Small out-growers 3,000 25 10,000 45.5 2,400 21.8<br />
Large self-funded 1,400 12.7<br />
Total 15,000 100 22,000 100 11,000 100<br />
Source: Adapted from <strong>Uganda</strong> land coalition (2005); Welch (2004)<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 19
4.2. THE VALUE OF THE SUGAR SECTOR IN<br />
20<br />
UGANDA<br />
The value aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>’s sugar estate may be<br />
classified into three categories including <strong>the</strong> following:<br />
i. reproducible tangible assets including<br />
plantations and <strong>the</strong> improvements made on<br />
<strong>the</strong>m;<br />
ii. non-reproducible tangible assets by type where<br />
land is categorised into: urban land, cultivated<br />
land and o<strong>the</strong>r lands (parks and private gardens);<br />
and<br />
iii. assets not owned such as leased land on which<br />
<strong>the</strong> sugarcane is produced (UN, 1991)<br />
Box 1: Out-growers production and earnings with SCOUL<br />
4.2.1. Value <strong>of</strong> Reproducible Tangible<br />
Assets ( sugarcane)<br />
The gross pr<strong>of</strong>it from sugarcane production for <strong>the</strong><br />
sugar factories cannot be individually disaggregated<br />
from value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sugar and o<strong>the</strong>r by-products derived<br />
from <strong>the</strong> sugarcane. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, sugarcane value<br />
can be derived (for Kakira and SCOUL) from <strong>the</strong> value at<br />
which <strong>the</strong> sugar estates buy factory delivered sugarcane<br />
from out-growers (Table 9). The outgrowers receive a<br />
price ranging between Ushs20,200 per metric tone to<br />
Ushs 25,000 per metric tone <strong>of</strong> sugarcane (Welch, 2004).<br />
Consider <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> a farmer in Kasokoso village, Kawolo sub-county Mukono District:<br />
» Sugarcane takes 18 months to mature, for <strong>the</strong> first crop;<br />
» Kiwanuka got a Ushs 200,000 loan, bought sugarcane stems and planted three acres;<br />
» At that time, a tonne <strong>of</strong> sugarcane cost Ushs 17,000;<br />
» Kintu got Ushs 2.5 million from selling sugarcane to SCOUL;<br />
» The price <strong>of</strong> sugarcane rose to Ushs 20,200 per tonne;<br />
» The farmer hoped to get Ushs 8 million from his harvest in February 2006;<br />
» The contracted out-growers are assured <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> market for <strong>the</strong>ir sugarcane at SCOUL;<br />
» The farmers get sugarcane stems, technical skills and tractors to plough our fields, on credit;<br />
» SCOUL can meet <strong>the</strong> transportation costs depending on <strong>the</strong> distance from <strong>the</strong> factory;<br />
» The farmer’s life has improved; he has renovated his house and bought three cows. He also plans to<br />
buy more land. The farmer (Mr. Kintu) is now also a field supervisor at SCOUL.<br />
Source: New Vision (2006)<br />
The total value <strong>of</strong> sugarcane produced by SCOUL is<br />
Ushs 12,120 million equivalent to US$ 7.128 million<br />
(Table 9). For Kakira Sugar Works <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> sugarcane<br />
is Ushs 20,200 million (equivalent to US$ 11.88 million).<br />
Estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> average revenue per hectare, for<br />
Busoga Sugar Cane Out-growers Association, was US$<br />
490 per ha (<strong>Uganda</strong> Land Coalition, 2005), which was<br />
only slightly higher than <strong>the</strong> estimates for farmers in<br />
Kasokoso village, Kawolo Sub-county Mukono District<br />
(New Vision, 2006).<br />
Estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> present value <strong>of</strong> a 5 ratoon (annual) <strong>of</strong><br />
sugar cane gave a present value <strong>of</strong> Ushs 2,822,861 per<br />
ha (US$ 1,660 per ha) and Ushs 3,207,162 per ha (US$<br />
1,887 per ha) for <strong>the</strong> sugarcane estate at SCOUL and<br />
Kakira respectively (Table 9). Therefore, a 7,186 ha estate<br />
can, at <strong>the</strong> maximum, produce cane with a present<br />
value <strong>of</strong> Ushs 20,285.08 million (US$ 12.3 million) at<br />
SCOUL and Ushs 23,046.67 million (US$ 13.6 million) for<br />
<strong>the</strong> equivalent <strong>of</strong> Kakira sugar works.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Table 9: Value <strong>of</strong> sugarcane for SCOUL out-growers in Mukono district, 2006<br />
Description <strong>of</strong> cost items SCOUL Kakira<br />
Area 15,000 22,000<br />
Sugarcane (kg) 600,000 1,000,000<br />
Price <strong>of</strong> sugarcane (Ushs/tonne) 20,200 (US$ 11.88)<br />
Per hectare value <strong>of</strong> sugarcane based on out-grower prices (‘000 Ushs/ha) 808 918<br />
Per hectare value <strong>of</strong> sugarcane based on out-grower sugar prices<br />
(US$/ha)<br />
Present value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sugarcane at on out-grower sugar prices (‘000<br />
Ushs/ha), based on a 5 annual ratoon, at a 22% Bank Interest rate<br />
Present value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sugarcane at on out-grower sugar prices (US$/ha)<br />
based on a 4 to 5 annual ratoon, at a 22% Bank Interest rate<br />
Value <strong>of</strong> a 7,186 ha estate <strong>of</strong> sugar cane out-grower sugar prices<br />
(‘million Ushs), based on a 5 annual ratoon, at a 22% Bank Interest rate<br />
Value <strong>of</strong> a 7,186 ha estate <strong>of</strong> sugar cane out-grower sugar prices (US$<br />
million) based on a 4 to 5 annual ratoon, at a 22% Bank Interest rate<br />
Source: Adapted from (New Vision, 2006; <strong>Uganda</strong> Land Commission, 2005)<br />
4.2.2. Value <strong>of</strong> non-reproducible assets <strong>of</strong><br />
sugar factory (Land at <strong>the</strong> Company owned<br />
nucleus sugarcane estate)<br />
In valuing non-reproducible tangible assets <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
nucleus estate land is valued as cultivated land located<br />
at <strong>the</strong> different sites. In Mukono District and <strong>the</strong> areas<br />
neighbouring Mabira Central Forest reserve and SCOUL<br />
sugar estate <strong>the</strong> land rates obtained from brokers ranged<br />
between Ushs 500,000 to 1,000,000 per acre equivalent<br />
to Ushs 1,250,000/ha and 2,500,000/ha. Therefore, if it<br />
was a private land estate equivalent to 7,186 ha Mabira<br />
CFR, without any o<strong>the</strong>r ecosystem values it would<br />
Table 10: Value <strong>of</strong> land based on open market prices<br />
Value <strong>of</strong> one unit <strong>of</strong> land<br />
area<br />
Land rates (range) (Ushs/acre) 500,000 – 1,000,000<br />
475.2 540<br />
2,822,861.53 3,207,161.99<br />
1,711.88 1,886.57<br />
20,285.08<br />
23,046.67<br />
12.30 13.56<br />
fetch a value <strong>of</strong> Ushs 8,0982.5 – 17,965 million (US$<br />
10.57 million to US$ 21.135 million) on <strong>the</strong> open land<br />
market (Table 10). Economic sense would suggest that<br />
SCOUL would not vie to buy such land if someone, i.e.<br />
<strong>the</strong> Government, were giving it for free. If <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong><br />
government goes ahead and gives this land it would in<br />
effect be providing an equivalent subsidy (US$ 10.57 –<br />
21.14), on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> land rates in <strong>the</strong> area alone,<br />
to one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> three main sugar factories in <strong>the</strong> country,<br />
<strong>the</strong>reby creating an un-level playing field in <strong>the</strong> market<br />
place. Similar overtures might have to be extended to<br />
<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r sugarcane estates as well.<br />
Land value (million Ushs/ha) 1,250,000 - 2,500,000 8,982.5 - 17,965<br />
Value <strong>of</strong> equivalent land on <strong>the</strong> open<br />
market (7,186 ha)<br />
US$ 735.3 – 1,470.6 5,283,823.5 - 10,567,647<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 21
4.3. COST OF PRODUCTION AND THE<br />
DETERMINANTS OF THE COMPETITIVENESS OF<br />
THE SUGAR SECTOR IN UGANDA<br />
Brazil has <strong>the</strong> lowest sugar production costs,<br />
approximately US$ 150/ mts <strong>of</strong> sugar. In Africa,<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn African Development Community countries<br />
such as Zimbabwe (US$ 160/mts), Zambia (US$ 180/<br />
mts), and South Africa (US$ 220/mts) have <strong>the</strong> lowest<br />
sugar production costs (Malzbender, 2003). Yet Zambia<br />
is a landlocked country like <strong>Uganda</strong>. Additional, by-<br />
products reduce input costs: for example, bagasse is<br />
burned to achieve energy self-sufficiency in mills and<br />
filter press mud from mills is spread on fields to reduce<br />
inorganic fertiliser use. There is potential to generate<br />
additional value from current production. <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
22<br />
has one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> highest sugar production costs in <strong>the</strong><br />
Eastern and Sou<strong>the</strong>rn African region (UNCTAD, 2005).<br />
The county’s average sugar production cost (Table<br />
10) is more that two times higher than <strong>the</strong> average<br />
production cost <strong>of</strong> Zambia, three-times as high as <strong>the</strong><br />
sugar production cost in Sudan. Indeed, only Tanzania,<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong>’s neighbour to <strong>the</strong> south, has a comparable but<br />
slightly lower sugar production cost. As such, one would<br />
expect that <strong>Uganda</strong>’s sugar industry still has options for<br />
improvements in productivity and production leading<br />
to a reduction in <strong>the</strong> average sugar production costs.<br />
The higher costs for <strong>the</strong> sugar factories in <strong>Uganda</strong> are<br />
attributed to: (i) high operational costs; and (ii) <strong>the</strong> high<br />
costs <strong>of</strong> out-growers cane if <strong>the</strong> distance goes beyond<br />
20-30km;<br />
Table 11: Sugar production costs in selected Least Developing Countries<br />
Country<br />
Estimation <strong>of</strong> costs US$/<br />
tonne<br />
Ethiopia 375 56.8<br />
Bangladesh 550 83.3<br />
Tanzania 600 91.0<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong> 660 --<br />
Madagascar 550 83.3<br />
Source: adapted from UNCTAD (2005)<br />
However, <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> producing sugar in <strong>Uganda</strong> is already<br />
much higher than regional producers. In addition, <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Uganda</strong>n sugar industry maintains a production cycle<br />
which subsidises out-grower sugarcane farmers and a<br />
fixed sugarcane rate.<br />
Provision <strong>of</strong> extension services aimed at ensuring<br />
that a good quality cane is available to <strong>the</strong> factory is a<br />
necessary input on <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> sugar factories. However,<br />
<strong>the</strong>re are no direct incentives for farmers to expand on<br />
Average sugar production cost as a percentage<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>’s production cost<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir areas or for o<strong>the</strong>r farmers, engaged in production<br />
<strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r crops, to switch from <strong>the</strong>se crops if <strong>the</strong>y can<br />
earn better prices producing sugar cane.<br />
However, <strong>the</strong> SCOUL has stated that <strong>the</strong> production<br />
costs are quite high (Box 3.3). Similarly, when <strong>the</strong> price<br />
rose in 2006 (New Vision, 4 th October, 2005), <strong>the</strong> General<br />
Manager Kakira Sugar Works attributed <strong>the</strong> higher price<br />
to a power shortage, which lead to increased investment<br />
in <strong>the</strong> factories to keep <strong>the</strong>m running.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Box 2: SCOUL sets terms to abandon Mabira CFR<br />
The Sugar Corporation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> Limited will consider dropping its bid for a chunk <strong>of</strong> Mabira Forest only if<br />
<strong>the</strong> alternative land on <strong>of</strong>fer is fertile, within 20-30 Kilometres <strong>of</strong> its factory and has no squatters. Speaking<br />
on Monday to <strong>of</strong>ficials from <strong>the</strong> National Association <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Environmentalists (Nape), SCOUL Chief<br />
Executive S.C Khanna said <strong>the</strong> company would take up <strong>the</strong> two land <strong>of</strong>fers- one by <strong>the</strong> Mengo establishment<br />
and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r by <strong>the</strong> Anglican Church in Mukono-only if such land met <strong>the</strong> company's expectations.<br />
"Tell us where that land is. If it is fertile land and free from squatters <strong>the</strong>n we can see what to do. But it is not a<br />
matter <strong>of</strong> any land," Mr Khanna said at SCOUL's head <strong>of</strong>fices at Lugazi. Mr Khanna spoke out for <strong>the</strong> first time<br />
in weeks while meeting Nape <strong>of</strong>ficials headed by Mr. Frank Muramuzi. Mr Khanna said that if <strong>the</strong> land Mengo<br />
was <strong>of</strong>fering is beyond <strong>the</strong> radius <strong>of</strong> 30 kilometres, <strong>the</strong>y would not buy or take it. "If <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> transporting <strong>the</strong><br />
sugarcane exceeds <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> producing <strong>the</strong> sugar, <strong>the</strong>n our company cannot survive.<br />
The Monitor Newspaper (2007)<br />
The main value chain for sugar worldwide consists <strong>of</strong><br />
cane production, milling, refining, and o<strong>the</strong>r valueaddition<br />
activities such as food processing, food retail<br />
until <strong>the</strong> sugar reaches <strong>the</strong> end user (Figure 3). In<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong> <strong>the</strong> chain is largely restricted to <strong>the</strong> first three<br />
chain processes. The sugar used in <strong>the</strong> beverage<br />
industry and o<strong>the</strong>r food industries, including hotels is<br />
largely imported (UBOS, 2006).<br />
If increased competition arises in <strong>the</strong> industry <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
Figure 4: value Figure chain 4: value for sugar chain for cane sugar to sugar cane to sugar<br />
likely to also be increased specialisation where <strong>the</strong> sugar<br />
companies manage <strong>the</strong>ir nucleus estate and <strong>the</strong>n buy<br />
<strong>the</strong> additional sugarcane <strong>the</strong>y need from commercial<br />
private estates and long-term contracted smallholder<br />
out-growers. The sugar factories can <strong>the</strong>n buy <strong>the</strong> cane<br />
on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cane quality, <strong>the</strong> farmers would incur<br />
<strong>the</strong> transport costs, and in exceptional cases <strong>the</strong> actual<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> transport would be deducted from <strong>the</strong> price<br />
negotiated with <strong>the</strong> sugar factories.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettment <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR<br />
___________________________________________________________________________________<br />
Cane<br />
Cane<br />
milling<br />
Raw<br />
sugar<br />
trade<br />
Refining at<br />
origin<br />
Refining at<br />
destination<br />
Food<br />
processors &<br />
Retailers<br />
Source: (IIED, 2004)<br />
Source: (IIED, 2004)<br />
If increased competition arises in <strong>the</strong> industry <strong>the</strong>re is likely to also be increased<br />
specialisation where <strong>the</strong> sugar companies manage <strong>the</strong>ir nucleus estate and <strong>the</strong>n buy <strong>the</strong><br />
additional sugarcane <strong>the</strong>y need from commercial private estates and long-term contracted<br />
smallholder out-growers. The sugar factories can <strong>the</strong>n buy <strong>the</strong> cane on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
cane quality, <strong>the</strong> farmers would incur <strong>the</strong> transport costs, and in exceptional cases <strong>the</strong><br />
actual cost <strong>of</strong> transport would be deducted from <strong>the</strong> price negotiated with <strong>the</strong> sugar<br />
factories.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 23<br />
Figure 5: Framework <strong>of</strong> specialisation for sugar industries<br />
Food<br />
retail<br />
End<br />
user
additional sugarcane <strong>the</strong>y need from commercial private estates and long-term contracted<br />
smallholder out-growers. The sugar factories can <strong>the</strong>n buy <strong>the</strong> cane on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
cane quality, <strong>the</strong> farmers would incur <strong>the</strong> transport costs, and in exceptional cases <strong>the</strong><br />
actual cost <strong>of</strong> transport would be deducted from <strong>the</strong> price negotiated with <strong>the</strong> sugar<br />
factories.<br />
Figure 5: Framework <strong>of</strong> specialisation for sugar industries<br />
Figure 5: Framework <strong>of</strong> specialisation for sugar industries<br />
Commercial<br />
private sugar<br />
estates<br />
The cost structure for Kinyara Sugar Works indicates that <strong>the</strong> main sources <strong>of</strong> costs for<br />
out-growers come from land developments, transport and labour (Table 11). Labour and<br />
transports costs increase after <strong>the</strong> first year while <strong>the</strong> land development costs decreased<br />
after <strong>the</strong> first year. The cost structure in Kinyara was used as a proxy for <strong>the</strong> likely costs<br />
<strong>of</strong> production for out-growers throughout <strong>Uganda</strong>’s sugar industry.<br />
land developments, transport and labour (Table 11). equivalent to Ushs 784,260/ha. Of which family labour<br />
Labour _____________________________________________________________________<br />
and transports costs increase after <strong>the</strong> first year contributed 35% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> gross production costs, which 27 is<br />
while <strong>the</strong> land development costs decreased By Yakobo after <strong>the</strong> Moyini, in line PhD with <strong>the</strong> average labour costs for Kinyara Sugar<br />
first year. The cost structure in Kinyara was used as a Works over <strong>the</strong> three year period (Table 12). The net<br />
proxy for <strong>the</strong> likely costs <strong>of</strong> production for out-growers pr<strong>of</strong>its for <strong>the</strong> out-grower are Ushs 954,974/ ha over an<br />
throughout <strong>Uganda</strong>’s sugar industry.<br />
average 18 month period leading to an income <strong>of</strong> Ushs<br />
636,649/ year.<br />
24<br />
Sugar milling<br />
and refining<br />
growers<br />
Association<br />
Long-term<br />
contracted<br />
farmers<br />
Sugar factory and its functional<br />
departments<br />
Sugar Company Nucleus Plantation<br />
The cost structure for Kinyara Sugar Works indicates that<br />
<strong>the</strong> main sources <strong>of</strong> costs for out-growers come from<br />
Sugarcane by<br />
products<br />
alcohol/ethanol;<br />
Co-generated<br />
Non-registered<br />
out growers<br />
Association<br />
However, from Table 12, <strong>the</strong> gross costs <strong>of</strong> production<br />
for <strong>the</strong> SCOUL out-grower are 45% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> gross revenue<br />
Table 11: Cost structure for a Kinyara Out-grower family<br />
Land 2 ha<br />
Distance 12 Kms<br />
Costs <strong>of</strong> production distribution by percentage<br />
Plant-Harvest Ratoon 1 Ratoon 2<br />
Land developments (%) 57 26 30<br />
Transport (%) 18 31 28<br />
Labour (%) 23 42 42<br />
Source: <strong>Uganda</strong> Land Coalition (2006)<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Table 12: Average out-grower’s sugarcane production returns for SCOUL<br />
Out-growers without outstanding loans a case <strong>of</strong> Busoga Sugar Cane Out-growers Association<br />
Average family members working in <strong>the</strong> plot 5<br />
Average casual workers working in <strong>the</strong> plot 12<br />
Average women workers working in <strong>the</strong> plot 25%<br />
Average daily working hours 10<br />
Average plot extension 5 acres ( 2 ha)<br />
Average gross revenue per harvest (5 acre) Ushs 3,449,600 (about US$ 1,770)*<br />
Average gross revenue per ha Ushs 1,724,800 (US$ 885)<br />
Average gross cost <strong>of</strong> production (5 acres) about 45% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> gross revenue<br />
Average gross cost <strong>of</strong> production per ha Ushs 784,260 (US$ 398)<br />
Average labour cost out <strong>the</strong> family about 35% <strong>of</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> production<br />
Average labour costs out <strong>of</strong> family Ushs 274,491 (US$ 139)<br />
Average net pr<strong>of</strong>it per harvest (5 acres) Ushs 1,909,948 (about US$ 980)<br />
Average pr<strong>of</strong>its per ha Ushs 954,974 (US$ 490)<br />
Major problems low prices, markets and credit<br />
Major problems with <strong>the</strong> company<br />
Source: <strong>Uganda</strong> land Coalition (2005)<br />
*Exchange rate used <strong>the</strong>n was 1948 indicative figures<br />
determination <strong>of</strong> prices, delays in<br />
payments, high cost <strong>of</strong> transport<br />
4.4 OPTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE SUGAR CORPORATION OF<br />
UGANDA LIMITED (SCOUL)<br />
Option 1: Productivity enhancement<br />
SCOUL has argued that to be competitive it needs an<br />
additional 7,186 hectares <strong>of</strong> land, from within <strong>the</strong> Mabira<br />
Central Forest Reserve. This section <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> report aims<br />
at analyzing <strong>the</strong> options available to SCOUL to achieve<br />
<strong>the</strong> desired level <strong>of</strong> competitiveness. One option is<br />
productivity enhancement. This option examines <strong>the</strong><br />
possibility for SCOUL to attain <strong>the</strong> highest average<br />
yield level recorded in <strong>the</strong> country at Kakira. Even with<br />
productivity enhancement, SCOUL would still need an<br />
additional 2,208 ha <strong>of</strong> land to achieve <strong>the</strong> same output as<br />
Kakira Sugar Works (Table 11). The African Development<br />
Bank (AFDB, 2002) noted that an even higher yield <strong>of</strong><br />
120 mt/hectares is possible in <strong>Uganda</strong>. Although this<br />
has not been practically achieved on any farm in <strong>the</strong><br />
country, it demonstrates <strong>the</strong> possibility that productivity<br />
enhancement should significantly reduce <strong>the</strong> need for<br />
estate expansion by SCOUL.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 25
Table 11: Estimate sugar estate land savings, on nucleus estate, from increasing productivity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
cane in <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
26<br />
Cane yield<br />
(mts/ha)<br />
Average<br />
area <strong>of</strong><br />
nucleus<br />
estate<br />
Estimated<br />
average<br />
production<br />
potential <strong>of</strong><br />
nucleus estate<br />
(mts)<br />
percentage <strong>of</strong><br />
best performer<br />
potential<br />
production<br />
on 7,186<br />
ha (mts)<br />
Kakira 108.9 11,000 1,197,900 100.00 782,555.4 0.00<br />
Additional<br />
land area<br />
needed<br />
to reach<br />
highest<br />
(ha)<br />
Kinyara 89.9 6,400 575,360 82.55 646,021.4 1518.73<br />
SCOUL 83.3 12,000 999,600 76.49 598,593.8 2208.42<br />
Option 2: Improvement in sugarcane<br />
conversion<br />
With respect to <strong>the</strong> efficiency <strong>of</strong> converting cane to sugar,<br />
SCOUL would appear to have <strong>the</strong> lowest efficiency at 8.4<br />
compared to 8.9 for Kakira and 10 for Kinyara. If SCOUL<br />
were to attain <strong>the</strong> conversion efficiency <strong>of</strong> Kinyara at its<br />
current level <strong>of</strong> productivity it would require 16 percent<br />
less <strong>of</strong> its current 15,000 ha estate to produce <strong>the</strong> same<br />
amount <strong>of</strong> sugar, if sugar is <strong>the</strong> principal product. With<br />
<strong>the</strong> improved level <strong>of</strong> efficiency in sugar conversion<br />
with sugar as <strong>the</strong> principal product, SCOUL would be<br />
requesting for 4,786 ha, which is 2,400 ha less than <strong>the</strong><br />
current request <strong>of</strong> 7,186. .<br />
Option 3: Improvement in productivity and<br />
conversion ratio<br />
A combination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two options above, increasing<br />
productivity and <strong>the</strong> sugar conversion efficiency on<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir own could reduce SCOUL’s land requirements by<br />
4,608 ha. If <strong>the</strong> current expansion needs <strong>of</strong> SCOUL are<br />
7,186 hectares, <strong>the</strong>n this would reduce to 2,578 hectares.<br />
Table 12: Estimate savings on sugar estate land from increasing <strong>the</strong> cane to sugar conversion efficiency<br />
at SCOUL and Kakira factories<br />
Estimated sugarcane and sugar based on current estate<br />
Details used for estimating sugarcane and sugar<br />
production<br />
SCOUL Kakira Kinyara<br />
Area (hectares) 15,000 22,000 11,000<br />
Sugarcane output (tonnes) 600,000 1,000,000 649,580<br />
Yield sugarcane (tonnes/ha) 83.3 108.9 89.9<br />
Conversion cane to sugar 8.4 8.9 10<br />
Sugar output (tonnes) 48,000 84,000 64,958<br />
Savings <strong>of</strong> land from increasing sugar conversion to<br />
higest national level<br />
2,400 2420 0<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Option 4: Expanding sugarcane production<br />
to alternative lands o<strong>the</strong>r than Mabira CFR<br />
a) What if SCOUL could secure land close to it<br />
sugar estate at <strong>the</strong> current level market rates?<br />
When SCOUL applied to be given part <strong>of</strong> Mabira, <strong>the</strong><br />
government <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Buganda and <strong>the</strong><br />
Church <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> in Mukono District <strong>proposed</strong> to<br />
provide alternative land (New Vision, 2007; Monitor,<br />
2007) 4 . Additional discussions covered in <strong>the</strong> press<br />
between landlords and SCOUL indicated that some<br />
landlords did not renew <strong>the</strong>ir lease agreements because<br />
<strong>the</strong>y felt <strong>the</strong> money <strong>the</strong>y were given by SCOUL was too<br />
little (Box 4). On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, SCOUL justifiably felt<br />
that <strong>the</strong> amounts requested for by some landlords were<br />
too high and unfeasible especially when <strong>the</strong> current<br />
4 New Vision (2007) and Monitor (2007) Kabaka <strong>of</strong>fers land to<br />
SCOUL and Church <strong>of</strong>fers land to SCOUL<br />
purchase prices are in <strong>the</strong> range <strong>of</strong> Ushs 500,000 to<br />
1,000,000 per acre 5 .<br />
SCOUL has several pieces <strong>of</strong> leased land, which it<br />
considers feasible. For example, in Kitoola village (and<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r villages) near Mabira forest, in one lease, SCOUL<br />
has acquired 934 acres equivalent to 388 ha and <strong>the</strong><br />
landlord is paid Ushs 4,500/acre (or Ushs 10980/ha) per<br />
annum. But <strong>the</strong> amounts paid on leases per year differ<br />
among farmers. Indeed, if SCOUL chose to accept <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong>fers from <strong>the</strong> Government <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Buganda<br />
and from <strong>the</strong> Church <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> it is likely that <strong>the</strong> price<br />
<strong>of</strong>fered would be similar to that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> landlords in<br />
Kitoola. Therefore <strong>the</strong>se values can be used as a proxy<br />
indication <strong>of</strong> how SCOUL values land in <strong>the</strong> area.<br />
5 The estimates were undertaken before SCOUL request for<br />
Mabira CFR, June/July 2007. The land rates have increased by between<br />
50 -100% by March 2008 (Land Brokers interviewed, Mukono District).<br />
Box 3: SCOUL Sugar Corporation Press release summarised (dated April 07)<br />
The lease for any parcel <strong>of</strong> land between SCOUL and Kulubya expired way back in 1996. On expiry <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lease<br />
<strong>the</strong> beneficiary/ landlord wanted an outright sale <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> land ra<strong>the</strong>r than a lease, as he demanded Ushs 10<br />
million as premium per acre and 50,000/= as premium per acre per annum, which were exorbitant.<br />
New vision newspaper (2007)<br />
Box 4: Kabaka Land Offer Not a Donation – Govt.<br />
Officials in Mengo said <strong>the</strong> government had no excuse to cut down Mabira to grow sugarcane after Kabaka<br />
Ronald Mutebi <strong>of</strong>fered his land to save <strong>the</strong> forest. Buganda Katikkiro Emmanuel Ssendaula said unless <strong>the</strong><br />
government has different intentions, <strong>the</strong>re's no genuine reason to defend <strong>the</strong> forest giveaway. Mukono district<br />
leadership yesterday said <strong>the</strong>y were ready to secure 30,000 hectares <strong>of</strong> land on which farmers would grow<br />
sugarcane and sell it to Mehta. LC5 chairman Mukome Lukoya asked <strong>the</strong> government to channel prosperity for<br />
all funds to <strong>the</strong> out-growers.<br />
Monitor Newspaper (2007)<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 27
) Opportunity <strong>of</strong> SCOUL leasing land from land owners in areas <strong>of</strong> Mukono District<br />
As indicated in Table 13, landlords with large tracts <strong>of</strong> land lying idle would be in a better position to benefit from <strong>the</strong><br />
land leasing scheme than smallholder landowners. Small landowners and landlords would have very small revenue<br />
such that <strong>the</strong>re would be no incentive for <strong>the</strong>m to join <strong>the</strong> venture.<br />
Table 13: Value for leases <strong>of</strong> land likely to be <strong>of</strong>fered to SCOUL<br />
Number* <strong>of</strong><br />
units<br />
Land area<br />
(ha)<br />
Amount (Ushs/<br />
ha/yr)<br />
Total Amount<br />
(Ushs/yr)<br />
Mutoola IV (in Kitoola) 21 338 10,980 3,711,240<br />
If government <strong>of</strong> Buganda or <strong>the</strong> Church <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Uganda</strong> <strong>of</strong>fered 7,100 ha (i.e. actual variant<br />
requested for)<br />
1 7,100 10980 77,958,000<br />
1 landowner with 2 ha 3,550 2 10,980 20,980<br />
1 with 1000 ha 7 1,000 10,980 10,980,000<br />
*indicates <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> units required to satisfy <strong>the</strong> 7 100 ha land requirement for SCOUL<br />
Box 5: Land resource values<br />
Land resource values were estimated from <strong>the</strong> perspective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> net benefit streams per annum. Then <strong>the</strong><br />
present values were obtained by capitalising <strong>the</strong> average annual benefit stream using <strong>the</strong> government <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Uganda</strong>’s social opportunity cost <strong>of</strong> capital <strong>of</strong> 12 percent. The present value <strong>of</strong> product or service (i) equals<br />
average annual benefits (<strong>economic</strong> rent) capitalised by <strong>the</strong> social opportunity cost <strong>of</strong> capital.<br />
Where:<br />
PVt = present value <strong>of</strong> product i<br />
t = time period from 1 to m years<br />
ARt = average annual benefit from product i<br />
r = social opportunity cost <strong>of</strong> capital or discount rate (12 percent).<br />
Subsequently, <strong>the</strong> total present value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> land area to be acquired by Mabira is given by <strong>the</strong> equation:<br />
Where:<br />
TPV = total present value<br />
n = number <strong>of</strong> products<br />
t = time period from 1 to m years<br />
28 The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
The present value/ha <strong>of</strong> land acquired by SCOUL is likely to be in <strong>the</strong> range <strong>of</strong> Ushs 91, 500/ha (Table 14).<br />
Table 14: Land resource values in Kitoola<br />
Details <strong>of</strong> land <strong>valuation</strong> characteristics Value for Kitoola land<br />
Average value (Ushs/ha) 10,980<br />
Social opportunity cost <strong>of</strong> capital (%) 12<br />
Present value <strong>of</strong> land resource leased by SCOUL (Ushs/ha) 91,500<br />
Average value (Ushs) for 7,186 ha 657,519,000<br />
4.5. CONCLUSIONS<br />
From <strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> land ownership by <strong>the</strong> three<br />
leading sugar production firms; SCOUL has <strong>the</strong> largest<br />
proportional land ownership i.e. nucleus estate nearly<br />
double <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> that owned by Kinyara sugar works<br />
and 1,000 ha more than that <strong>of</strong> Kakira Sugar works. The<br />
sugar estates depend on <strong>the</strong> community as outgrowers<br />
to a tune <strong>of</strong> one-quarter for SCOUL, compared to<br />
40 percent and 45 percent for Kakira and Kinyara,<br />
respectively. Therefore to ensure stability <strong>of</strong> production,<br />
Kinyara and Kakira are more indebted to <strong>the</strong> stability <strong>of</strong><br />
land tenure systems and community land stewardship<br />
in <strong>the</strong> areas <strong>of</strong> operation than SCOUL.<br />
Based on estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> average revenue per hectare,<br />
for Busoga Sugar Cane Out-growers Association, <strong>of</strong> US$<br />
490 per ha, <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> sugarcane produced by Kakira<br />
was about US$ 4 million higher than that <strong>of</strong> SCOUL in<br />
2006.<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r options available to SCOUL o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
than acquiring part <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR include: productivity<br />
enhancement, improving <strong>the</strong> sugarcane conversion<br />
ratio, reducing its production costs and <strong>the</strong>re by<br />
increasing its competitiveness and ability to buy, or get<br />
leases for, land at market rates and taking up <strong>the</strong> land<br />
<strong>of</strong>fers made by stakeholders opposed to <strong>the</strong> conversion<br />
<strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR. If SCOUL were to enhance its productivity<br />
to <strong>the</strong> levels <strong>of</strong> Kakira sugar works, it would require 2,208<br />
ha less <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR than <strong>the</strong> 7,186 ha it is requesting<br />
<strong>of</strong> land. Yet <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> productivity at Kakira 108.9 mt/<br />
hectare is still below <strong>the</strong> highest attainable productivity<br />
level <strong>of</strong> 120 mt/ha noted by <strong>the</strong> African Development<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 29<br />
Bank.<br />
Similarly, if SCOUL increased its sugar conversion efficiency<br />
to <strong>the</strong> level achieved at Kinyara, <strong>the</strong> company should<br />
be requesting for 2,400 ha less than <strong>the</strong> current 7,186<br />
hectares. A combination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two options (increasing<br />
productivity and <strong>the</strong> sugar conversion efficiency)<br />
could reduce SCOUL’s additional land requirements by<br />
4,608 ha to 2,578 ha Regionally, <strong>Uganda</strong>’s sugarcane<br />
yield is comparable with o<strong>the</strong>r countries in <strong>the</strong> region.<br />
Similarly <strong>Uganda</strong>’s sugar conversion ratios (from cane<br />
to sugar) though slightly lower, are within <strong>the</strong> same<br />
range as those <strong>of</strong> neighbouring countries. <strong>Uganda</strong>’s<br />
sugar production costs are however, <strong>the</strong> highest in<br />
<strong>the</strong> region. The implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> above conditions<br />
are that <strong>Uganda</strong>’s sugar industry has space to improve<br />
competitiveness through increased productivity and<br />
conversion efficiency, without necessarily increasing <strong>the</strong><br />
area under sugar cane.<br />
Finally, based on <strong>the</strong> land rates obtained from brokers<br />
in Mukono District, a private land estate equivalent<br />
to 7,186 ha Mabira CFR, without any o<strong>the</strong>r ecosystem<br />
values would fetch a value <strong>of</strong> Ushs 8 to 18 billion (US$<br />
11 million to US$ 21million) on <strong>the</strong> open land market. If
<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> government goes ahead and gives this land it<br />
would in effect be providing an equivalent subsidy (US$<br />
10.57 – 21.14), on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> land rates in <strong>the</strong> area<br />
30<br />
alone. To create a level playing field in <strong>the</strong> market place<br />
<strong>the</strong> government would have to make similar overtures<br />
to o<strong>the</strong>r agricultural estate based firms in <strong>the</strong> country.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
5.0. THE CONSERVATION OPTION<br />
5.1. CONSERVATION OPTIONS FOR<br />
MANAGING FOREST RESOURCES<br />
The aim <strong>of</strong> sustainable forest management is to coordinate<br />
<strong>the</strong> diverse activities <strong>of</strong> forest users while balancing <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>economic</strong> and ecological integrity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forest. Forests<br />
produce a range <strong>of</strong> natural products, timber, non-<br />
timber forest products, are habitat to biodiversity and<br />
provide <strong>the</strong> opportunity to store carbon. Sustainable<br />
forest management brings out <strong>the</strong> ?compliments? <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> above outputs while also maintaining <strong>the</strong> quality<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ecosystem. Previously, <strong>the</strong> perceived urgency <strong>of</strong><br />
combating deforestation in tropical regions emphasized<br />
ecological criteria <strong>of</strong> management. Ecological criteria<br />
based on natural science were used to designate natural<br />
areas for protection. Human activities were restricted<br />
and human comunites relegated to surrounding areas.<br />
These command and control approaches have mostly<br />
failed (Cernea, 1986; Weber, 1996).<br />
New approaches focusing on <strong>economic</strong> criteria<br />
have now emerged. The emergence <strong>of</strong> conservation<br />
<strong>economic</strong>s, in <strong>the</strong> 1970s, defined new approaches to<br />
managing natural environments, in which <strong>economic</strong><br />
criteria were taken into account along with ecological<br />
criteria. In fact, <strong>the</strong> modern model has for <strong>the</strong> most<br />
part shifted from ecological management to <strong>economic</strong><br />
management (Pearce and Pearce, 2001). The reasoning<br />
and assumptions behind <strong>economic</strong> management <strong>of</strong><br />
tropical forests are that <strong>the</strong>y can be managed to ensure<br />
optimal use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> resource availability to society i.e.<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>economic</strong> management is about allocating <strong>the</strong>se<br />
resources where <strong>the</strong>y will be best used and will maximise<br />
social well-being.<br />
5.2. CONSERVATION ECONOMICS<br />
5.2.1. Importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>economic</strong> <strong>valuation</strong><br />
Economic <strong>valuation</strong> is a tool for decision-making<br />
intended to compare <strong>the</strong> advantages and disadvantages<br />
<strong>of</strong> alternative development options or alternatives. The<br />
value <strong>of</strong> forests depends not only on <strong>the</strong> market prices<br />
<strong>of</strong> its direct uses but is also based on o<strong>the</strong>r indirect uses<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forest resources that cannot be traded in <strong>the</strong><br />
market (Lette & de Boo 2002). Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> goods<br />
and services provided by forests is needed because<br />
<strong>the</strong>se areas are under great pressure and are in fact<br />
disappearing. Extensive areas <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR were<br />
severely encroached not too long ago (Karani et al<br />
1997). The natural forest cover <strong>of</strong> nearby Kifu CFR and<br />
Namyoya CFR have been completely destroyed and<br />
<strong>the</strong> areas have now reverted to plantation forests. The<br />
lack <strong>of</strong> knowledge and awareness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total value <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> goods and services provided by forest resources<br />
will obscure <strong>the</strong> ecological and social impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
conversion <strong>of</strong> forests into o<strong>the</strong>r uses. Proper <strong>valuation</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> all goods and services provided by a forest can help<br />
us understand <strong>the</strong> extent to which those who benefit<br />
from <strong>the</strong> forest or its conversion also bear <strong>the</strong> associated<br />
management costs or opportunities foregone (Balmford<br />
et al., 2003; Balmford et al., 2002; Lette & de Boo 2002;<br />
Daily & Walker 2000; Montgomery et al 1999; Ando et<br />
al 1998;;; Pimentel et al 1997; and Costanza et al 1997;).<br />
Forests in general are complex ecosystems and<br />
generate a range <strong>of</strong> goods and services. For purposes<br />
<strong>of</strong> determining <strong>the</strong> magnitudes <strong>of</strong> net benefits lost due<br />
to conversion <strong>of</strong> a forest to o<strong>the</strong>r development options,<br />
<strong>the</strong> total <strong>economic</strong> value (TEV) approach was chosen as<br />
<strong>the</strong> most comprehensive. The TEV (Figure 5) endeavours<br />
to identify and formalise <strong>the</strong> various <strong>economic</strong> benefits<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 31
expected from <strong>the</strong> environment (Lette and de Boo<br />
2002). Despite <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>valuation</strong> <strong>of</strong> forests<br />
and nature, under-<strong>valuation</strong> was and still is <strong>the</strong> order <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> day, as a result <strong>of</strong> market and policy failures (Lette &<br />
de Boo 2002). Market failure has been identified as one<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> major causes <strong>of</strong> under-<strong>valuation</strong> (Lette & de Boo<br />
2002). For example, when determining <strong>the</strong> <strong>economic</strong><br />
value <strong>of</strong> a forest, decision-makers usually only take into<br />
account <strong>the</strong> easily quantifiable – financial – costs and<br />
benefits related to goods and services traded on <strong>the</strong><br />
market, whereas <strong>the</strong>re are numerous functions <strong>of</strong> forests<br />
for which markets malfunction, are distorted or simply<br />
do not exist (Lette & de Boo 2002). Markets only exist<br />
for some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> production functions <strong>of</strong> forests, such as<br />
timber, fuelwood, and non-timber products. However,<br />
even if markets exist, market prices for <strong>the</strong>se goods may<br />
not reflect <strong>the</strong>ir real value, since markets can be distorted,<br />
for example by subsidies which represent policy failures<br />
(Lette & de Boo 2002). The authors suggest that <strong>the</strong><br />
market price <strong>of</strong> a particular good may not reflect all <strong>the</strong><br />
costs involved in producing that good because <strong>the</strong>re<br />
may be benefits or costs enjoyed or borne by o<strong>the</strong>rs not<br />
directly involved in <strong>the</strong> production <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> good, what<br />
economists call externalities (Lette & de Boo 2002).<br />
In using <strong>the</strong> total <strong>economic</strong> value approach, <strong>the</strong> value is<br />
usually sub-divided into: (i) direct use values – benefits<br />
that accrue directly to <strong>the</strong> users <strong>of</strong> forests, whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />
extractive (e.g. timber and NTFPs) or non-extractive (e.g.<br />
ecotourism). Direct use values are most <strong>of</strong>ten enjoyed<br />
by people visiting or residing in <strong>the</strong> ecosystem itself; (ii)<br />
indirect use values – benefits that accrue indirectly to<br />
users <strong>of</strong> forests, primarily ecological or environmental<br />
32<br />
services; (iii) option value – <strong>the</strong> amount that individuals<br />
would be willing to pay to conserve a forest for future<br />
use (e.g. biodiversity values) <strong>of</strong> resources <strong>the</strong>y may<br />
not be using at present; (iv) bequest value – <strong>the</strong> value<br />
attached to <strong>the</strong> knowledge that o<strong>the</strong>rs might benefit<br />
from a forest area in <strong>the</strong> future; and (v) existence value<br />
– <strong>the</strong> value placed by non-users on <strong>the</strong> knowledge that<br />
something exists, i.e. its intrinsic value.<br />
5.2.2. The Total Economic Value<br />
Various <strong>valuation</strong> tools have been developed to<br />
estimate <strong>the</strong> monetary value <strong>of</strong> non-marketed goods<br />
and services (Lette & de Boo 2002). Munasinghe’s<br />
classification <strong>of</strong> major value categories has proved to<br />
be a useful analytical tool to link value categories and<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir underlying environmental goods and services<br />
with specific <strong>valuation</strong> tools (Munasinghe 1992; Lette<br />
& de Boo 2002) as shown in Table 15. While <strong>the</strong> direct<br />
use value <strong>of</strong> goods and services traded on <strong>the</strong> market<br />
can be easily translated into monetary terms by taking<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir market prices, <strong>the</strong>re are a lot <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r goods and<br />
services <strong>of</strong>ten conceived as having direct use values.<br />
These functions can be better valued by means <strong>of</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>valuation</strong> tools (e.g. Related Goods Approach,<br />
Hedonic Pricing or Travel Cost Method). The regulation<br />
functions <strong>of</strong> forests from which indirect use value is<br />
perceived can also be valued by various <strong>valuation</strong><br />
tools (e.g. Replacement Cost Technique, Production<br />
Function Approach). To capture option, bequest and<br />
existence values, Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is<br />
used to estimate <strong>the</strong> monetary value <strong>of</strong> environmental<br />
amenities ( Lette & de Boo, 2002).<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Method). The regulation functions <strong>of</strong> forests from which indirect use value is perceived<br />
can also be valued by various <strong>valuation</strong> tools (e.g. Replacement Cost Technique,<br />
Production Function Approach). To capture option, bequest and existence values,<br />
Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is used to estimate <strong>the</strong> monetary value <strong>of</strong><br />
environmental amenities ( Lette & de Boo, 2002).<br />
Figure 6: The Figure Total 6: Economic The Total Economic Value <strong>of</strong> Forests Value <strong>of</strong> Forests<br />
Direct<br />
use<br />
Outputs that<br />
can be<br />
consumed<br />
directly<br />
Values <strong>of</strong><br />
functions<br />
related to:<br />
- Food<br />
- Biomass<br />
- Recreation<br />
- Health<br />
Use values<br />
Indirect<br />
use values<br />
Functional<br />
benefits<br />
Values <strong>of</strong><br />
functions<br />
related to:<br />
- Ecological<br />
functions<br />
- Flood control<br />
- Storm<br />
protection<br />
Total <strong>economic</strong> value<br />
Option values Bequest<br />
values<br />
Future direct<br />
and indirect use<br />
values<br />
Values <strong>of</strong><br />
functions<br />
related to:<br />
- Biodiversity<br />
- Conserved<br />
habitats<br />
Value <strong>of</strong><br />
leaving use<br />
and non-use<br />
values for<br />
<strong>of</strong>fspring<br />
Values <strong>of</strong><br />
functions<br />
related to:<br />
- Habitats<br />
- Irreversible<br />
changes<br />
Non-use values<br />
Decreasing “tangibility” <strong>of</strong> value to individuals or specific groups<br />
Existence<br />
Value form<br />
knowledge <strong>of</strong><br />
continued existence,<br />
based on e.g. moral<br />
conviction<br />
Values <strong>of</strong><br />
functions<br />
related to:<br />
- Habitats<br />
- Endangered<br />
species<br />
Source: Lette & de Boo (2002); Munasinghe (1992)<br />
Source: Lette & de Boo (2002); Munasinghe (1992)<br />
“It must be emphasised that none <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se <strong>valuation</strong> tools provides comprehensive<br />
answers. All <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m value only part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> goods and services provided by forests and<br />
“It must be emphasised nature. They all that have none limitations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se and <strong>valuation</strong> should be chosen chosen and and used used with care. with care. Using Using several several <strong>valuation</strong> tools<br />
<strong>valuation</strong> tools for a single object case, contributes to a more complete <strong>valuation</strong>”<br />
tools provides comprehensive answers. All <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m value for a single object case, contributes to a more complete<br />
only part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> _____________________________________________________________________<br />
goods and services provided by forests <strong>valuation</strong>”<br />
36<br />
By Yakobo Moyini, PhD<br />
and nature. They all have limitations and should be<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 33
Table 15: Example <strong>of</strong> links between value category, functions and <strong>valuation</strong> tools<br />
USE<br />
FUNCTIONS<br />
VALUATION TOOLS<br />
34<br />
USE VALUES NON-USE VALUES<br />
1. Direct use value<br />
Wood products<br />
(timber, fuel)<br />
Non-wood<br />
products (food,<br />
medicine, genetic<br />
material)<br />
Educational,<br />
recreational and<br />
cultural uses<br />
Human habitat<br />
2. Indirect use<br />
value<br />
Watershed<br />
protection<br />
Nutrient cycling<br />
Air pollution<br />
reduction<br />
Micro-climatic<br />
regulation<br />
Carbon storage<br />
3. Option value 4. Bequest value<br />
Possible<br />
future uses<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> goods<br />
and services<br />
mentioned<br />
in 1&2 (Use<br />
Values) by actual<br />
stakeholders<br />
Possible future uses <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> goods and services<br />
mentioned in 1&2 (use<br />
Values) by <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fspring<br />
<strong>of</strong> actual stakeholders<br />
5. Existence<br />
value<br />
Biodiversity<br />
Culture, heritage<br />
Benefits to<br />
stakeholders <strong>of</strong><br />
only knowing <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong><br />
goods or services<br />
without using<br />
<strong>the</strong>m<br />
Tool to be used: Tool to be used: Tool to be used: Tool to be used: Tool to be used:<br />
Market Analysis<br />
Related Goods<br />
Approaches<br />
Travel Cost<br />
Method<br />
Contingent<br />
Valuation Method<br />
Hedonic Pricing<br />
Source: Lette & de Boo (2002)<br />
Restoration Cost<br />
Preventive<br />
Expenditure<br />
Production<br />
Function<br />
Approach<br />
Replacement<br />
Costs<br />
The foregoing tools have been successfully applied in<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>valuation</strong> <strong>of</strong> several tropical high forests and o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
ecosystems. Naidoo & Adamowicz (2005) quantified <strong>the</strong><br />
costs and benefits <strong>of</strong> avian biodiversity in Mabira CFR<br />
through a combination <strong>of</strong> <strong>economic</strong> surveys <strong>of</strong> tourists,<br />
spatial land-use analyses, and species-area relationship.<br />
The results showed that revising entrance fees and<br />
redistributing ecotourism revenues would protect 114<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 143 forest bird species under current market<br />
conditions. This total would increase if entrance fees<br />
Contingent<br />
Valuation<br />
Method<br />
Contingent Valuation<br />
Method<br />
Contingent<br />
Valuation<br />
Method<br />
were optimised to capture <strong>the</strong> tourists’ willingness to<br />
pay for forest visits and <strong>the</strong> chance <strong>of</strong> seeing increased<br />
numbers <strong>of</strong> bird species.<br />
Beukering & Cesar (2001) calculated <strong>the</strong> total <strong>economic</strong><br />
value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Leuser ecosystem in <strong>the</strong> Philippines<br />
under conservation and deforestation scenarios using<br />
extended Cost-Benefit Analysis and found that <strong>the</strong><br />
conservation scenario far outweighed <strong>the</strong> deforestation<br />
scenario. Their study concluded that conservation <strong>of</strong><br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
<strong>the</strong> forest ecosystem would be in <strong>the</strong> best interest <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> local population, local and national governments,<br />
and <strong>the</strong> international community. Hadker et al (1997)<br />
used <strong>the</strong> Contingent Valuation Method to estimate<br />
willingness-to-pay on <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> residents <strong>of</strong> Bombay<br />
(Mumbai) for <strong>the</strong> maintenance <strong>of</strong> Borivli National<br />
Park, located within <strong>the</strong> City’s limits. The study arrived<br />
at a willingness-to-pay <strong>of</strong> 7.5 rupees per month per<br />
household, which amounted to a total present value <strong>of</strong><br />
1033 million rupees (or US$ 31.6 million). The authors<br />
suggested that this figure could be used to influence<br />
policy decisions, given that <strong>the</strong> Protected Area at <strong>the</strong><br />
time ran on a budget <strong>of</strong> 17 million rupees (US$ 520 000).<br />
Menkhaus & Lober (1995) used <strong>the</strong> Travel Cost Method<br />
(TCM) to determine <strong>the</strong> value that tourists from <strong>the</strong><br />
US placed on Costa Rican rainforests as ecotourism<br />
destinations using <strong>the</strong> Monteverde Cloud Reserve as<br />
a sampling site. Consumer surplus was estimated to<br />
be approximately US$ 1150, representing <strong>the</strong> average<br />
annual per person <strong>valuation</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ecotourism value <strong>of</strong><br />
PAs in Costa Rica. The ecotourist value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Monteverde<br />
Cloud Forest Reserve was obtained by multiplying<br />
<strong>the</strong> total number <strong>of</strong> visitors by <strong>the</strong> average consumer<br />
surplus. This resulted in a total annual US ecotourism<br />
value <strong>of</strong> US$ 4.5 million for <strong>the</strong> Monteverde Reserve.<br />
Janssen & Padilla (1999) used a combination <strong>of</strong> Cost-<br />
Benefit Analysis and Multi-Criteria Analysis to assess <strong>the</strong><br />
opportunity cost <strong>of</strong> preservation and analyse trade<strong>of</strong>fs<br />
to be made in deciding whe<strong>the</strong>r to preserve or convert<br />
a mangrove forest in <strong>the</strong> Philippines. The result showed<br />
that <strong>the</strong> aquaculture alternatives performed better<br />
than <strong>the</strong> forestry preservation alternative in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>economic</strong> efficiency.<br />
Kramer et al (1995) used a combination <strong>of</strong> <strong>valuation</strong> tools<br />
(Contingent Valuation combined with Opportunity Cost<br />
Analysis and Recreation Demand Analysis) to investigate<br />
changes in environmental values resulting from <strong>the</strong><br />
creation <strong>of</strong> Mantadia National Park in Madagascar.<br />
Kramer et al (1993) used Contingent Valuation Method<br />
to determine <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> tropical rainforest protection<br />
as a global environmental good. Using two approaches<br />
<strong>the</strong> authors determined <strong>the</strong> average willingness-to-pay<br />
<strong>of</strong> US citizens at US$ 24 to31 and extending to all US<br />
households, total willingness-to-pay was estimated at<br />
US$ 2180 to 2820 million per year.<br />
Sikoyo (1995), used <strong>the</strong> Contingent Valuation Method<br />
to determine community direct use benefits from<br />
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in <strong>Uganda</strong>;<br />
while Moyini & Uwimbabazi (2001) used <strong>the</strong> Travel<br />
Cost Method and <strong>the</strong> Contingent Valuation Method<br />
to determine <strong>the</strong> Mountain gorilla tourism value <strong>of</strong><br />
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park. The results<br />
showed a consumer surplus <strong>of</strong> US$ 100. Muramira<br />
(2000) estimated <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> overall impact <strong>of</strong><br />
Wayleave construction through Mabira at US$ 340,202<br />
and suggested that this money be set aside to address<br />
<strong>the</strong> environmental impacts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> development. The<br />
author used inventory and market analysis, secondary<br />
information on resource usage and willingness-to-pay<br />
studies in comparable areas and project data.<br />
5.2.3 Analytical framework<br />
The analytical approach adopted in this report consists<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> following.<br />
1. Resource values were estimated from <strong>the</strong><br />
perspective <strong>of</strong> net benefit streams, annualised,<br />
and <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>ir present values obtained by<br />
capitalising <strong>the</strong> average annual benefits stream<br />
using <strong>the</strong> Government <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>’s social 6<br />
opportunity cost <strong>of</strong> capital <strong>of</strong> 12 percent. Benefit-<br />
cost analysis is based on discounting <strong>the</strong> benefits<br />
and costs attributable to a project over time<br />
and <strong>the</strong>n comparing <strong>the</strong> present value <strong>of</strong> costs<br />
(PVC) with <strong>the</strong> present value <strong>of</strong> benefits (PVB).<br />
The present value <strong>of</strong> benefits is <strong>the</strong> sum <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
discounted values <strong>of</strong> benefits in each year. Thus:<br />
6 A social time preference rate (STP), reflecting <strong>the</strong> preference<br />
society has for present as opposed to future consumption, or <strong>the</strong> relative<br />
value it puts on <strong>the</strong> consumption <strong>of</strong> future generations. Discount rates<br />
for projects in developing countries usually range from 8% to 12%. The<br />
evaluator is best advised to use 10% or 12%<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 35
PVB =<br />
PVC =<br />
Where:<br />
36<br />
∑ = t n<br />
t = 1<br />
∑ = t n<br />
t = 1<br />
Bt<br />
t<br />
( 1+<br />
i)<br />
Ct<br />
t<br />
( 1+<br />
i)<br />
n = number <strong>of</strong> years being considered; t = each<br />
individual year; and i = <strong>the</strong> discount rate expressed as a<br />
decimal fraction<br />
» The decision-making criteria; After <strong>the</strong><br />
NPV<br />
=<br />
discounting has been completed, <strong>the</strong> present<br />
value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> benefits (PVB) is compared to <strong>the</strong><br />
present value <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> costs (PVC). For a project<br />
to be considered pr<strong>of</strong>itable at a given discount<br />
rate, <strong>the</strong> present value <strong>of</strong> benefits should exceed<br />
that <strong>of</strong> costs i.e. PVB > PVC. The net present<br />
value (NPV). This is sometimes called “net<br />
present worth”, and it is obtained by subtracting<br />
<strong>the</strong> present value <strong>of</strong> costs from that <strong>of</strong> benefits<br />
i.e. NPV = PVB - PVC or, ma<strong>the</strong>matically:<br />
∑ = t n<br />
t = 1<br />
Bt<br />
− Ct<br />
t<br />
( 1+<br />
i)<br />
Where: t = individual years; n = number <strong>of</strong> years over<br />
which <strong>the</strong> project is evaluated; B = <strong>the</strong> sum <strong>of</strong> benefits<br />
in a given year; C = <strong>the</strong> sum <strong>of</strong> costs in a given year; and<br />
i = <strong>the</strong> discount rate expressed as a decimal.<br />
For a project to be acceptable, PVB > PVC i.e. <strong>the</strong> net<br />
present value should be positive. The net present value<br />
gives a good idea <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total pr<strong>of</strong>it, in present value<br />
terms, <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> project. The NPV shown above is used<br />
to give a present value for a single ecosystem service.<br />
However, for all <strong>the</strong> different ecosystem services that<br />
are obtained from Mabira CFR, <strong>the</strong> Total Present Value is<br />
caculated. The Total Present Value is <strong>the</strong> sum <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> net<br />
present values <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> ecosystem services i.e.<br />
TPV =<br />
Where:<br />
m<br />
∑ NPVs<br />
s=<br />
1<br />
TPV = Total Present Value; NPV= Net Present Value; and<br />
s (1-m) = all ecosystem services from 1 to m<br />
Note: Simple calculus shows that TPV is equivalent to <strong>the</strong><br />
quotient <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> NPV divided by <strong>the</strong> discount rate (i)<br />
TPV = NPV<br />
i<br />
The approach is a good measure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> opportunity cost<br />
(or forest benefits foregone) as a result <strong>of</strong> alternative<br />
development initiatives in Mabira CFR.<br />
2. For Mabira CFR, <strong>the</strong> volume <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> standing<br />
timber is <strong>the</strong> capital stock from which benefits<br />
are derived, and not <strong>the</strong> stream <strong>of</strong> benefits<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves.<br />
3. In calculating <strong>the</strong> streams <strong>of</strong> benefits arising<br />
from timber, poles and firewood, stumpage<br />
values and not market prices were used.<br />
4. The basis for calculating <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> forests for<br />
ecotourism is <strong>the</strong> consumer surplus, representing<br />
<strong>the</strong> price tourists are willing-to-pay, up and<br />
above what <strong>the</strong>y actually pay for <strong>the</strong> ecotourism<br />
experience (Figure 6). Ecotourism is an important<br />
activity in Mabira CFR.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
4. The basis for calculating <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> forests for ecotourism is <strong>the</strong> consumer<br />
surplus, representing <strong>the</strong> price tourists are willing-to-pay, up and above what <strong>the</strong>y<br />
actually pay for <strong>the</strong> ecotourism experience (Figure 6). Ecotourism is an important<br />
activity in Mabira CFR.<br />
Figure 7: Graphic Illustration <strong>of</strong> Willingness to Pay<br />
Figure 7: Graphic Illustration <strong>of</strong> Willingness to Pay<br />
Willingness-to-pay<br />
(WTP)<br />
consumer surplus<br />
actual price paid<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> days<br />
5. Non-timber forest products are harvested in Mabira CFR. This study used <strong>the</strong><br />
extensive research <strong>of</strong> Bush et al (2004) on community livelihoods in<br />
5. Non-timber forest products are harvested in<br />
_____________________________________________________________________<br />
Mabira CFR. This study used <strong>the</strong> extensive<br />
enclaves extend into Mabira CFR and 40will<br />
be<br />
By Yakobo Moyini, PhD<br />
research <strong>of</strong> Bush et al (2004) on community<br />
impacted by <strong>the</strong> development. This land is owned<br />
livelihoods in representative forests in <strong>Uganda</strong>.<br />
by individuals who should be compensated.<br />
The results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir research were used in this However, <strong>the</strong> <strong>valuation</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lands is outside<br />
study, augmented by <strong>the</strong> Consultants’ household<br />
<strong>the</strong> scope <strong>of</strong> this study since <strong>the</strong> analysis focuses<br />
survey and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs),<br />
exclusively on <strong>the</strong> CFR.<br />
among o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
6. Carbon sequestration values were derived<br />
from Bush et al (2004) where average values <strong>of</strong><br />
tonnes <strong>of</strong> carbon per unit area per year have<br />
been estimated multiplied by <strong>the</strong> appropriate<br />
domestic market price prevailing <strong>the</strong>n for carbon.<br />
There are two carbon values – carbon stored in<br />
growing stock; and carbon sequestered annually<br />
as a result <strong>of</strong> growth.<br />
7. Biodiversity values were estimated using<br />
secondary data from research in comparable<br />
areas.<br />
8. Small parts <strong>of</strong> Buwoola and Namusa community<br />
5.3. VALUATION<br />
A. VALUE OF TIMBER GROWING STOCK<br />
Table 16 Shows estimates <strong>of</strong> volumes and values <strong>of</strong><br />
standing timber on a compartment by compartment<br />
basis for <strong>the</strong> area <strong>proposed</strong> to be gazetted (also see<br />
Annex 2). Total timber volume (40cm dbh +) was<br />
estimated at 547 541m 3 . Based on existing inventory<br />
data and information from <strong>the</strong> current management<br />
plan, <strong>the</strong> total volume is made up <strong>of</strong>: 20.8 percent <strong>of</strong><br />
Class I timber utilisation class; 31.3 percent <strong>of</strong> Class II;<br />
and 47.9 percent <strong>of</strong> Class III.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 37
Table 16: Value <strong>of</strong> Growing Stock<br />
Class Volume (m 3 ) Value (Shs millions)<br />
I 113,889 19,677<br />
II 171,380 17,568<br />
III 262,272 22,657<br />
Totals 547,541 59,902<br />
Source: NFA (2007)<br />
From information based on a pilot study at <strong>the</strong> NFA<br />
and based on estimates used by Moyini (2006), average<br />
stumpage values per cubic metre (at 100 percent<br />
management costs) for <strong>the</strong> different utilisation classes<br />
were: Ushs 172,770 for Class I; Ushs 102,511 for Class<br />
II; and Ushs 86,386 for Class III 7 (Table 17). From <strong>the</strong><br />
foregoing, <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> standing timber in <strong>the</strong><br />
Compartments <strong>proposed</strong> for degazettement would be<br />
as follows above:<br />
Therefore, <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> standing timber is Ushs<br />
59,902,000,000 or US $ 35,236,471.<br />
7 Historically, purchasers <strong>of</strong> standing timber have paid in<br />
excess <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> NFA’s reserve prices during timber auction exercises.<br />
Hence, <strong>the</strong> reserve prices should be considered relatively conservative.<br />
Table 17: Value <strong>of</strong> Annual Exploitable Timber Yield<br />
38<br />
Value <strong>of</strong> annual timber benefit stream<br />
According to Karani et al (1997) a forest inventory<br />
carried out in 1993 revealed that Mabira had an annual<br />
exploitable timber yield based on trees <strong>of</strong> diameter<br />
50cm and above and a 60-year felling cycle <strong>of</strong> 1m 3 /ha/<br />
year. This is based on selective logging or what is known<br />
as reduced impact logging (RIL). Allowing for in-growth<br />
and considering a felling regime based on 40cm instead<br />
<strong>of</strong> 50cm dbh as a minimum, <strong>the</strong> harvestable volume is<br />
increased by 24 percent. Hence <strong>the</strong> estimates <strong>of</strong> Karani<br />
et al (1997) were adjusted upwards by 24 percent, to<br />
give annual exploitable volume <strong>of</strong> 1,868m 3 /year Class<br />
I, 2,803 m 3 /year Class II and 4,240 m 3 /year for Class III<br />
(Table 18). Using <strong>the</strong> same average stumpage values as<br />
reported earlier, <strong>the</strong> annual stream <strong>of</strong> timber benefits<br />
which would be foregone are as follows:<br />
Class Volume (m 3 /year Value (Shs / year)<br />
I 1,868 332,734,360<br />
II 2,803 287,338,333<br />
III 4,240 366,276,640<br />
Totals 8,911 986,349,333<br />
Source: Karani et al. (1997)<br />
From <strong>the</strong> foregoing, <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> annual exploitable<br />
timber yield which would be foregone as a result <strong>of</strong><br />
degazettement becomes Ushs 986,349,333/year. The<br />
equivalent present value at 12 percent social cost <strong>of</strong><br />
capital would be Ushs 8,219,577,775 (or US$ 4,835,046).<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Table 18: Value <strong>of</strong> standing Timber crop, Area Proposed for degazettement in Mabira CFR<br />
CPT Area<br />
Mean Vol<br />
per ha DBH<br />
40-50<br />
Mean Vol per<br />
ha DBH 50 +<br />
Mean Vol/<br />
ha dbh<br />
40cm+<br />
Total Vol<br />
(m3 ) dbh 40-<br />
50 cm<br />
Total Vol (m3 )<br />
dbh 50 cm+<br />
Total<br />
Volume<br />
(m3) 40cm+<br />
dbh<br />
180 447 15 61 76 6,526 27,330 33,855.78<br />
181 341 15 61 76 4,979 20,849 25,827.34<br />
182 362 15 61 76 5,285 22,133 27,417.88<br />
183 405 15 61 76 5,913 24,762 30,674.70<br />
184 580 4 25 28 2,094 14,210 16,303.80<br />
185 694 25 46 71 17,336 31,667 49,003.34<br />
171 613 15 61 76 8,950 37,479 46,428.62<br />
172 320 15 61 76 4,672 19,565 24,236.80<br />
173 489 15 61 76 7,139 29,897 37,036.86<br />
174 516 15 61 76 7,534 31,548 39,081.84<br />
175 358 15 61 76 5,227 21,888 27,114.92<br />
178 653 15 113 129 9,932 73,985 83,917.03<br />
179 403 15 61 76 5,884 24,639 30,523.22<br />
234 563 15 61 76 8,220 34,422 42,641.62<br />
235 442 15 61 76 6,453 27,024 33,477.08<br />
106,143 441,397 547,540.83<br />
Source: NFA Databank<br />
POLES AND FIREWOOD<br />
The Management Plan for Mabira CFR 1997-2007 did<br />
not encourage <strong>the</strong> harvesting <strong>of</strong> poles from <strong>the</strong> forest.<br />
The Plan had this to say in Prescription No. 30.<br />
“Though a limited quantity <strong>of</strong> poles is<br />
permitted for domestic use, <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
attempts to collect and sell poles due<br />
to socio<strong>economic</strong> pressures. There is<br />
absolute need to watch out for any<br />
large quantities collected by people<br />
neighbouring <strong>the</strong> reserves, as a small<br />
business. The FD (now <strong>the</strong> NFA) staff<br />
will investigate any suspected cases and<br />
take appropriate steps to stamp out <strong>the</strong><br />
practice”.<br />
Karani, et al (1997).<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
Similarly, for fuelwood or woodfuel (representing<br />
firewood and charcoal), <strong>the</strong> Management Plan 1997-<br />
2007 Prescription 31 said thus.<br />
“ Fuelwood cutting (sic) and charcoal<br />
production are destructive to a standing<br />
crop, as licence holders are indiscriminate<br />
i.e. cutting young trees <strong>of</strong> marketable<br />
species. Fuelwood cutting (sic) and<br />
charcoal production shall not be allowed<br />
in <strong>the</strong> MPA (Management Plan Area)”.<br />
Karani et al (1997).<br />
From <strong>the</strong> foregoing, harvesting <strong>of</strong> both poles and<br />
firewood in commercial quantities is prohibited.<br />
However, harvesting <strong>the</strong> products in limited quantities<br />
for own use is permissible. Hence <strong>the</strong> approach to<br />
estimating <strong>the</strong> combined stream <strong>of</strong> values from<br />
firewood and poles was <strong>the</strong> one Bush et al (2004) used<br />
39
ased on household livelihoods.<br />
Bush et al. (2004) estimated <strong>the</strong> total livelihood value<br />
<strong>of</strong> timber (largely poles and firewood) and non-timber<br />
products from a typical protected tropical high forest<br />
in <strong>Uganda</strong> at UShs 18,074 per ha per year, <strong>of</strong> which 47<br />
percent was timber and 53 percent non-timber forest<br />
products. Hence <strong>the</strong> combined annual stream <strong>of</strong> poles<br />
and firewood values was estimated at UShs 8,495/ha.<br />
Since <strong>the</strong> impact area in Mabira CFR is estimated at<br />
7186ha, this gives a benefit stream <strong>of</strong> UShs 61,045,070/<br />
year. Capitalising this annual benefit stream by 12<br />
percent gives a net present value for poles and firewood<br />
<strong>of</strong> UShs 508,708,917. Bush et al (2004) cautioned as<br />
follows.<br />
40<br />
“It is important to note at this point that<br />
<strong>the</strong> values calculated do not imply that<br />
<strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> <strong>economic</strong> value derived is<br />
sustainable. (They estimated <strong>economic</strong><br />
value based on <strong>the</strong> current levels <strong>of</strong> use).<br />
However, it is reasonable to assume that<br />
protected THF [Tropical High Forest]<br />
values are closer to sustainable harvest<br />
rates considering <strong>the</strong> management<br />
efforts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> NFA”.<br />
In summary, <strong>the</strong> values <strong>of</strong> poles and firewood were<br />
arrived at as follows.<br />
Poles + Firewood livelihood value<br />
UShs 8,495/ha/year<br />
Size <strong>of</strong> Impact Area<br />
7186 ha<br />
Total annual benefit stream<br />
UShs 61,045,070/year<br />
Present Value <strong>of</strong> Poles + Firewood benefits<br />
UShs 508,708,917 (or (US$ 299,241)<br />
B. NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS<br />
Prescription 32 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mabira Forest Management Plan<br />
1997-2007 had this to say about handicrafts materials.<br />
“Demand for handicraft products,<br />
including easy chairs, stools, mats<br />
and baskets is rising. Although limited<br />
quantities, for domestic use, are permitted<br />
free <strong>of</strong> charge under <strong>the</strong> Forests Act, a<br />
system shall be devised to monitor, record<br />
and control harvesting. Any collection/<br />
harvesting for commercial purposes shall<br />
be fully charged at appropriate rates <strong>of</strong><br />
such forest product”. Karani et al (1997).<br />
For o<strong>the</strong>r non-timber forest products, Prescription 33 <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Mabira Forest Management Plan 1997-2007 stated<br />
as follows:<br />
“Domestic collection <strong>of</strong> medicinal herbs,<br />
edible plants and o<strong>the</strong>r food materials<br />
does not pose any immediate danger<br />
to <strong>the</strong> resource or <strong>the</strong> standing forest<br />
crop. Such collection may promote<br />
protection and conservation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
respective forest resource in <strong>the</strong> MPA by<br />
neighbouring communities. However,<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> harvesting shall be controlled<br />
and in case <strong>of</strong> commercial interests,<br />
corresponding fees shall be charged. In<br />
case <strong>of</strong> any destruction to standing forest<br />
crop, e.g. debarking and uprooting, <strong>the</strong><br />
FD (now NFA) <strong>of</strong>ficers shall take steps to<br />
immediately stop such actions” Karani et<br />
al. (1997).<br />
To estimate <strong>the</strong> benefits stream from non-timber forest<br />
products, <strong>the</strong> Bush et al. (2004) study was used. The<br />
results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research showed that typical tropical<br />
high forest protected areas (PAs) on average generate<br />
UShs 9,579/ha/year, an amount much lower than<br />
Afromontane forest PAs, private THFs and savanna<br />
woodland/bushland. None<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> value for tropical<br />
high forest PA is thought to be <strong>the</strong> closest to <strong>the</strong> Mabira<br />
situation. Using <strong>the</strong> approach similar to <strong>the</strong> one for poles<br />
and firewood, <strong>the</strong> present value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> benefits stream<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
from non-timber forest products was estimated at UShs<br />
573,622,450 as shown below.<br />
NTFPs livelihood value<br />
UShs 9,579/ha/year<br />
Size <strong>of</strong> impact area<br />
7186 ha<br />
Annual benefit stream<br />
UShs 68,834,694/year<br />
Present Value <strong>of</strong> NTFPs<br />
UShs 573,622,450 (or US$337,425)<br />
C. PHARMACEUTICAL VALUE<br />
Mabira CFR is rich in biodiversity. The area <strong>of</strong> impact <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>proposed</strong> degazettement represents 24 percent<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total and, <strong>the</strong>refore, is likely to affect overall<br />
biodiversity richness. Some biodiversity will definitely<br />
be lost.<br />
Biodiversity richness <strong>of</strong> a forest represents an option<br />
value; and it is perhaps one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> least tangible<br />
benefits <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>’s forests (Bush et al 2004). The value<br />
<strong>of</strong> biodiversity lies partly in <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> plant-<br />
based pharmaceuticals (Bush et al 2004; Emerton &<br />
Muramira 1999; Mendelsohn & Balik 1997; Howard<br />
1995; Pearce & Moran 1994; Ruitenbeek 1989). In<br />
addition to undiscovered plant-based pharmaceuticals,<br />
Howard (1995) reported that <strong>the</strong>re is potential in wild<br />
c<strong>of</strong>fee genetic material. According to Bush et al (2004),<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong>’s farmed c<strong>of</strong>fee is being hit by a Fusarium wilt<br />
against which no known cultural or chemical practices<br />
appear to succeed and wild c<strong>of</strong>fee is known to be<br />
resistant to it (Bush et al 2004).<br />
Various estimates have been made <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong><br />
forest biodiversity. Ruitenbeek (1989) estimated <strong>the</strong><br />
biodiversity <strong>of</strong> Korup Park in Cameroon at ₤0.1/ha/<br />
annum. Pearce & Moran (1994) provided a range <strong>of</strong><br />
values for tropical forest, ranging from US$0.1/ha to US<br />
$ 21/ha.<br />
Mendelsohn & Balik (1997) produced a value for<br />
undiscovered plant-based drugs in tropical forest with<br />
average plant endemism <strong>of</strong> US$3/ha. Howard (1995)<br />
suggested that <strong>Uganda</strong>’s forests are not as species rich<br />
as Korup Park and <strong>the</strong> country would be less competitive<br />
in say supply <strong>of</strong> Prunus africana. Bush et al (2004),<br />
suggest an average value for biodiversity at US$1.50/ha/<br />
year. Simpson et al (1994) estimated <strong>the</strong> pharmaceutical<br />
value <strong>of</strong> ‘hot spot’ land areas in various countries <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
world. Their estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> willingness to pay (WTP) <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> pharmaceutical companies was $2.10 for Tanzania<br />
and $1.1 for Ivory Coast. Hence <strong>the</strong> Bush et al (2004) is a<br />
very reasonable estimate. Using this estimate <strong>the</strong> future<br />
pharmaceutical opportunities foregone in <strong>the</strong> impact<br />
area would be UShs 18,324,300/year (using an exchange<br />
rate <strong>of</strong> 1 US$ = UShs 1700). This annual benefit stream<br />
translates into a present value <strong>of</strong> UShs 152,702,500 (or<br />
US$898,825).<br />
D. DOMESTIC WATER CONSERVATION<br />
During Focus Group Discussions with communities<br />
surrounding Mabira CFR and living in <strong>the</strong> forest enclaves,<br />
<strong>the</strong>y revealed that to <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> most important use <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> forest was for water collection. All <strong>the</strong> surrounding<br />
communities and those living in <strong>the</strong> forest enclaves, said<br />
<strong>the</strong>y get <strong>the</strong>ir water from <strong>the</strong> forest. This view tallies with<br />
<strong>the</strong> observation <strong>of</strong> Bush et al (2004), where <strong>the</strong> forests<br />
surveyed across <strong>Uganda</strong> represented important sources<br />
<strong>of</strong> water for local communities.<br />
Bush et al (2004) estimated <strong>the</strong> mean value <strong>of</strong> water<br />
provision for both humans and livestock per household<br />
at UShs 18,415 per annum, and ranges from UShs 12,078<br />
per annum for Budongo CFR to UShs 30,928 per annum<br />
for Rwenzori Mountains National Park. In this report,<br />
<strong>the</strong> value for Budongo CFR which is relatively similar to<br />
Mabira CFR was used in estimating community water<br />
benefits.<br />
Muramira (2000) estimated <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> households<br />
in <strong>the</strong> enclaves and within <strong>the</strong> proximity <strong>of</strong> Mabira at<br />
15,631. Assuming population growth rate <strong>of</strong> 3.4 percent<br />
per annum (UBOS 2002), by 2007, this population would<br />
have increased to about 19,753 households. Therefore<br />
multiplying <strong>the</strong> mean value <strong>of</strong> water provision <strong>of</strong> UShs<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 41
12,078 per annum by <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> households gives<br />
a total value <strong>of</strong> UShs 238,576,734 per annum. However,<br />
<strong>the</strong> impact area is 7186ha out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total size <strong>of</strong> about<br />
30,000ha. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> water provision in<br />
impact area which will be lost is equivalent to UShs<br />
57,258,416 per annum. Holding this value constant over<br />
<strong>the</strong> project period, <strong>the</strong> net present value <strong>of</strong> domestic<br />
water provision translates into a conservative estimate<br />
<strong>of</strong> UShs 477,153,468 (or US $ 280,679) 8 .<br />
E. ECOTOURISM<br />
According to Pearce & Pearce (2001) ecotourism is a<br />
growing activity and contributes a potentially valuable<br />
non-extractive use <strong>of</strong> tropical forests. A review <strong>of</strong> some<br />
estimates <strong>of</strong> tourism values shows enormous variations<br />
in unit values <strong>of</strong> ecotourism. For example Maille and<br />
Mandelsohn (1991) estimated <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> tropical<br />
forest ecotourism in Madagascar at $360 – 468/ha<br />
based on a study <strong>of</strong> consumer’s surplus using <strong>the</strong> travel<br />
cost method (TCM). On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, o<strong>the</strong>r tropical<br />
forest ecosystem values are as follows: $650/ha benefit<br />
<strong>of</strong> no logging over continued logging in a forest in <strong>the</strong><br />
Philippines (Hodgson & Dixon 1988); consumer’s surplus<br />
estimates <strong>of</strong> $ 1/ha for a site in Mexico (Adger et al 1995);<br />
$740/ha for forest recreation areas in Malaysia (Garrod<br />
&Willis 1997); and $950 – 2305/ha for two forested<br />
parks in Costa Rica (Shultz et al 1998). Generally, very<br />
8 The estimate is conservative because <strong>the</strong> population in<br />
<strong>the</strong> enclaves and <strong>the</strong> surrounding areas will increase over <strong>the</strong> years.<br />
However, it is possible with increased development, alternative water<br />
sources may be developed.<br />
Table 19: Visitor statistics<br />
Year<br />
42<br />
Foreigners/<br />
Foreign Residents<br />
high popularity sites generate much higher values as<br />
demonstrated by <strong>the</strong> Schultz et al study.<br />
Ecotourism in Mabira CFR is popular due to its proximity<br />
to large urban centres and above average biodiversity<br />
richness. The lower case value ($360/ha) for Madagascar<br />
from <strong>the</strong> study <strong>of</strong> Maille and Mandelsohn (1991)<br />
could be a reasonable average estimate. Multiplying<br />
<strong>the</strong> Madagascar value by <strong>the</strong> 7186 ha <strong>proposed</strong> for<br />
degazettement, one estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ecotourism value <strong>of</strong><br />
Mabira CFR would be $2,586,960/year; and <strong>the</strong> present<br />
value at $21,558,000.<br />
On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, according to Muramira (2000),<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong>’s tropical high forests have some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> richest<br />
biodiversity <strong>of</strong> plant and animal life in <strong>the</strong> world. However,<br />
compared to o<strong>the</strong>r national forests, <strong>the</strong> biodiversity<br />
inventory for Mabira CFR revealed that <strong>the</strong> forest has<br />
average biodiversity attributes (Davenport et al 1996).<br />
The ecotourism value <strong>of</strong> Mabira lies in <strong>the</strong> fact that it<br />
is <strong>the</strong> only THF protected area within <strong>the</strong> Lake Victoria<br />
shore crescent. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, Mabira CFR is close to <strong>the</strong><br />
urban centres <strong>of</strong> Kampala (53km) and Jinja (21km). There<br />
is increasing interest in ecotourism in Mabira CFR as<br />
shown in Table 20. Finally, in addition to <strong>the</strong> Ecotourism<br />
Centre operated by <strong>the</strong> NFA, new developments are<br />
ei<strong>the</strong>r nearing completion (for example <strong>the</strong> facility <strong>of</strong><br />
Ecolodges) or are in <strong>the</strong> early stages <strong>of</strong> development (for<br />
example <strong>the</strong> plans <strong>of</strong> MAFICO). These developments,<br />
amongst o<strong>the</strong>rs, point to an accelerated growth in<br />
ecotourism in Mabira CFR.<br />
Locals Total<br />
2005/06 1,989 2,854 4,843<br />
1999 1,312 2,880 4,172<br />
1998 1,450 1,125 2,575<br />
1997 1,304 1,094 2,398<br />
1996 1,097 515 1,612<br />
Source : data for 2005/06 fiscal year from <strong>the</strong> NFA<br />
: data for remaining years, Muramira (2000)<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
The basis to estimating <strong>the</strong> annual value <strong>of</strong> ecotourism<br />
is <strong>the</strong> consumer surplus, <strong>the</strong> difference between <strong>the</strong><br />
price tourists are willing to pay and <strong>the</strong> price <strong>the</strong>y<br />
actually paid. Naidoo & Adamowicz (2005) found that<br />
an entrance <strong>of</strong> US$47 would maximise tourism value<br />
compared to <strong>the</strong> amount foreign and foreign residents<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> are currently charged (US$5) to visit Mabira<br />
CFR (Naidoo & Adamowicz 2005). This dramatic under-<br />
<strong>valuation</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> willingness to pay <strong>of</strong> tourist visitors is<br />
consistent with results from o<strong>the</strong>r tropical areas and<br />
suggests much room for improvement in entrance fee<br />
policy (Naidoo & Adamowicz 2005).<br />
From <strong>the</strong> above, <strong>the</strong> consumer surplus for foreigners<br />
and foreign residents is US$42 per tourist. In <strong>the</strong> absence<br />
<strong>of</strong> data on <strong>the</strong> local tourists’ willingness-to-pay and<br />
considering <strong>the</strong>ir low income levels, this study assumes<br />
a zero consumer surplus pertaining to local tourists. For<br />
foreigners and foreign residents US$ 42 or UShs 71,400<br />
(at exchange rate <strong>of</strong> UShs 1700 to <strong>the</strong> US$) – was used.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, using <strong>the</strong> 2005/06 data for foreigners and<br />
foreign residents <strong>of</strong> 1,989 tourists, <strong>the</strong> annual value <strong>of</strong><br />
ecotourism for <strong>the</strong> whole Mabira CFR was estimated<br />
at UShs 142,014,600/year. Mabira CFR is about 30,000<br />
ha in size and it would be incorrect to allocate all <strong>the</strong><br />
annual value lost due to <strong>the</strong> impact area <strong>of</strong> 7186 ha.<br />
Hence, <strong>the</strong> proportionate share <strong>of</strong> ecotourism benefits<br />
lost was estimated as a fraction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> value for Mabira<br />
as a whole (that is, UShs 142,014,600/year x 7186/30000)<br />
giving a value <strong>of</strong> UShs 34,083,504/year. Subsequently<br />
<strong>the</strong> present value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ecotourism benefits foregone<br />
translates into Ushs 284,029,200 (or US$167,076).<br />
This estimate must be considered a very conservative<br />
one and demonstrates <strong>the</strong> room available for ecotourism<br />
to grow in Mabira CFR. It is quite possible that once <strong>the</strong><br />
planned and <strong>the</strong> on-going ecotourism development<br />
projects are completed <strong>the</strong>re will be a dramatic increase<br />
in tourist numbers and <strong>Uganda</strong>n tourists will also begin<br />
to register significant consumer’s surpluses. These<br />
developments are likely, <strong>the</strong>refore, to propel <strong>the</strong> annual<br />
value <strong>of</strong> ecotourism closer to <strong>the</strong> $360/ha mark which<br />
was registered in Madagascar.<br />
F. CARBON STORAGE AND SEQUESTRATION<br />
When a forest is under threat <strong>of</strong> conversion, it is important<br />
to distinguish two values. The first is <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
carbon stored in a standing forest that is close to ‘carbon<br />
balance’. The second is <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> carbon sequestered<br />
in a growing forest. In o<strong>the</strong>r words <strong>the</strong> carbon storage<br />
value is <strong>the</strong> value held in <strong>the</strong> growing stock or standing<br />
timber volume. The sequestration value is <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> additional carbon absorbed by <strong>the</strong> forest<br />
as it adds more volume annually.<br />
Brown and Pearce (1994) provide some benchmark<br />
figures for carbon content and loss for tropical forest<br />
conversion situations (Table 21). A closed primary forest<br />
has 283tC/ha <strong>of</strong> carbon and if converted to permanent<br />
agriculture would release 220tC/ha (283tC/ha less 63tC/<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 43<br />
ha).<br />
Table 20: Carbon content and loss for tropical forest conversion<br />
Forest type<br />
Forest Original<br />
Carbon (tC/ha)<br />
Permanent Agriculture<br />
Carbon (tC/ha)<br />
Closed primary forest 283 /a 63 /c -220<br />
Closed secondary forest 194 /b 63 -131<br />
Open forest 115 63 -52<br />
/ a – 116 soil, 167 biomass; / b – 84 soil, 110 biomass; / c – mainly soil<br />
Source: Brown and Pearce (1994)<br />
Quantity <strong>of</strong> Carbon Released by<br />
conversion (tC/ha)<br />
For closed secondary and open forests, <strong>the</strong> corresponding figures are 131tC/ha and 52tC/ha, respectively. A large
part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> area <strong>proposed</strong> for degazettement in Mabira<br />
may be characterised as a combination <strong>of</strong> open forest<br />
and closed secondary forest. Taking <strong>the</strong> carbon loss<br />
value <strong>of</strong> open forest (52tC/ha) <strong>the</strong> conversion <strong>of</strong> 7186ha<br />
<strong>of</strong> Mabira to permanent agriculture would release<br />
373672tC. Using this value as a benchmark, <strong>the</strong> next<br />
question is what <strong>the</strong> <strong>economic</strong> value <strong>of</strong> such carbon<br />
stock is. A significant literature exists on <strong>the</strong> <strong>economic</strong><br />
value <strong>of</strong> global warming damage and <strong>the</strong> translation <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>se estimates into <strong>the</strong> <strong>economic</strong> value <strong>of</strong> a marginal<br />
tonne <strong>of</strong> carbon (Pearce & Pearce 2001). According to<br />
Zhang (2000) if <strong>the</strong>re were no limitations placed on<br />
worldwide carbon trading, carbon credits would by <strong>the</strong>n<br />
have exchanged at just under $10tC. If ‘hot air’ trading<br />
were excluded, <strong>the</strong> price would be $13tC. Therefore,<br />
taking $10tC as a conservative estimate, <strong>the</strong> one-<strong>of</strong>f<br />
value <strong>of</strong> carbon released into <strong>the</strong> atmosphere would be<br />
$3,736,720 (or Ushs 6,352,424,000).<br />
Secondly, once <strong>the</strong> area is converted into permanent<br />
agriculture, <strong>the</strong>n its annual carbon sequestration<br />
capacity is severely restricted. The removal <strong>of</strong> tree cover<br />
as a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> permanent agriculture (plantation) will<br />
result in a loss <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> carbon storage capacity <strong>of</strong><br />
Mabira CFR. According to Bush et al (2004), at <strong>the</strong> global<br />
level, <strong>the</strong> forestry sub-sector is an important carbon<br />
sink, helping to reduce accumulation <strong>of</strong> greenhouse<br />
gases and hence global warming which will lead to<br />
adverse changes in climate. Emerton & Muramira<br />
(1999) and Bush et al (2004) give <strong>the</strong> following carbon<br />
sequestration values for different <strong>Uganda</strong>n vegetation<br />
types: primary closed forest UShs 54,660/ha/year;<br />
degraded forest UShs 32,538/ha/year; and woodland,<br />
bushland and grassland UShs 2,603/ha/year. The forest<br />
conversion is expected to leave <strong>the</strong> cleared impact area<br />
under grassland (sugarcane) instead <strong>of</strong> bare ground.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> Production Zone should have a carbon<br />
sink value <strong>of</strong> UShs 40,996/ha/year, using <strong>the</strong> average<br />
value for a primary closed forest and a degraded forest<br />
and deducting grassland values.<br />
Multiplying <strong>the</strong> carbon sink value by <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
applicable impact area, is expected to result in a loss<br />
44<br />
<strong>of</strong> carbon sink values equivalent to UShs 294,597,256/<br />
year. Capitalised at <strong>the</strong> social opportunity cost <strong>of</strong><br />
capital, <strong>the</strong> annual stream gives a present value <strong>of</strong> UShs<br />
2,454,977,133 (or $1,444,104).<br />
G. WATERSHED PROTECTION<br />
Typically, <strong>the</strong> functions forests play in watershed<br />
regulation include: soil conservation (siltation and<br />
sedimentation), water flow regulation (including flood<br />
and storm protection, water supply, water quality<br />
regulation – including nutrient outflow). The effects <strong>of</strong><br />
forest cover removal can be dramatic. Unfortunately,<br />
<strong>economic</strong> studies <strong>of</strong> watershed protection functions are<br />
few, none<strong>the</strong>less progress is being made. From existing<br />
studies Krieger (nd) was able to arrive at average values<br />
<strong>of</strong> tropical forests as follows: water regulation ($6/<br />
ha); water supply/quality ($8/ha); erosion control and<br />
sediment retention $245/ha, resulting in a total <strong>of</strong> $259/<br />
ha. When <strong>the</strong>se average values for all tropical forests <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> world are applied to <strong>the</strong> Mabira case, it translates<br />
into annual watershed protection values <strong>of</strong> $1,760,570<br />
and present value <strong>of</strong> $14,671,417. According to Hamilton<br />
& King (1983), care needs to be taken not to exaggerate<br />
<strong>the</strong>se estimates. Yaron (2001) estimated <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong><br />
flood protection (using <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> avoidable crop and<br />
tree losses as a basis) and came up with a figure <strong>of</strong> $0-<br />
24/ha. Using Yaron’s upper estimate <strong>of</strong> $24/ha, <strong>the</strong> flood<br />
protection value for <strong>the</strong> Mabira impact area would be<br />
$172,464/year (or UShs 293,188,800 using exchange rate<br />
<strong>of</strong> 1 US$ = UShs 1700) and present value <strong>of</strong> $1,437,200.<br />
While this conservative estimate applies to flood<br />
protection and not <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r watershed functions, it<br />
may be used for watershed protection values lost in <strong>the</strong><br />
Mabira impact area.<br />
H. OPTION AND EXISTENCE VALUES<br />
According to Pearce &Pearce (2001), <strong>the</strong> notion <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>economic</strong> value includes willingness to pay for <strong>the</strong><br />
conservation <strong>of</strong> a forest or ecosystem even though <strong>the</strong><br />
individual expressing <strong>the</strong> willingness to pay secures<br />
no use value from <strong>the</strong> forest. The authors went on to<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
describe three contexts in which such values might<br />
arise. They are:<br />
» someone may express a willingness to pay to<br />
conserve <strong>the</strong> forest in order that <strong>the</strong>y may make<br />
some use <strong>of</strong> it in <strong>the</strong> future, e.g. for recreation.<br />
This is known as an option value;<br />
» someone may express a willingness to pay to<br />
conserve a forest even though <strong>the</strong>y make no<br />
use <strong>of</strong> it, nor intend to. Their motive may be that<br />
<strong>the</strong>y wish <strong>the</strong>ir children or future generations to<br />
be able to use it. This is a form <strong>of</strong> option value<br />
for o<strong>the</strong>rs’ benefit, sometimes called a bequest<br />
value; and<br />
» someone may express a willingness to pay<br />
to conserve a forest even though <strong>the</strong>y make<br />
no use <strong>of</strong> it, nor intend to, nor intend it for<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rs’ use. They simply wish <strong>the</strong> forest to<br />
exist. Motivations may vary, from some feeling<br />
about <strong>the</strong> intrinsic value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forest through<br />
to notions <strong>of</strong> stewardship, religious or spiritual<br />
value, <strong>the</strong> rights <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r living things, etc. This<br />
is known as existence value (Pearce & Pearce<br />
2001).<br />
While extremely difficult to determine <strong>the</strong> relevance<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> option and existence values is that <strong>the</strong>y may<br />
be ‘capturable’ through mechanisms such as debt-for-<br />
nature swaps, <strong>of</strong>ficial aid, donations to conservation<br />
agencies, and pricing mechanisms (Pearce &Pearce<br />
2001). According to Swanson & Kontoleon (2000), an<br />
example <strong>of</strong> using a price is <strong>the</strong> suggestion that visitors<br />
to China would have <strong>the</strong> option <strong>of</strong> paying $1 extra<br />
for a panda stamp’ in <strong>the</strong>ir passports, along with <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
visa, to indicate that <strong>the</strong>y have donated towards panda<br />
conservation in China.<br />
Some option and existence value estimates for <strong>the</strong><br />
world’s tropical forests have been reported elsewhere<br />
including: Sri Lankan forests (villagers, rural and urban<br />
groups <strong>of</strong> use, bequest and existence values) by<br />
Gunawardena et al (1999) using a contingent <strong>valuation</strong><br />
method (CVM); and US residents’ willingness to pay ‘one-<br />
<strong>of</strong>f’ payment <strong>of</strong> $21-31 per household for protection <strong>of</strong> 5<br />
percent more <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world’s tropical rain forests (Kramer<br />
&Mercer 1997). However, for purposes <strong>of</strong> arriving at a<br />
relevant estimate for <strong>the</strong> impact area in Mabira three<br />
studies are particularly pertinent. The first concerns use<br />
<strong>of</strong> a willingness to pay study to estimate <strong>the</strong> implied<br />
‘world’ willingness to pay for limited forest areas covered<br />
by debt-for-nature swaps at $5/ha (Pearce 1996).<br />
The second study is a similar one by <strong>the</strong> same author<br />
on implied ‘world’ willingness to pay via <strong>the</strong> Global<br />
Environmental Facility (GEF) <strong>of</strong> $2/ha.<br />
The third study was estimates <strong>of</strong> option and existence<br />
values revealed in a study <strong>of</strong> debt-for-nature swaps<br />
and grant aid to Mexico forest conservation <strong>of</strong> $12/ha.<br />
For <strong>the</strong> impact area in Mabira, <strong>the</strong> implied willingness<br />
to pay via <strong>the</strong> GEF facility was chosen mainly because<br />
it represents <strong>the</strong> most conservative estimate but also<br />
because <strong>Uganda</strong> has been a beneficiary <strong>of</strong> several GEF<br />
funding arrangements 9 .<br />
From <strong>the</strong> foregoing, <strong>the</strong> unit option and existence<br />
value for <strong>the</strong> Mabira impact area would be $2/ha,<br />
which when multiplied by <strong>the</strong> 7186ha translates into<br />
$14,372/annum (or UShs 24,432,400/year using 1 US$<br />
= UShs 1,700) and a present value <strong>of</strong> about $119,767<br />
(or UShs 203,603,900).<br />
5.4. SUMMARY<br />
The results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> foregoing analysis are summarised<br />
in Table 21. The value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> timber growing stock in<br />
<strong>the</strong> impact area (40 cm dbh+) was estimated at about<br />
US$35.2 million. Irrespective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> use to which <strong>the</strong><br />
timber maybe put, it holds a stored carbon value <strong>of</strong><br />
US$3.7 million. For purposes <strong>of</strong> comparing <strong>the</strong> merits<br />
and demerits <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>proposed</strong> land conversion, <strong>the</strong><br />
stored carbon value will be ignored. It is assumed that <strong>the</strong><br />
growing timber stock will be converted into sawnwood<br />
and used fur<strong>the</strong>r in o<strong>the</strong>r processes or products (e.g.<br />
9 Including part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> World Bank support to <strong>Uganda</strong> under<br />
<strong>the</strong> Environment Management Capacity Building Project (EMCBP)<br />
for NEMA; and <strong>the</strong> Protected Area Management and Sustainable Use<br />
(PAMSU) whose beneficiaries include UWA, MTTI, Museums &<br />
Antiquities and UWEC, among o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 45
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettment <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR<br />
___________________________________________________________________________________<br />
furniture,<br />
Both <strong>the</strong><br />
building,<br />
actual<br />
construction,<br />
and potential<br />
etc.) hence<br />
(pharmaceutical<br />
retaining Community<br />
values) stream<br />
benefits in<br />
<strong>of</strong><br />
terms<br />
net<br />
<strong>of</strong><br />
benefits<br />
poles and<br />
were<br />
firewood,<br />
its estimated stored carbon at values. US$ 1,081,243/year The value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> growing <strong>of</strong> which stock 54 non-timber percent represents forest products <strong>the</strong> annual and water value supplies <strong>of</strong> were<br />
becomes exploitable relevant timber for purposes value, <strong>of</strong> whereby any compensation <strong>the</strong> amount as harvested estimated to does represent not ano<strong>the</strong>r exceed 10 mean percent annual <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> annual<br />
discussed increment in Chapter (MAI) 5.0. and a fur<strong>the</strong>r 16 percent each benefits are contributed stream. by carbon sequestration<br />
and watershed protection values. Community benefits in terms <strong>of</strong> poles and firewood,<br />
Both non-timber <strong>the</strong> actual forest and potential products (pharmaceutical and water values) supplies The were present estimated value to <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> represent annual ano<strong>the</strong>r stream <strong>of</strong> 10 benefits<br />
stream<br />
percent<br />
<strong>of</strong> net<br />
<strong>of</strong><br />
benefits<br />
<strong>the</strong> annual<br />
were<br />
benefits<br />
estimated<br />
stream.<br />
at US$ 1,081,243/ was estimated at about US$10 million, which when<br />
year <strong>of</strong> which 54 percent represents <strong>the</strong> annual value combined with <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> growing stock would give a<br />
The present value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> annual stream <strong>of</strong> benefits was estimated at about US$10 million,<br />
<strong>of</strong> exploitable timber value, whereby <strong>the</strong> amount total net present value <strong>of</strong> US$45.1 million for <strong>the</strong> area <strong>of</strong><br />
which when combined with <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> growing stock would give a total net present<br />
harvested value <strong>of</strong> does US$45.1 not exceed million mean for <strong>the</strong> annual area increment <strong>of</strong> impact in impact Mabira in Mabira CFR. CFR.<br />
(MAI) and a fur<strong>the</strong>r 16 percent each are contributed by<br />
carbon sequestration and watershed protection values.<br />
Table 21: 21: Summary <strong>of</strong> Values <strong>of</strong> Values<br />
One<br />
– <strong>of</strong>f<br />
Values<br />
Amount<br />
Ushs US $<br />
Timber Stock<br />
59,<br />
902,<br />
000,<br />
000<br />
35,<br />
236,471<br />
Value <strong>of</strong> Carbon Stored 6,352,424,000 3,736,720<br />
Annual Stream <strong>of</strong> Benefits<br />
Amount/<br />
Year<br />
Ushs<br />
US<br />
$<br />
Timber<br />
986,<br />
349,<br />
333<br />
580,<br />
205<br />
Poles & Firewood 61,045,070 35,909<br />
Non – Timber forest products (NTFP) 68,834,694 40,491<br />
Ecotourism<br />
18,<br />
324,<br />
300<br />
10,<br />
779<br />
Community water supplies 57,258,416 33,681<br />
Pharmaceutical values 34,083,504 20,049<br />
Carbon Sequestration 294,597,256 173,293<br />
Watershed protection 293,188,800 172,464<br />
Option/existence values 24,432,400 14,372<br />
1,838,113,773 1,081,243<br />
Net Present Value <strong>of</strong> Annual Benefits Streams<br />
Amount<br />
Ushs<br />
US$<br />
1.<br />
Timber<br />
8,<br />
219,<br />
577,<br />
775<br />
4,<br />
835,<br />
046<br />
2. Poles & Firewood 508,708,917 299,241<br />
3 . NTFP<br />
573,<br />
622,<br />
450<br />
337,425<br />
4. Domestic water supply for communities 157,702,500 898,825<br />
5. Pharmaceutical values 477,153,468 280,679<br />
6.<br />
Ecotourism<br />
value<br />
284,<br />
029,<br />
200<br />
167,<br />
076<br />
7. Carbon sequestration values 2,454,977,133 1,444,104<br />
8. Watershed protection values 2,443,240,000 1,437,200<br />
9. Option/Existence values 203,603,900 119,767<br />
15,322,615,343 9,819,363<br />
_____________________________________________________________________<br />
By Yakobo Moyini, PhD<br />
46<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
53
6.0. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION<br />
6.1. DISCUSSIONS<br />
The decision to degazette or not to degazette part <strong>of</strong><br />
Mabira CFR for sugar cane growing involves a range<br />
<strong>of</strong> considerations. The most important consideration is<br />
<strong>the</strong> comparative net returns to land from <strong>the</strong> different<br />
land uses, <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs being national policy, equity<br />
and environmental considerations and international<br />
obligations. The following section clearly demonstrates<br />
that whereas sugar cane growing is an important<br />
investment area for <strong>the</strong> economy, conservation <strong>of</strong><br />
Mabira Central Forest Reserve is an equally important<br />
land use option.<br />
• Why favour SCOUL only?<br />
A very disturbing question arising from a review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Mabira issue is why <strong>of</strong> all things <strong>the</strong> GoU feels SCOUL is <strong>the</strong><br />
producer best equipped to fill <strong>the</strong> production shortfall<br />
<strong>of</strong> 40,000 mt that currently exists when <strong>the</strong>re is ample<br />
evidence to show that despite being <strong>the</strong> oldest factory<br />
in <strong>the</strong> country and perhaps because <strong>of</strong> this, SCOUL is <strong>the</strong><br />
least efficient in terms <strong>of</strong> yield and conversion. It is true<br />
that SCOUL can point to some precedents in allocation<br />
<strong>of</strong> CFR land to agriculture, including sugarcane<br />
production. However, <strong>the</strong> argument is not sufficient to<br />
encourage <strong>the</strong> repeat <strong>of</strong> what obviously would appear<br />
to be a less than socially optimum decision.<br />
• Is sugarcane production superior?<br />
The first level <strong>of</strong> analysis is to ascertain whe<strong>the</strong>r it is<br />
better to convert 7,186 ha <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR into sugarcane<br />
production instead <strong>of</strong> leaving it intact for conservation.<br />
The <strong>proposed</strong> land conversion to permanent agriculture<br />
would mean losing about US$ 35,236,471 <strong>of</strong> timber<br />
growing stock. It would also mean foregoing US$<br />
9,819,363 in form <strong>of</strong> annual benefits. Hence a total loss<br />
<strong>of</strong> about US$ 45,055 834 <strong>of</strong> conservation benefits would<br />
be incurred.<br />
On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, converting a part <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR<br />
for sugarcane production will require extensive land<br />
clearing which itself will be a significant cost to SCOUL.<br />
Secondly, benefit streams from sugarcane growing<br />
would start flowing about 18 to 24 months after land<br />
clearing (assuming planting is immediate). This time lag<br />
also represents opportunities foregone.<br />
Notwithstanding <strong>the</strong> foregoing, if <strong>the</strong> land clearing<br />
costs and those costs associated with <strong>the</strong> length <strong>of</strong> time<br />
it would take to harvest <strong>the</strong> first crop <strong>of</strong> sugarcane are<br />
set aside, it is possible to estimate <strong>the</strong> future net benefits<br />
realisable from sugarcane growing. In Chapter 3.0 <strong>of</strong> this<br />
report, it was reported that <strong>the</strong> average gross pr<strong>of</strong>it from<br />
sugarcane production by out-growers was US$ 490/<br />
ha. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> annual benefit stream <strong>of</strong> sugarcane<br />
growing would be US$ 3,593,000/year, over three times<br />
<strong>the</strong> estimated annual value from conservation. This<br />
probably is <strong>the</strong> justification by those who advocate<br />
for <strong>the</strong> conversion <strong>of</strong> forest land to agricultural use.<br />
However, this is a partial story, a ra<strong>the</strong>r narrow view<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> benefits attributable to conservation.The net<br />
present value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total benefits <strong>of</strong> conservation was<br />
estimated at US$ 45.1 million (standing timber stock plus<br />
present value <strong>of</strong> annual benefits). It is this value, ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />
than annual benefits alone which need to be compared<br />
with <strong>the</strong> alternative <strong>of</strong> agriculture. The net present value<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> annual benefits from agriculture was estimated at<br />
US$ 29.9 million without making any deductions for <strong>the</strong><br />
initial costs associated with establishing <strong>the</strong> sugarcane<br />
plantation plus <strong>the</strong> time it would take for <strong>the</strong> first crop<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 47
to mature. Subsequently, conservation is superior to<br />
agriculture; and converting 7,186 ha <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR<br />
into agriculture would result into a net loss <strong>of</strong> US$ 15.2<br />
million to society. In fact, because sugarcane is a ratoon<br />
crop <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cane lasts only <strong>the</strong> five years <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
ratoon and a new crop is replanted. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> true<br />
value <strong>of</strong> a sugar crop is US$ 12.3 milion, which is US$<br />
32.8 milion inferior to <strong>the</strong> conservation option.<br />
• What if degazettement goes ahead?<br />
The National Forestry and Tree Planting Act has provisions<br />
for compensatory measures in case <strong>of</strong> degazettement<br />
– that is, fair and equal value. Also, <strong>Uganda</strong>’s social<br />
and environmental safeguard policies are clear on<br />
compensation. Hence, despite <strong>the</strong> evidence that <strong>the</strong><br />
conservation is a superior alternative to sugarcane<br />
growing, if o<strong>the</strong>r reasons compel <strong>the</strong> degazettement<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 7186 ha <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> developer must<br />
compensate for <strong>the</strong> values lost from <strong>the</strong> conservation<br />
alternative. This total value is estimated at US$ 45.1<br />
million, payable to <strong>the</strong> NFA for conservation activities in<br />
general and Mabira in particular. However, before doing<br />
so, <strong>the</strong> land use change should in addition be subjected<br />
to <strong>the</strong> environmental impact assessment (EIA) process<br />
to satisfy legal, and social and environmental safeguard<br />
policies <strong>of</strong> GoU.<br />
The pertinent question for SCOUL is whe<strong>the</strong>r paying<br />
<strong>the</strong> US$ 45.1 million represents a cheaper alternative to<br />
buying or leasing private land. An expenditure <strong>of</strong> US$<br />
45.1 million would purchase 30,668 ha <strong>of</strong> land (at Ushs<br />
2,500,000 per hectare assuming an exchange rate <strong>of</strong><br />
1US$ = Ushs 1,700) compared to <strong>the</strong> 7,186 ha at Mabira<br />
CFR.<br />
• Can SCOUL or <strong>the</strong> sugar industry<br />
48<br />
meet <strong>the</strong> national requirements for<br />
sugar?<br />
An answer to <strong>the</strong> above question is a resounding ‘no’.<br />
The reason is that even if <strong>the</strong> four sugar companies<br />
can produce volumes <strong>of</strong> sugar equal to <strong>the</strong> national<br />
requirement, imports will still be necessary. At <strong>the</strong><br />
moment <strong>the</strong> factories are unable to produce all grades<br />
<strong>of</strong> sugar in sufficient quantities to meet <strong>the</strong> aggregate<br />
national demand. The firms, <strong>the</strong>refore, need to first invest<br />
in processing capacity for <strong>the</strong> different grades <strong>of</strong> sugar<br />
before consideration can be given to self-sufficiency in<br />
sugar production (assuming this is a socially desirable<br />
goal).<br />
• Is <strong>the</strong>re a national sugar industry<br />
strategy?<br />
What one may call <strong>the</strong> ‘Mabira saga’ has over-shadowed<br />
an important debate about <strong>the</strong> sugar industry. This is<br />
wrong. Mabira is an issue because a single firm SCOUL,<br />
and not <strong>the</strong> whole industry wants an access to some<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CFR land. There are important industry issues<br />
to be addressed. For example, is a strategy towards<br />
self-sufficiency in sugar production desirable? Is it<br />
efficient? Can <strong>Uganda</strong> produce all <strong>the</strong> grades <strong>of</strong> sugar<br />
required by both household and industrial consumers?<br />
If <strong>the</strong> GoU is fully satisfied that <strong>the</strong> country has a clear<br />
and demonstrable comparative advantage in sugar<br />
production, <strong>the</strong>n why not produce as much sugar as<br />
possible to satify both domestic and export demands?<br />
Where should <strong>the</strong> incremental sugar production come<br />
from? In o<strong>the</strong>r words, are <strong>the</strong>re o<strong>the</strong>r parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
country where sugar can be produced competitively?<br />
Can increased sugar production be used as one strategy<br />
to promote poverty reduction and satisfy <strong>the</strong> ‘wealth for<br />
all’ objective?<br />
Answering <strong>the</strong> foregoing questions will require an<br />
examination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> whole sugar industry and not just<br />
<strong>the</strong> tribulations <strong>of</strong> SCOUL alone. By devoting exclusive<br />
energy to <strong>the</strong> Mabira debate, an opportunity to examine<br />
<strong>the</strong> whole sugar industry is lost and it forces GoU to make<br />
some ra<strong>the</strong>r obscure ‘seat <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> pants’ decisions. There is,<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore, a need to re-direct <strong>the</strong> Mabira debate to focus<br />
on <strong>the</strong> entire sugar industry and not just SCOUL alone<br />
so as to come up with more comprehensive solutions to<br />
<strong>the</strong> challenges facing, and <strong>the</strong> opportunities presented<br />
by, <strong>the</strong> sugar industry.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
6.2. CONCLUSION<br />
Despite <strong>the</strong> difficulties <strong>of</strong> estimating some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> goods<br />
and services provided by a forest, an attempt was made<br />
to arrive at <strong>the</strong> TEV <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> area <strong>of</strong> impact in Mabira<br />
CFR and compare it with <strong>the</strong> alternative <strong>of</strong> growing<br />
sugarcane. In doing so, effort was made to ensure<br />
that very conservative estimates were used for <strong>the</strong><br />
ecological services <strong>of</strong>fered by <strong>the</strong> forest. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
hand, in arriving at net benefits <strong>of</strong> sugarcane growing,<br />
<strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> land preparation was recognised but <strong>the</strong>n<br />
excluded from <strong>the</strong> calculations. The two actions in effect<br />
meant that very conservative estimates were used in<br />
estimating <strong>the</strong> benefits <strong>of</strong> conservation, while generous<br />
allowances were made for those <strong>of</strong> sugarcane growing.<br />
From <strong>the</strong> analysis carried out, it was clear that <strong>the</strong> benefits<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> conservation <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR far exceeded those <strong>of</strong><br />
sugarcane growing. The respective total <strong>economic</strong> value<br />
<strong>of</strong> conservation was estimated at US$ 45.1 compared to<br />
US$ 29.9 million which is <strong>the</strong> net present value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
annual benefits from <strong>the</strong> <strong>proposed</strong> sugar cane growing.<br />
As already indicated, in addition to <strong>the</strong> <strong>economic</strong><br />
values, a number <strong>of</strong> policy issues were also raised or<br />
highlighted. They include <strong>the</strong> need for compensation<br />
at ‘fair and equal’ value, <strong>the</strong> current implied objective <strong>of</strong><br />
national self-sufficiency in sugar production; and land<br />
acquisition options available to <strong>the</strong> developer.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 49
REFERENCES<br />
Adger, N., Brown, K., Carvigni, R and D. Moran. 1995.<br />
Total <strong>economic</strong> value <strong>of</strong> forests in Mexico, Ambio 24<br />
(5): 286-296.<br />
AfDB (2002) <strong>Uganda</strong>: Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bank Group<br />
Assistance to <strong>the</strong> Agricultural and Rural<br />
Development Sector in <strong>Uganda</strong>, Tunis Tunisia ADB/<br />
ADF/OPEV/02/11 July 2002<br />
AfricaBiz (2007) Sugarcane and products: Sugarcane as<br />
an <strong>economic</strong> catalyst to developing African countries,<br />
AfricaBiz Monthly Issue. http://businessafrica.net<br />
Newsletter ISSN 1563-4108, January 2007<br />
Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S. & Solow, A. 1998. Species<br />
distribution, land values and efficiency conservation.<br />
Science 279, 5359, 2126 - 2128<br />
Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P, Costanza R, Farber S,<br />
Green RE, Jenkins M, Jefferies P, Jessamy V, Madden<br />
J, Munro K, Myers N, Naeem S, Paavola J, Rayment<br />
M, Rosendo S, Roughgarden J, Trumper K, Turner RK<br />
(2002) Economic reasons for conserving wild nature.<br />
Science 297:950–953<br />
Balmford, A., Gaston, K.J., Blyth, S., James, A. & Kapos, V.<br />
2003. Conservation conflicts across Africa. Science<br />
291, 5513, 26616 - 2619.<br />
Beccaloni, G.W. and Gaston, K.J. 1995. Predicting <strong>the</strong><br />
species richness <strong>of</strong> neotropical forest butterflies:<br />
Ithomiinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) as indicators.<br />
Biological Conservation. 71, 77-86.<br />
Bennon, L., Dranzoa, C. and Pomeroy, D. (in prep.). The<br />
Forest Birds <strong>of</strong> Kenya and <strong>Uganda</strong>.. Scopus.<br />
Beukering, P.Van & Cesar, H. 2002. Economic Valuation<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Leuser Ecosystem on Sumatra, Indonesia:<br />
A stakeholder Perspective. Amsterdam, The<br />
Ne<strong>the</strong>rlands.<br />
50<br />
Britton, P.L. (Ed.) 1980. Birds <strong>of</strong> East Africa. East Africa<br />
Natural History Society, Nairobi.<br />
Britton, P.L. (Ed.) 1980. Birds <strong>of</strong> East Africa. East African<br />
Natural History Society, Nairobi.<br />
Brown, J. and Pearce, D.W. 1994. The <strong>economic</strong> value<br />
<strong>of</strong> carbon storage in tropical forests, in J. Weiss<br />
(ed), The Economics <strong>of</strong> Project Appraisal and <strong>the</strong><br />
Environment, Cheltenham: Edward Edgar, 102-23.<br />
Brown, L.H., Urban, E.K. and Newman, K. 1982. The Birds<br />
<strong>of</strong> Africa. Vol. 1. London, Academic Press.<br />
Buckley, P. and McNeilage, A. 1989. An ornithological<br />
survey <strong>of</strong> Kasyoha-Kitomi and Itwara forests, <strong>Uganda</strong>.<br />
Scopus 13: 97-108.<br />
Buckley, P., McNeilage, A. and Walker, C. 1989. Additional<br />
ornithological records from five western <strong>Uganda</strong>n<br />
forests. Scopus 13: 109-113.<br />
Bush, G. Nampindo, S., Aguti, C. & Plumptre, A. 2004.<br />
The Value <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>’s Forests: A livelihoods and<br />
ecosystems approach. Wildlife Conservation Society,<br />
Albertine Rift Programme/EU Forest Resources<br />
Management and Conservation Programme/<br />
National Forestry Authority. Kampala, <strong>Uganda</strong>.<br />
Bwanika, J. 1995. A study <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> butterflies <strong>of</strong> Mabira<br />
Forest. MSc Thesis, Makerere University, Kampala.<br />
Byaruhanga A, Kasoma, P., Pomeroy, D. (2001). The<br />
Important Bird Areas in <strong>Uganda</strong>. East Africa Natural<br />
History, Kampala.<br />
Carcasson, R.H. 1961. The Acraea Butterflies <strong>of</strong> East<br />
Africa (Lepidoptera, Acraeidae). I E. Africa Nat. Hist.<br />
Soc. Special Supplement. No 8.<br />
Carcasson, R.H. 1975. The Swallowtail Butterflies <strong>of</strong> East<br />
Africa (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). E W Classey Ltd,<br />
Faringdon, Oxon, England.<br />
Carcasson, RH. 1963. The Milkweed Butterflies <strong>of</strong> East<br />
Africa (Lepidoptera, Danaidae). I E. Africa Nat. Hist.<br />
Soc. Vol 24. (106) 19-32.<br />
Carswell, M. 1986. Birds <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Kampala area. Scopus.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Special supplement No.2. Nairobi Ornithological<br />
SubCommittee. EANHS.<br />
Carswell, M. 1986. Birds <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Kampala Area. SCOPUS<br />
Special Supplement No. 2. EANHS. Nairobi, Kenya.<br />
Carswell, M. and Pomeroy, D. 1984. Check-list <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
birds <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>. Ornithological Sub-Committee <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> East Africa Natural History Society.<br />
Collar, N.J. and Stuart, SN. 1985. Threatened Birds <strong>of</strong><br />
Africa and Related Islands. The ICBP/IUCN Red Data<br />
Book, Part 1. 3rd ed. ICBP, Cambridge, UK., and IUCN,<br />
Gland, Switzerland.<br />
Collar, N.J., Crosby, M.J. & Stattersfield, A.J. 1994. Birds to<br />
Watch 2. The World List <strong>of</strong> Threatened Birds. Birdlife<br />
International.<br />
Collar, N.J., Crosby, M.J. and Stattersfield, A.J. 1994. Birds<br />
to Watch 2: The World List <strong>of</strong> Threatened. Birdlife<br />
International. Birds. Cambridge, U.K<br />
Collins, N.M. and Morris, MG. 1985. Threatened<br />
Swallowtail Butterflies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> World. The IUCN Red<br />
Data Book. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,<br />
UK<br />
Colwell, R.K. and Coddington, J.A. 1994. Estimating<br />
terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Phil.<br />
Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 345: 101-1 18.<br />
Constanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso,<br />
M., Hannon, B., Limberg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V. &<br />
Paurelo, J., 1997. The value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world’s ecosystem<br />
services and natural capital. <strong>Nature</strong> 387:253-260<br />
D’Abrera, B. (1980). Butterflies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Afrotropical Region.<br />
Lansdowne Press, Melbourne.<br />
Daily, G.C. and Ehrlich, P.R. 1995. Preservation <strong>of</strong><br />
biodiversity in small rainforest patches: rapid<br />
e<strong>valuation</strong>s using butterfly trapping. Biodiversity<br />
and Conservation. 4, 35-55.<br />
Davenport, T., Howard , P.C. & Baltzer, M. (eds). 1996.<br />
Mabira Forest Reserve Biodiversity Report No. 13.<br />
Forest Department. Kampala, <strong>Uganda</strong>.<br />
Davenport, T.R.B. 1993. The Butterflies <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> - An<br />
Annotated Checklist. <strong>Uganda</strong> Forest Department,<br />
Kampala, <strong>Uganda</strong>.<br />
Davies, G. and Vanden Berghe, E. 1994. Check-list <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Mammals <strong>of</strong> East Africa. East African Natural History<br />
Society, Nairobi, Kenya.<br />
Delany, M.J. 1975. The Rodents <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>. British Natural<br />
History Museum, London.<br />
Delany, M.J. 1975. The Rodents <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>. Trustees <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> British Museum (Natural History).<br />
DfID 2004 EU Sugar Reform: The Implications for<br />
<strong>the</strong> Development <strong>of</strong> LDCs, The Department for<br />
International Development. 1 Palace Street London,<br />
LMC International Ltd, http://www.lmc.co.uk<br />
Dollman, G. 1915-16. On <strong>the</strong> African shrews belonging<br />
to <strong>the</strong> genus Crocidura. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 8: 15-17.<br />
ED&F Man 2004 in Illovo (2006): Annual Report<br />
2006, http://www.illovosugar.com/financial/<br />
annualreport/form.htm<br />
Eggeling, W. J. and Dale, I. R. 1952. The Indigenous<br />
Trees <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> Protectorate. 49lpp. Government<br />
Printer, Entebbe.<br />
Emerton, L. & Muramira, E.T. 1999. <strong>Uganda</strong> Biodiversity:<br />
An Economic Assessment Report for IUCN World<br />
Conservation Union, Biodiversity Economics for<br />
Eastern Africa. Nairobi, Kenya.<br />
FAO 2006 World Food Outlook 2006, United Nations<br />
Food and Agriculture Organisation, June, 2006.<br />
FAO 2007 Sugar and Sugar Crops production for <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
between 2002 and 2005, Food and Agriculture<br />
Organisation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> United Nations http://www.fao.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 51<br />
org.<br />
Fashoyin, T., Herbert, A. and Pinoargote, P. 2004<br />
Multinational enterprises in <strong>the</strong> plantation sector:<br />
Labour relations, employment, working conditions<br />
and welfare facilities, Working Paper No. 93,<br />
International Labour Office – Geneva<br />
Fashoyin, T., Herbert, A. and Pinoargote, P. 2004
Multinational enterprises in <strong>the</strong> plantation sector:<br />
Labour relations, employment, working conditions<br />
and welfare facilities, Working Paper No. 93,<br />
International Labour Office – Geneva<br />
Francis, IS. and Penford, N. 1991. Summary report <strong>of</strong><br />
ornithological survey visits to forest reserves in<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong>, April to August 1991. Unpublished Report.<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong> Forest Dept. Kampala.<br />
Fry. C.H.. Keith.Sand Urban. E.K. 1988. The Birds <strong>of</strong> Africa.<br />
Vol. 3. London. Academic Press.<br />
Garrod, G. and Willis, K. 1997. The recreational value <strong>of</strong><br />
tropical forests in Malaysia. Journal <strong>of</strong> World Forest<br />
Resource Management. 8: 183-201.<br />
Groombridge, B. (Ed.) 1993. 1994 IUCN Red List <strong>of</strong><br />
Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and<br />
Cambridge, UK.<br />
Grubb, P. 1983. The biogeographic significance <strong>of</strong> forest<br />
mammals in eastern Africa. In: Proceedings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
3rd international colloquium on <strong>the</strong> ecology and<br />
taxonomy <strong>of</strong> African small mammals, Antwerp, 20-<br />
24 July 1981, Ed. E. van der Straeten, W. N. Verheyen<br />
and F. de Vree, pp. 75-85. Annales, Musee Royal de<br />
I’Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques. 237 (i-iv),<br />
1-227.<br />
Guggisberg, C.A.W. 1986. Birds <strong>of</strong> East Africa. Volume<br />
2. 2 nd ed. Sapra Safari Guide No.6. Mount Kenya<br />
Sundries Ltd., Nairobi.<br />
Gunawardena, U., Edwards-Jones, G. and McGregor, M.<br />
1999. A contingent <strong>valuation</strong> approach for a tropical<br />
rainforest: a case study <strong>of</strong> Sinharaja rainforest reserve<br />
in Sri Lanka. In Roper S. and Park, A (eds), The Living<br />
Forest: <strong>the</strong> Non-Market Benefits <strong>of</strong> Forestry, London:<br />
The Stationery Office, 275-284.<br />
Hadker, N. Sharma, S. David, A. & Muraleedharan, T.R.<br />
1997. Willingness-to-pay for Borivli National Park:<br />
evidence from a Contingent Valuation. Ecological<br />
Economics 21:105-122.<br />
Hamel, P.J. 1980. Avifauna <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Kifu and Mabira Forests.<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong>. Proc. IV. Pan-Aft. Ornithological Congress.<br />
135-145.<br />
Hamilton, A. 1981. A Field Guide to <strong>Uganda</strong> Forest Trees.<br />
52<br />
279 pp. Makerere University Press, Kampala.<br />
Hamilton, A.C. 1981. The quaternary history <strong>of</strong> African<br />
forests: its relevance to conservation. Afr. I Ecol. 19:<br />
1-6.<br />
Hamilton, L. and King, P. 1983. Tropical Forest<br />
Watersheds: Hydrologic and Soil Responses to Major<br />
Uses or Conversions, Boulder: Westview Press.<br />
Henning, S. F. 1988. The Charaxinae Butterflies <strong>of</strong> Africa.<br />
Aloe Books, Johannesburg, South Africa.<br />
Hodgson, G. and Dixon, J. 1988. Measuring <strong>economic</strong><br />
losses due to sediment pollution: logging versus<br />
tourism and fisheries, Tropical Coastal Area<br />
Management, April 5-8.<br />
Holmes. J. and Kramer, S. (in prep). Maintenance <strong>of</strong> wild<br />
genetic resources in <strong>the</strong> Mabira Forest, <strong>Uganda</strong>.<br />
Report <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Centre for Conservation Biology. Forest<br />
Diversity Project. Stanford University.<br />
Howard, P. 1995. The Economics <strong>of</strong> Protected Areas<br />
in <strong>Uganda</strong>: Costs Benefits and Policy Issues.<br />
Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, University <strong>of</strong> Edinburgh.<br />
Howard, P. C. 1991. <strong>Nature</strong> Conservation in <strong>Uganda</strong>’s<br />
Tropical Forest Reserves. IUCN Gland, Switzerland.<br />
Howard, P. C. 1994. An Annotated Checklist <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>’s<br />
Indigenous Trees and Shrubs. <strong>Uganda</strong> Forest<br />
Department, Kampala.<br />
Howard, P. C., and Davenport 2000. Protected area<br />
planning in <strong>the</strong> tropics: <strong>Uganda</strong>’s national system<br />
<strong>of</strong> forest nature reserves. Conservation Biology<br />
14(3):858-875.<br />
Howard, P. C., and Davenport, T. R. B. (eds) 1996. Forest<br />
Biodiversity Reports. Volumes 1 - 33. <strong>Uganda</strong> Forest<br />
Department, Kampala.<br />
Howard, P.C. 1991. <strong>Nature</strong> Conservation in <strong>Uganda</strong>’s<br />
Tropical Forest Reserves. 3l3pp. IUCN, Gland,<br />
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.<br />
Howell, K. and Kingdon, J. 1993. Mammals in <strong>the</strong> forests<br />
<strong>of</strong> East Africa. In: Lovett, J.C. and S.K. Waser (Eds.).<br />
Biogeography and Ecology <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Rain Forests<br />
<strong>of</strong> Eastern Africa. Cambridge University Press,<br />
Cambridge.<br />
Gillson, I., Hewitt, A., and Page, S. 2005 Forthcoming<br />
Changes in <strong>the</strong> EU Banana/Sugar Markets: A Menu<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
<strong>of</strong> Options for an Effective EU Transitional Package<br />
IIED 2004 Better Management Practices Project for IFC<br />
and WWF-US: Phase 2 Commodity Guides, ProForest,<br />
Rabobank 29th March International Agricultural<br />
Centre (IAC), Wageningen / National Reference<br />
Centre for Agriculture, <strong>Nature</strong> Management and<br />
Fisheries (EC-LNV), Ede, The Ne<strong>the</strong>rlands.<br />
Illovo 2006: Annual Report 2006, http://www.illovosugar.<br />
com/financial/ annualreport/form.htm<br />
International Union for Conservation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Nature</strong> (IUCN)<br />
2006. The 2006 IUCN Red List <strong>of</strong> Threatened Species.<br />
. Downloaded on 22 July<br />
2006.<br />
International Union for Conservation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Nature</strong> (IUCN).<br />
2000. Confirming <strong>the</strong> Global Extinction Crisis: A call<br />
for International Action as <strong>the</strong> most authoritative<br />
global assessment <strong>of</strong> species loss in released. http://<br />
www.iucn.org/redlist/news.html.<br />
Isingoma, B. J. 2004 Potential for Cogeneration in<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong>, Possibilities and Barriers to its Development,<br />
A report sponsored by Sida/SAREC and AFREPREN/<br />
FW Ministry <strong>of</strong> Energy and Mineral Development,<br />
Kampala, <strong>Uganda</strong> December, 2004<br />
Janssen, R. & Padilla, J.E. 1999. Preservation or conversion?<br />
Valuation and e<strong>valuation</strong> <strong>of</strong> a mangrove forest in <strong>the</strong><br />
Philippines. Environmental and Resource Economics<br />
14: 297-331.<br />
Karani, P.K., Kiwanuka, L.S. & Sizomu-Kagolo, M.E.<br />
1997. Forest Management Plan for Mabira Forest<br />
Reserve, Mukono District, <strong>Uganda</strong> for <strong>the</strong> period 1 st<br />
July 1997 to 30 th June 2007 (Second Edition). Forest<br />
Department, Ministry <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources, Republic<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>, with support from <strong>the</strong> EC-Financed<br />
Natural Forest Management and Conservation<br />
Project. Kampala, <strong>Uganda</strong>.<br />
Keith, S., Urban, E.K. and Fry, C.H. 1992. The Birds <strong>of</strong><br />
Africa. Vol. 4. London, Academic Press.<br />
Kenya Sugar Board in <strong>the</strong> East African Standard, 2007<br />
Kenya: SOS for Sour Sugar Industry. The East African<br />
Standard, Nairobi, Kenya<br />
Kielland, J. 1990. Butterflies <strong>of</strong> Tanzania. Hill House,<br />
Melbourne and London.<br />
Kingdom, J. 1971. East African Mammals. An Atlas<br />
<strong>of</strong> Evolution in Africa. Volume 1. The University <strong>of</strong><br />
Chicago Press.<br />
Kingdon, J. 1971-74. East African Mammals: An Atlas <strong>of</strong><br />
Evolution. Academic Press, London.<br />
Kingdon, J. 1971-74. East African Mammals: An Atlas<br />
<strong>of</strong> Evolution, Vols. I, hA and IIIB. Academic Press,<br />
London.<br />
Kramer, R and Mercer, E. 1997. Valuing a global<br />
environmental good: US residents’ willingness to<br />
pay to protect tropical rainforests, Land Economics,<br />
XXXX.<br />
Kramer, R.A., Mercer, E. & Sharma, N. 1993. Valuing<br />
Tropical Rainforests Protection as a Global<br />
Environmental Good. Durham, NC: Centre for<br />
Resource and Environmental Policy Research, Duke<br />
University, USA.<br />
Kramer, R.A., Sharma, N. & Munasinghe, M. 1995. Valuing<br />
Tropical Forests. Methodology and Case Study <strong>of</strong><br />
Madagascar. World Bank Environment Paper No. 13.<br />
The World Bank. Washington. D.C., USA.<br />
Kremen, C. 1992. Assessing <strong>the</strong> indicator properties <strong>of</strong><br />
species assemblages for natural areas monitoring.<br />
Ecological Applications. 2(2), 203-217.<br />
Kremen, C. 1994. Biological inventory using target<br />
taxa: a case study <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> butterflies <strong>of</strong> Madagascar.<br />
Ecological Applications. 4(3), 407-422.<br />
Krieger, D.J. n.d. Economic Value <strong>of</strong> Forest Ecosystems:<br />
A Review. An analysis prepared for The Wilderness<br />
Society. Washington, D.C.<br />
Langdale-Brown, I., Osmaston, H. A., and Wilson, J. G.<br />
1964. The Vegetation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong> and Its Bearing on<br />
Land-use. 159 pp. Government Printer, Entebbe.<br />
Larsen, TB. 1991. The Butterflies <strong>of</strong> Kenya. Oxford<br />
University Press.<br />
Lee, P.C., Thornbach, J. and Bennett, EL. 1988. Threatened<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 53
Primates <strong>of</strong> Africa. The IUCN Red Data Book. IUCN,<br />
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.<br />
Lette, H & de Boo, H. 2002. Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong><br />
Forests and <strong>Nature</strong> – A Support Tool for Decision-<br />
making. Theme Studies Series 6: Forests, Forestry<br />
and Biodiversity Support Group.<br />
Mackworth-Praed, C.W. and Grant, C.H.B. 1957, 1960.<br />
Birds <strong>of</strong> Eastern and North-Eastern Africa. 2nd ed.<br />
(African Handbook <strong>of</strong> Birds; series one). 2 Volumes.<br />
Longman, London.<br />
Magurran, A.E. 1987. Ecological Diversity and its<br />
Measurement. Chapman and Hall, London.<br />
Maille, P. and Mendelsohn, R. 1991. Valuing Ecotourism<br />
in Madagascar, New Haven : Yale School <strong>of</strong> Forestry,<br />
mimeo.<br />
Malzebender, D 2003 Reforming <strong>the</strong> EU Sugar regime:<br />
Will Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Africa still feature? Organisation for<br />
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)<br />
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/45/36581609.<br />
pdf.<br />
McNeely, J.A., Miller, K.R., Reid, W.V., Mittermeier, R.A. and<br />
Werner, T.B. 1990. Conserving <strong>the</strong> World’s Biological<br />
Diversity. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.<br />
Meetser, A.J. and Setser, A.W. (Eds.), 1971-77. The<br />
Mammals <strong>of</strong> Africa: An Identification Manual.<br />
Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC, USA.<br />
Mendelsohn, R. & Balik, M.J. 1997. Notes on <strong>economic</strong><br />
plants. Economic Botany 51(3).<br />
Menkhaus, S. & Lober, D.J. 1995. International ecotourism<br />
and <strong>the</strong> <strong>valuation</strong> <strong>of</strong> tropical rainforests in Costa Rica.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Environmental Management 47:1-10.<br />
Migdoll, I. 1987. Field Guide to <strong>the</strong> Butterflies <strong>of</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
Africa. Struik, Cape Town, South Africa.<br />
Montgomery, C.A., Pollak, R.A., Freemark, K. & White, D.<br />
1999. Pricing Biodiversity Management. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
environmental <strong>economic</strong>s 38, 1 - 19<br />
Moyini, Y 2006 Economic Assessment <strong>of</strong> Resource<br />
Values Affected by <strong>the</strong> 220 KV Powerline Wayleave<br />
Traversing Mabira, Kifu and Namyoya Central<br />
54<br />
Forest Reserves, Bujagali Hydro-Electric Power<br />
Project, Appendix D SEA Report, Kampala, <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
November 2006<br />
Moyini, Y. & Uwimbabazi, B. 2001. The Economic Value<br />
<strong>of</strong> Mountain Gorilla Tourism in Bwindi Impenetrable<br />
Forest National Park. Study prepared for <strong>the</strong><br />
International Gorilla Conservation Programme.<br />
Kampala, <strong>Uganda</strong>.<br />
Mrema, May, David Wafula, and Hillary Agaba, 2001.<br />
Livelihood strategies and <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> forest and tree<br />
products in <strong>the</strong> Mabira forest buffer zone. Kabale:<br />
Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry Programme FORRI/ICRAF Collaborative<br />
Project.<br />
Munasinghe, M. 1992. Environmental Economics<br />
and Valuation in Development Decisionmaking.<br />
Environment Working Paper No. 51. Environment<br />
Department. Sector Policy and Research Staff, The<br />
World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA.<br />
Muramira, E.T. 2000. Environmental Economic<br />
Assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 220KV Electric Transmission Line<br />
Wayleave Through Mabira Forest Reserve. Bujagali<br />
Hydro-Electric Power Project. AES Nile Power.<br />
Muramira, T, 2001. Valuing <strong>the</strong> losses caused to Mabira<br />
Forest by hydropower development in <strong>Uganda</strong>.<br />
Innovation 8(2):28-30.<br />
Naidoo, R. & Adamowicz, W.L.2005. Economic benefits<br />
<strong>of</strong> biodiversity exceed costs <strong>of</strong> conservation at an<br />
African rainforest reserve. The National Academy <strong>of</strong><br />
Sciences <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> USA. Vol 102, N0. 46: 16712-16719.<br />
New Vision (2006) Kenyan consortium buys Kinyara<br />
Sugar for $33.5m, New vision Publishing Company<br />
Ltd., Kampala, <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
New Vision 2006 Press Review Reports, New Vision<br />
Publications<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
New Vision 2007 and Monitor 2007 Kabaka <strong>of</strong>fers land<br />
to SCOUL and Church <strong>of</strong>fers land to SCOUL<br />
Nicoll, M.E. and Rathbun, G. B. 1990. African Insectivora<br />
and Elephant shrews: An Action Plan for <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.<br />
Odek, O., Kegode, P. and Ochola, S. 2003 The Challenges<br />
and Way Forward for <strong>the</strong> Sugar Sub-sector in Kenya,<br />
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES),Nairobi, Kenya.<br />
OECD 2004 Agricultural Policy Reform in South Africa,<br />
OECD Review <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Policies: South Africa,<br />
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/45/36581609.<br />
pdf.<br />
Owiunji I. (Ed.) 2000. African Tropical Biodiversity<br />
Ptrograme: Inventory <strong>of</strong> flora and fauna <strong>of</strong> Mabira<br />
Forest Reserve. Unpublished Report. Makerere<br />
University Institute <strong>of</strong> Environment and Natural<br />
Resources. Kampala.<br />
Pagiola, S., Ritter, V. K. and Bishop, J 2004 Assessing<br />
<strong>the</strong> Ecnomic Value <strong>of</strong> Conservation, World Bank<br />
Environment Department in collaboration<br />
with <strong>Nature</strong> Conservancy and IUCN- The World<br />
Conservation Union, International Bank for<br />
Reconstruction and Development/ <strong>the</strong> World Bank<br />
1818 Street, NW Washington D.C.<br />
Pearce, D.W. 1996. Global environmental value and<br />
<strong>the</strong> tropical forests: demonstration and capture,<br />
in W. Adamowicz, P. Boxall, M. Luckert, W. Phillips<br />
and White, W. (eds), Forestry, Economics and <strong>the</strong><br />
Environment, Willingford: CAB International, 11-48.<br />
Pearce, D.W., Pearce, C.G.T. 2001. The Value <strong>of</strong> Forest<br />
Ecosystems. A Report to <strong>the</strong> Secretariat, Convention<br />
on Biological Diversity. Background Document.<br />
United Kingdom.<br />
Pearson, D.L. and Cassola, F. 1992. World-Wide Species<br />
Richness Patterns <strong>of</strong> Tiger Beetles (Coleoptera:<br />
Cicindelidae): Indicator Taxon for Biodiversity and<br />
Conservation Studies. Conservation Biology 6: 376-<br />
391.<br />
Pimentel, D., C. Wilson, C. McCullum, R. Huang, P.<br />
Owen, J. Flack, Q. Tran, T. Saltman and B. Cliff.<br />
1997. Economics and Environmental Benefits <strong>of</strong><br />
Biodiversity. BioScience 47(11): 747-757.<br />
Polhill, R.M., Milne-Redhead, E., Turrill, W.B., and Hubbard,<br />
C.E. 1954. Flora <strong>of</strong> Tropical East Africa (in many parts).<br />
Crown Agents, London and Balkema, Rotterdam.<br />
Pomeroy, D. 1993. Centres <strong>of</strong> high biodiversity in Africa.<br />
Conservation Biology 7(4): 901-907.<br />
Rodgers, W.A., Owen, C.F. and Homewood, K.M. 1982.<br />
Biogeography <strong>of</strong> East African forest mammals. I<br />
Biogeography. 9: 4 1-54.<br />
Rogers, K. St.A. and van Someren, V.G.L. 1925b. The<br />
butterflies <strong>of</strong> Kenya and <strong>Uganda</strong>, part 2. 1 E. Africa<br />
Nat. Hist. Soc. 23: 105-145.<br />
Rosevear, D. 1969. Rodents <strong>of</strong> West Africa.<br />
British Natural History Museum, London.<br />
Skinner, J.D. and Smi<strong>the</strong>rs, R.N.H. (1990). The<br />
Mammals <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>rn African Sub-Region.<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Pretoria, Pretoria, RSA.<br />
Ruitenbeck, J. 1989. Social Cost Analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Korup<br />
Project, Cameroon. A Report prepared for <strong>the</strong><br />
World Wildlife Fund for <strong>Nature</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Republic <strong>of</strong><br />
Cameroon, London.<br />
Sserunkuma, R. and Henry Richard Kimera 2006 Impact <strong>of</strong><br />
EU sugar trade on developing countries: A study with<br />
focus on East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania and <strong>Uganda</strong>),<br />
German Watch, Global Food Security Programme)<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation<br />
& Development. http://www.germanwatch.org/tw/<br />
zu-afr06.htm<br />
Shultz, W., Pinazzo, J. and Cifuentes, M. 1998.<br />
Opportunities and limitations <strong>of</strong> continent <strong>valuation</strong><br />
surveys to determine national park entrance<br />
fees: evidence from Costa Rica, Environment and<br />
Development Economics, (3): 131-149.<br />
Sikoyo, G.M. 1995. Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> Community<br />
Direct Use Benefits from Bwindi-Impenetrable Forest<br />
National Park, Southwestern <strong>Uganda</strong>. Unpublished<br />
M.Sc. Thesis. Ecological Economics Dissertation <strong>of</strong><br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 55
Edinburgh University, Scotland.<br />
Simpson, D., Sedjo, R. and Reid, J. 1994. Valuing<br />
Biodiversity: An Application to Genetic Prospecting,<br />
Resources for <strong>the</strong> Future, Discussion Paper, 94-120,<br />
Washington D.C. (Early version <strong>of</strong> Simpson et al<br />
1996).<br />
Sinclair, I., Hockey, P. and Tarboton, W. 1993. Birds<br />
<strong>of</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Africa. New Holland, London.<br />
Soberon, J.M. and Llorente, B.J. 1993. The use <strong>of</strong><br />
species accumulation functions for <strong>the</strong> prediction <strong>of</strong><br />
species richness. Conservation Biology 7(3): 480-488.<br />
Sparrow, H.R., Sisk, T.D., Ehrlich, P.R. and Murphy, D.D.<br />
1994. Techniques and guidelines for monitoring<br />
neotropical butterflies. Conservation Biology. 8(3),<br />
800-809.<br />
Ssegawa P. 2006. Inventory <strong>of</strong> Plants in <strong>the</strong> <strong>proposed</strong><br />
Bujagali transmission line area in Mabira Central<br />
Forest Reserve. Bujagali Hydropower Dam<br />
Environmental Impact Assessment Report. Kampala.<br />
Swanson, T. and Kontoleon, A. 2000. Why did <strong>the</strong><br />
protected areas fail <strong>the</strong> Giant Panda? The Economics<br />
<strong>of</strong> Conserved Endangered Species in Developing<br />
Countries, World Economics, (1) 4: 135-148.<br />
Tanzania Ministry <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, Food and<br />
Cooperatives, 2007Some crops grown in<br />
Tanzania/ Sugar. http://www.kilimo.go.tz<br />
The Monitor 2007 <strong>Uganda</strong>: Mehta Needs Shs345 Billion<br />
to Back <strong>of</strong>f Mabira Forest, The Monitor (Kampala),<br />
April 13, 2007, http://www.allafrica.com Posted to<br />
<strong>the</strong> web April 12, 2007<br />
Tindyebwa N.B. 1993. Forestry rehabilitation project -<br />
Forest inventory report for Mabira Forest Reserve.<br />
Unpubl. report. Forest Department, Kampala.<br />
UBOS (<strong>Uganda</strong> Bureau <strong>of</strong> Statistics). 2002. Housing<br />
and Population Census 2002: Preliminary Report.<br />
Entebbe, <strong>Uganda</strong>.<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong> Land Coalition 2006 Agriculture Works and<br />
56<br />
Access to Land: Changing Patterns <strong>of</strong> Agricultural<br />
Production, Employment and Working Conditions<br />
In The <strong>Uganda</strong>n Sugar Industry. http://www.<br />
landcoalition.org<br />
UN 1991 Handbook <strong>of</strong> National Accounting,<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Economic and Social Affairs Statistics<br />
Division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> United Nations, Series F No. 81 from<br />
‘UN (1979) Guidelines on statistics <strong>of</strong> tangible assets,<br />
Statistical papers Series M No. 68’, United Nations,<br />
New York<br />
UNCTAD 2005 Effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ‘Everything But Arms’<br />
initiative on <strong>the</strong> Sugar industries <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Least<br />
Developed Countries, Report by <strong>the</strong> UNCTAD,<br />
Geneva, Switzerland Secretariat, 11 April 2005<br />
Urban, E.K., Fry, C.H.and Keith, 5. 1986. The Birds <strong>of</strong> Africa.<br />
Vol. 2. London, Academic Press.<br />
USCTA 2003 The <strong>Uganda</strong> Sugar Cane Technologists<br />
Association Fifth Annual Report, Kampala, <strong>Uganda</strong><br />
USCTA 2005 The <strong>Uganda</strong> Sugar Cane Technologists<br />
Association Seventh Annual Report, Kampala,<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong><br />
USDA 2006 World Sugar Situation, United States<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture<br />
Service (USDA, FAS), Washington D.C, USA<br />
USDA 2007 World Sugar Situation, United States<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture<br />
Service (USDA, FAS), Washington D.C, USA<br />
Van Someren, V.G.L. 1939. Butterflies <strong>of</strong> Kenya and<br />
<strong>Uganda</strong> vol. II, part II (Nymphalinae). I E. Africa Nat.<br />
Hist. Soc.14, 15-100.<br />
Van Someren, V.G.L. and Rogers, K. St.A. 1932. The<br />
butterflies <strong>of</strong> Kenya and <strong>Uganda</strong>, part 10. 1 E. Africa<br />
Nat. Hist. Soc.42: 141-172.<br />
Vane-Wright, R. and Ackery, P. (Eds.). 1984. Biology <strong>of</strong><br />
Butterflies. (Symposium <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Royal Entomological<br />
Society <strong>of</strong> London, 11). Academic Press, London.<br />
Welch M., D. 2005 Three Communities, Two Corporations,<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
One Forest: Forest Resource Use and Conflict, Mabira<br />
Forest, <strong>Uganda</strong>, Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry in Landscape Mosaics,<br />
Working Paper Series Department <strong>of</strong> Ecological and<br />
Environmental, Anthropology, University <strong>of</strong> Georgia,<br />
and <strong>the</strong> Tropical Resources Institute, School <strong>of</strong><br />
Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University<br />
White, F. 1983. The vegetation <strong>of</strong> Africa. Unesco. Paris.<br />
Williams, J.G. 1967. A field guide to <strong>the</strong> National Parks <strong>of</strong><br />
East Africa.: Collins, London<br />
Williams, J.G. 1969. A Field Guide to <strong>the</strong><br />
Butterflies <strong>of</strong> Africa. Collins, London.<br />
Williams, J.G. and Arlott, N. (1980). A Field Guide to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Birds <strong>of</strong> East Africa. Collins, London.<br />
Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M. 1993. Mammal Species <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference.<br />
Second Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, in<br />
association with American Society <strong>of</strong> Mammalogists,<br />
Washington and London.<br />
Yaron, G. 2001. Forest, plantation crops or small-scale<br />
agriculture? An <strong>economic</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> alternative land<br />
use options in <strong>the</strong> Mount Cameroun area. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Environmental Planning and Management, 44 (1),<br />
85-108.<br />
Zhang, Z.X. 2000. Estimating <strong>the</strong> Size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Potential<br />
Market for <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Flexibility Mechanisms. Faculty<br />
<strong>of</strong> Law and Faculty <strong>of</strong> Economics, University <strong>of</strong><br />
Groningen, mimeo.<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 57
ANNEXES<br />
ANNEX 1 BIODIVERSITY DATA<br />
Table A1: Species list <strong>of</strong> plants recorded from Mabira Forest Reserve<br />
Family Species Family Species<br />
Malvaceae Abuitilon Africana Sapindaceae Lecaniodiscus fraxinifolius<br />
Fabaceae Acacia brevispica Meliaceae Lepidotrichilia volkensii<br />
Fabaceae Acacia hecatophylla Icacinaceae Leptaulus daphnoides<br />
Fabaceae Acacia hockii Sterculiaceae Leptonychia mildbraedii<br />
Fabaceae Acacia polyacantha Flacourtiaceae Lindackeria bukobensis<br />
Euphorbiaceae Acalypha bipartite Flacourtiaceae Lindackeria mildbraedii<br />
Euphorbiaceae Acalypha neptunica Flacourtiaceae Lindackeria schweinftirthii<br />
Euphorbiaceae Acalypha ornate Oleaceae Linociera johnsonii<br />
Acanthaceae Acanthus arborescens Celastraceae Loeseneriella africana<br />
Rutaceae Aeglopsis eggelingii Celastraceae Loeseneriella africanum<br />
Zingiberaceae Afromomum mildbraedii Poaceae Loudetia kagerensis<br />
Rubiaceae Aidia micrantha Meliaceae Lovoa swynnertonii<br />
Alangiaceae Alangium chinense Meliaceae Lovoa trichilioides<br />
Fabaceae Albizia coriaria Sapindaceae Lychnodiscus cerospermus<br />
Fabaceae Albizia ferruginea Euphorbiaceae Macaranga barteri<br />
Fabaceae Albizia glaberrima Euphorbiaceae Macaranga monandra<br />
Fabaceae Albizia grandibracteata Euphorbiaceae Macaranga schweinfurthii<br />
Fabaceae Albizia gummifera Euphorbiaceae Macaranga spinosa<br />
Fabaceae Albizia zygia Capparaceae Maerua duchesnei<br />
Euphorbiaceae Alchornea cordifolia Myrtaceae Maesa lanceolata<br />
Euphorbiaceae Alchornea floribunda Rhamnaceae Maesopsis eminii<br />
Euphorbiaceae Alchornea hirtella Sapindaceae Majidea fosteri<br />
Euphorbiaceae Alchornea laxiflora Euphorbiaceae Mallotus oppositifolius<br />
Sapindaceae Allophylus dummeri Sapotaceae Manilkara dawei<br />
Sapindaceae Allophylus macrobotrys Sapotaceae Manilkara multinervis<br />
Apocynacedae Alstonia boonei Sapotaceae Manilkara obovata<br />
Araceae Amorphophallus abyssinicus Euphorbiaceae Margaritaria discoideus<br />
Sapotaceae Aningeria adolfi-friederici Bignoniaceae Markhamia lutea<br />
Sapotaceae Aningeria altissima Celastraceae Maytenus senegalensis<br />
Moraceae Antiaris toxicaria Celastraceae Maytenus serratus<br />
Euphorbiaceae Antidesma laciniatum Celastraceae Maytenus undata<br />
58 The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Family Species Family Species<br />
Euphorbiaceae Antidesma membranaceum Sapindaceae Melanodiscus sp.<br />
Anacardiaceae Antrocaryon micraster Meliaceae Memecylon jasminoides<br />
Sapindaceae Aphania senegalensis Meliaceae Memecylon myrianthum<br />
Euphorbiaceae Argomuellera macrophylla Flacourtiaceae Mildbraediodendron excelsum<br />
Aristolochiaceae Aristolochia triactina Moraceae Milicia excelsa<br />
Davalliaceae Arthropteris palisota Flacourtiaceae Mimosa pigra<br />
Fabaceae Baikiaea insignis Sapindaceae Mimusops bagshawei<br />
Balanitaceae Balanites wilsoniana Annonaceae Monodora myristica<br />
Rutaceae Balsamocitrus dawei Rubiaceae Morinda lucida<br />
Fabaceae Baphiopsis parviflora Moraceae Morus mesozygia<br />
Lauraceae Beilschmiedia ugandensis Cecropiaceae Musanga cecropioides<br />
Rubiaceae Belonophora hypoglauca Cecropiaceae Myrianthus arboreus<br />
Sapotaceae<br />
Bequaertiodendron<br />
oblanceolatum<br />
Cecropiaceae Myrianthus holstii<br />
Meliaceae Bersama abyssinica Euphorbiaceae Neoboutonia macrocalyx<br />
Sapindaceae Blighia unijugata Ochnaceae Ochna afzelii<br />
Sapindaceae Blighia welwitschii Ochnaceae Ochna bracteosa<br />
Bombacaeae Bombax buonopozense Ochnaceae Ochna membranacea<br />
Poaceae Brachiaria scalaris Labiatae Ocimum suave<br />
Euphorbiaceae Bridelia micrantha Olacaceae Olax gambecola<br />
Euphorbiaceae Bridelia scieroneura Rubiaceae Oldenlandia corymbosa<br />
Cyperaceae Bulbostylis dense Oleaceae Olea welwitschii<br />
Fabaceae Caesalpina vollcensii Apocynaceae Oncinotis tenuiloba<br />
Palmae Calamus deeratus Flacourtiaceae Oncoba spinosa<br />
Burseraceae Canarium schweinftirthii Poaceae Oplismenus hiterlus<br />
Rubiaceae Canthium vulgare Poaceae Oreobambos buchwaldii<br />
Capparaceae Capparis tomentosa Ochnaceae Ouratea densiflora<br />
Fabaceae Cassia petersiana Rubiaceae Oxyanthus speciosus<br />
Rhizophoraceae Cassipourea congensis Rubiaceae Oxyanthus unilocularis<br />
Rhizophoraceae Cassipourea gummiflua Sapotaceae Pachystela brevipes<br />
Rhizophoraceae Cassipourea ruwensorensis Sapindaceae Pancovia turbinata<br />
Ulmaceae Celtis adolfi-fridericii Poaceae Panicum pleianthum<br />
Ulmaceae Celtis Africana Sapindaceae Pappea capensis<br />
Ulmaceae Celtis durandii Passifoliaceae Parapsia guineensis<br />
Ulmaceae Celtis mildbraedii Aristolochiaceae Parastolochia triactina<br />
Ulmaceae Celtis wightii Fabaceae Parkia filicoidea<br />
Ulmaceae Celtis zenkeri Passifloraceae Paropsia guineensis<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
59
Family Species Family Species<br />
Rutaceae Chaetacme aristata Poaceae Paspalum conjugatum<br />
Sapotaceae Chrysophyllum albidum Sapindaceae Paulinia pinnata<br />
Sapotaceae Chrysophyllum delevoyi Rubiaceae Pavetta molundensis<br />
Sapotaceae<br />
Chrysophyllum<br />
gorungosanum<br />
Rubiaceae Pavetta oliveriana<br />
Sapotaceae Chrysophyllum muerense Thymelaeceae Peddiea fischeri<br />
Sapotaceae Chrysophyllum perpulchrum Piperaceae Peperomia molleri<br />
Rutaceae Citropsis articulate Palmae Phoenix reclinata<br />
Rutaceae Clausena anisata Euphorbiaceae Phyllanthus ovalifolius<br />
Euphorbiaceae Cleistanthus polystachyus Phytolaccaceae Phytolacca dodecandra<br />
Verbenaceae Clerodendrum formicarum Apocynaceae Picralima nitida<br />
Verbenaceae Clerodendrum rotundifolium Piperaceae Piper capensis<br />
Verbenaceae Clerodendrum silvanum Fabaceae Piptadeniastrum africanum<br />
Connaraceae Cnestis ugandensis Nyctaginaceae Pisonia aculeata<br />
Curcubitaceae Coccinea adoensis Pittosporacedae Pittosporum mannii<br />
Rubiaceae C<strong>of</strong>fea canephora Pittosporaceae Pittosporum mannii<br />
Rubiaceae C<strong>of</strong>fea eugenioides Polypodiaceae Platycerium elephantotis<br />
Sterculiaceae Cola gigantean Apocynaceae Pleiocarpa pyenantha<br />
Labiatae Coleus barbatus Commelinaceae Polia condensata<br />
Combretaceae Combretum molle Araliaceae Polyscias fulva<br />
Connaraceae Connarus longistipitatus Verbenaceae Premna angolensis<br />
Boraginaceae Cordia Africana Celastraceae Pristimera plumbea<br />
Boraginaceae Cordia millenii Rosaceae Prunus africana<br />
Orchidaceae Corymborkis corymbis Fabaceae Pseudarthria hoockeri<br />
Costaceae Costus afer Anacardiaceae Pseudospondias microcarpa<br />
Fabaceae Craibia brownie Guttiferae Psorospemum febrifugum<br />
Asteraceae Crassocephalum mannii Adiantaceae Pteris catoptera<br />
Rubiaceae<br />
Craterispermum<br />
schweinfurthii<br />
Adiantaceae Pteris dentata<br />
Euphorbiaceae Croton macrostachyus Fabaceae Pterolobium stellatum<br />
Euphorbiaceae Croton megalocarpus Sterculiaceae Pterygota mildbraedii<br />
Euphorbiaceae Croton sylvaticus Myrtaceae Pycnanthus angolensis<br />
Araceae Culcasia falcifolia Palmae Raphia farinifera<br />
Fabaceae Dalbergia lacteal Apocynaceae Rauvolfia oxyphylla<br />
Tiliaceae Desplatsia dewevrei Apocynaceae Rauvolfia vomitoria<br />
Orchidaceae Diaphanan<strong>the</strong> fragrantissima Flacourtiaceae Rawsonia lucida<br />
Fabaceae Dichrostachys cinerea Anacardiaceae Rhus natalensis<br />
Rubiaceae Dictyandra arborescens Anacardiaceae Rhus ruspolii<br />
Dioscoreaceae Dioscorea minutiflora Anacardiaceae Rhus vulgaris<br />
60 The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Family Species Family Species<br />
Ebenaceae Diospyros abyssinica Rubiaceae Rhytigynia butanguensis<br />
Sterculiaceae Dombeya goetzenii Euphorbiaceae Ricinodendron heudelotii<br />
Sterculiaceae Dombeya mukole Violaceae Rinorea beniensis<br />
Flacourtiaceae Dovyalis macrocalyx Violaceae Rinorea dentata<br />
Dracaenaceae Dracaena fragrans Violaceae Rinorea ilicifolia<br />
Dracaenaceae Dracaena laxissima Violaceae Rinorea oblongifolia<br />
Dracaenaceae Dracaena steudneri Capparaceae Ritehiea albersii<br />
Euphorbiaceae Drypetes bipindensis Rubiaceae Rothmannia urcelliformis<br />
Euphorbiaceae Drypetes gerrardii Rosaceae Rubus apetalus<br />
Euphorbiaceae Drypetes ugandensis Celastraceae Salacia elegans<br />
Acanthaceae Dyschoriste radicans Euphorbiaceae Sapium ellipticum<br />
Boraginaceae Ehretia cymosa Araliaceae Schefflera barteri<br />
Meliaceae Ekebergia senegalensis Oleaceae Schrebera alata<br />
Palmae Elaeis guineensis Flacourtiaceae Scolopia rhamnophylla<br />
Euphorbiaceae Elaeophorbia drupifera Rhamnaceae Scutia myrtina<br />
Fabaceae Entada abyssininca Asclepiadaceae Secamone africana<br />
Meliaceae Entandrophragma angolense Oleaceae Schrebera arborea<br />
Meliaceae Entandrophragma utile Fabaceae Sesbania sesban<br />
Papilionaceae Eriosema psoroloides Celastraceae Simirestis brianii<br />
Fabaceae Erythrina abyssinica Smilacaceae Smilax anceps<br />
Fabaceae Erythrina excelsa Solanaceae Solanum indicum<br />
Euphorbiaceae Erythrococca bongensis Solanaceae Solanum ineanum<br />
Euphorbiaceae Erythrococca sp. Bignoniaceae Spathodea campanulata<br />
Fabaceae Erythrophleum suaveolens Euphorbiaceae Spondianthus preussii<br />
Capparaceae Euadenia eminens Myrtaceae Staudtia kamemnensis<br />
Myrtaceae Eugenia bukobensis Umbelliferae Steganotaenia araliacea<br />
Rutaceae Fagaropsis angolensis Sterculiaceae Sterculia dawei<br />
Moraceae Ficus asperifolia Bignoniaceae Stereospermum kunthianum<br />
Moraceae Ficus barteri Olacaceae Strombosia scheffleri<br />
Moraceae Ficus conraui Loganiaceae Strychnos mitis<br />
Moraceae Ficus craterostoma Euphorbiaceae Suregada procera<br />
Moraceae Ficus cyathistipula Guttiferae Symphonia globulifera<br />
Moraceae Ficus dicranostyla Myrtaceae Syzygium guineense<br />
Moraceae Ficus exasperate Apocynaceae Tabemaemontana holstii<br />
Moraceae Ficus ingens Apocynaceae Tabemaemontana usambarensis<br />
Moraceae Ficus lingua Dichapetalacaeae Tapura fiseheri<br />
Moraceae Ficus mucuso Rubiaceae Tarenna pavettoides<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
61
Family Species Family Species<br />
Moraceae Ficus natalensis Rutaceae Teclea eggelingii<br />
Moraceae Ficus ovarifolia Rutaceae Teclea grandifolia<br />
Moraceae Ficus ovata Rutaceae Teclea nobilis<br />
Moraceae Ficus polita Combretaceae Terminalia glaucescens<br />
Moraceae Ficus pseudomangifera Fabaceae Tetrapleura tetraptera<br />
Moraceae Ficus sansibarica Euphorbiaceae Tetrorchidium didymonstemon<br />
Moraceae Ficus saussureana Euphorbiaceae Thecacoris lucida<br />
Moraceae Ficus sur Belanophoraceae Thonningia coccinia<br />
Moraceae Ficus thonningii Menispermaceae Tiliacora latifolia<br />
Moraceae Ficus trichopoda Rutaceae Toddalia asiatica<br />
Moraceae Ficus vallis-choudae Moraceae Treculia africana<br />
Flacourtiaceae Flacourtia indica Ulmaceae Trema orientalis<br />
Euphorbiaceae Flueggea virosa Rubiaceae Tricalysia bagshawei<br />
Apocynaceae Funtumia Africana Meliaceae Trichilia dregeana<br />
Apocynaceae Funtumia elastica Meliaceae Trichilia martineaui<br />
Rubiaceae Geophila reniformis Meliaceae Trichilia prieureana<br />
Tiliaceae Glyphaea brevis Meliaceae Trichilia rubescens<br />
Annonaceae<br />
Greenwayodendron<br />
suaveolens<br />
Moraceae Trilepisium madagascariensis<br />
Tiliaceae Grewia mollis Tiliaceae Triumfetta macrophylla<br />
Tiliaceae Grewia pubescens Meliaceae Turraea floribunda<br />
Tiliaceae Grewia trichocarpa Meliaceae Turraea robusta<br />
Meliaceae Guarea cedrata Meliaceae Turraea vogelioides<br />
Rubiaceae Hallea stipulosa Rubiaceae Uncaria africana<br />
Simaroubaceae Harrisonia abyssinica Malvaceae Urena lobata<br />
Guttiferae<br />
Harungana<br />
madagascariensis<br />
Annonaceae Uvaria angolensis<br />
Malvaceae Hibiscus calyphyllus Annonaceae Uvaria welwitschii<br />
Malvaceae Hibiscus calyphyllus Annonaceae Uvariopsis congensis<br />
Phytollacaceae Hilleria latifolia Rutaceae Vangueria apiculata<br />
Ulmaceae Holoptelea grandis Rhamnaceae Ventilago africana<br />
Linaceae Hugonia platysepala Asteraceae Vernonia adoensis<br />
Euphorbiaceae Hymenocardia acida Asteraceae Vernonia amygdalina<br />
Simaroubaceae Irvingia gabonensis Asteraceae Vernonia auriculifera<br />
Rubiaceae Keetia venosa Verbenaceae Vitex amboniensis<br />
Meliaceae Khaya antho<strong>the</strong>ca Verbenaceae Vitex doniana<br />
Bignoniaceae Kigelia Africana Apocynaceae Voacanga thouarsii<br />
Simaroubaceae Klainedoxa gabonensis Canellaceae Warburgia ugandensis<br />
Cyperaceae Kylinga chrysantha Monimiaceae Xymalos monospora<br />
62 The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Family Species Family Species<br />
Cyperaceae Kylinga sphaerocephala Sapindaceae Zanha golungensis<br />
Ancardiaceae Lannea barteri Rutaceae Zanthoxylum gilletii<br />
Ancardiaceae Lannea welwitschii Rutaceae Zanthoxylum leprieurii<br />
Verbenaceae Lantana trifolia Rutaceae Zanthoxylum rubescens<br />
Rhamnaceae Lasiodiscus mildbraedii<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
63
Table A2: Species list <strong>of</strong> birds recorded from Mabira Forest Reserve<br />
Britton No. Species Common Name<br />
23 Ixobrychus minutus Little Bittern<br />
27 Ardea melanocephala Black-headed Heron<br />
33 Butorides striatus Green-backed Heron<br />
36 Egrella garzetta Little Egret<br />
42 Scopus umbretta Hamerkop<br />
44 Ciconia abdimii Abdim’s Stork<br />
49 Leploptilos crumeniferus Marabou<br />
51 Bostrychia hagedash Hadada<br />
84 Gypohierax angolensis Palm-nut Vulture<br />
85 Gyps africanus African White-backed Vulture<br />
87 Necrosyrtes monachus Hooded Vulture<br />
96 Polyboroides typus African Harrier Hawk<br />
97 Circaetus cinerascens Western Banded Snake Eagle<br />
101 Terathopius ecaudalus Bateleur<br />
102 Accipiter badius Shikra<br />
106 Accipiter melanoleucus Great Sparrowhawk<br />
111 Accipiter tachiro African Goshawk<br />
120 Buteo augur Augur Buzzard<br />
125 Spizaetus africanus Cassin’s Hawk Eagle<br />
126 Hieraaetus ayresii Ayres’ Hawk Eagle<br />
128 Hieraaetus spilogaster African -Hawk Eagle<br />
129 Kaupfalco monogrammicus Lizard Buzzard<br />
130 Lophaetus occipitalis Long-crested Eagle<br />
131 Micronisus gabar Gabar Goshawk<br />
134 Polemaetus bellicosus Martial Eagle<br />
135 Stephanoaetus coronatus African Crowned Eagle<br />
137 Haliaeetus vocifer African Fish Eagle<br />
138 Milvus migrans Black Kite<br />
142 Elanus caeruleus Black-shouldered Kite<br />
143 Macheiramphus alcinus Bat Hawk<br />
161 Falco tinnunculus Kestrel<br />
174 Francolinus lathami Forest Francolin<br />
178 Francolinus nahani Nahan’s Francolin<br />
184 Francolinus squamatus Scaly Francolin<br />
188 Guttera pucherani Crested Guineafowl<br />
194 Balearica regulorum Grey Crowned Crane<br />
202 Porphyrio alleni Allen’s Gallinule<br />
211 Sarothrura elegans Buff-spotted Flufftail<br />
64 The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Britton No. Species Common Name<br />
213 Sarothrura pulchra White-spotted Flufftail<br />
230 Charadrius asialicus Caspian Plover<br />
337 Aplopelia larvata Lemon Dove<br />
342 Columba livia Feral Pigeon<br />
344 Columba unicincta Afep Pigeon<br />
346 Streptopelia capicola Ring-necked Dove<br />
350 Streptopelia semitorquata Red-eyed Dove<br />
355 Turtur afer Blue-spotted Wood- Dove<br />
357 Turtur tympanistria Tambourine Dove<br />
358 Treron calva African Green Pigeon<br />
363 Agapornis pullarius Red-headed Lovebird<br />
371 Psittacus erithacus Grey Parrot<br />
372 Corythaeola cristata Great Blue Turaco<br />
376 Crinifer zonurus Eastern Grey Plantain- Eater<br />
377 Musophaga rossae Ross’s Turaco<br />
384 Tauraco schuetti Black-billed Turaco<br />
385 Cercococcyx mechowi Dusky Long-tailed Cuckoo<br />
388 Chrysococcyx caprius Didric Cuckoo<br />
389 Chrysococcyx cupreus Emerald Cuckoo<br />
391 Chrysococcyx klaas Klaas’s Cuckoo<br />
394 Oxylophus levaillantii Levaillant’s Cuckoo<br />
395 Cuculus canorus Eurasian Cuckoo<br />
396 Cuculus clamosus Black Cuckoo<br />
398 Cuculus rochii Madagascar Lesser Cuckoo<br />
399 Cuculus solitarius Red-chested Cuckoo<br />
401 Ceuthmochares aereus Yellowbill<br />
406 Centropus superciliosus White-browed Coucal<br />
416 Strix woodfordii African Wood Owl<br />
436 Caprimulgus pectoralis Fiery-necked Nightjar<br />
443 Apus affinis Little Swift<br />
444 Apus apus Eurasian Swift<br />
447 Apus caffer White-rumped Swift<br />
452 Cypsiurus parvus Palm Swift<br />
455 Neafrapus cassini Cassin’s Spinetail<br />
456 Rhaphidura sabini Sabine’s Spinetail<br />
457 Telacanthura ussheri Mottled Spinetail<br />
459 Colius striatus Speckled Mousebird<br />
462 Apaloderma narina Narina Trogon<br />
466 Alcedo cristata Malachite Kingfisher<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
65
Britton No. Species Common Name<br />
467 Alcedo leucogaster White-bellied Kingfisher<br />
468 Alcedo quadribrachys Shining-blue Kingfisher<br />
472 Halcyon chelicuti Striped Kingfisher<br />
473 Halcyon leucocephala Grey-headed Kingfisher<br />
474 Halcyon malimbica Blue-breasted Kingfisher<br />
475 Halcyon senegalensis Woodland Kingfisher<br />
477 Ispidina lecontei African Dwarf Kingfisher<br />
478 Ispidina picta African Pygmy Kingfisher<br />
479 Merops albicollis White-throated Bee-eater<br />
490 Merops persicus Blue-checked Bee-eater<br />
491 Merops pusillus Little Bee-eater<br />
493 Merops superciliosus Madagascar Bee-eater<br />
494 Merops variegatus Blue-breasted Bee-eater<br />
497 Coracias garrulus European Roller<br />
500 Eurystomus glaucurus Broad-billed Roller<br />
501 Eurystomus gularis Blue-throated Roller<br />
503 Phoeniculus bollei White-headed Wood- hoopoe<br />
504 Phoeniculus castaneiceps Forest Wood- Hoopoe<br />
513 Bycanistes subcylindricus Black- and- white- casqued Hornbill<br />
515 Tockus alboterminatus Crowned Hornbill<br />
519 Tockus fasciatus African Pied Hornbill<br />
529 Buccanodon duchaillui Yellow-spotted Barbet<br />
533 Gymnobucco bonapartei Grey-throated Barbet<br />
534 Lybius bidentatus Double-too<strong>the</strong>d Barbet<br />
538 Tricholaema hirsuta Hairy-breasted Barbet<br />
548 Pogoniulus bilineatus Yellow-rumped Tinkerbird<br />
553 Pogoniulus scolopaceus Speckled Tinkerbird<br />
555 Pogoniulus subsulphureus Yellow-throated Tinkerbird<br />
556 Trachylaemus purpuratus Yellow-billed Barbet<br />
562 Indicator exilis Least Honeyguide<br />
563 Indicator indicator Black-throated Honeyguide<br />
566 Indicator minor Lesser Honeyguide<br />
569 Indicator variegatus Scaly-throated Honeyguide<br />
572 Prodotiscus insignis Cassin’s Honeybird<br />
580 Campe<strong>the</strong>ra cailliautii Green-backed Woodpecker<br />
581 Campe<strong>the</strong>ra caroli Brown-eared Woodpecker<br />
582 Campe<strong>the</strong>ra nivosa Buff-spotted Woodpecker<br />
584 Campe<strong>the</strong>ra tullbergi Fine-banded Woodpecker<br />
585 Dendropicosfuscescens Cardinal Woodpecker<br />
66 The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Britton No. Species Common Name<br />
587 Dendropicos poecilolaemus <strong>Uganda</strong> Spotted Woodpecker<br />
592 Dendropicos xantholophus Yellow-crested Woodpecker<br />
594 Dendropicos namaquus Bearded Woodpecker<br />
596 Smithornis capensis African Broadbill<br />
598 Pitta angolensis African Pitta<br />
599 Pitta reichenowi Green-breasted Pitta<br />
624 Hirundo abyssinica Lesser Striped Swallow<br />
627 Hirundo angolensis Angola Swallow<br />
628 Hirundo atrocaerulea Blue Swallow<br />
634 Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow<br />
635 Hirundo semirufa Rufous-chested Swallow<br />
639 Psalidoprocne albiceps White-headed Saw-wing<br />
641 Riparia cincta Banded Martin<br />
643 Riparia riparia Sand Martin<br />
644 Dicrurus adsimilis Fork-tailed Drongo<br />
645.1 Dicrurus modestus Velvet-mantled Drongo<br />
646 Oriolus auratus African Golden Oriole<br />
647 Oriolus brachyrhynchus Western Black-headed Oriole<br />
654 Corvus albus Pied Crow<br />
664 Parus funereus Dusky Tit<br />
666 Parus guineensis White-shouldered Black Tit<br />
668 Anthoscopus caroli African Penduline Tit<br />
674 Illadopsis albipectus Scaly-breasted Illadopsis<br />
675 Illadopsisfulvescens Brown Illadopsis<br />
677 Illadopsis rufipennis Pale-breasted illadopsis<br />
684 Turdoides plebejus Brown Babbler<br />
688 Campephaga flava Black Cuckoo-Shrike<br />
691 Campephaga quiscalina Purple-throated Cuckoo-Shrike<br />
697 Andropadus curvirostris Cameroon Sombre Greenbul<br />
698 Andropadus gracilirostris Slender-billed Greenbul<br />
699 Andropadus gracilis Little Grey Greenbul<br />
701 Andropadus latirostris Yellow-whiskered Greenbul<br />
705 Andropadus virens Little Greenbul<br />
706 Baeopogon indicator Honeyguide Greenbul<br />
707 Bleda eximia Green-tailed Bristlebill<br />
708 Bleda syndactyla Red-tailed Bristlebill<br />
709 Chlorocichla flavicollis Yellow-throated Leaflove<br />
711 Chlorocichla laetissima Joyful Greenbul<br />
714 Criniger calurus Red-tailed Greenbul<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
67
Britton No. Species Common Name<br />
716 Nicator chloris Western Nicator<br />
718 Phyllastrephus albigularis White-throated Greenbul<br />
719 Phyllastrephus hypochloris Toro Olive Greenbul<br />
720 Phyllastrephus cabanisi Cabanis’s Greenbul<br />
728 Pyrrhurus scandens Leaf-love<br />
732 Pycnonotus barbatus Common Bulbul<br />
734 Ale<strong>the</strong> diademata Fire-crested Ale<strong>the</strong><br />
736 Ale<strong>the</strong> poliocephala Brown-chested Ale<strong>the</strong><br />
750 Cossypha cyanocampter Blue-shouldered Robin -Chat<br />
751 Cossypha heuglini White-browed Robin- Chat<br />
752 Cossypha natalensis Red-capped Robin -Chat<br />
753 Cossypha niveicapilla Snowy-headed Robin- Chat<br />
761 Cossypha polioptera Grey-winged Robin-Chat<br />
775 Oenan<strong>the</strong> isabellina Isabelline Wheatear<br />
784 Saxicola torquata Common Stonechat<br />
789 Stiphrornis erythrothorax Forest Robin<br />
790 Stizorhina fraseri Rufous Flycatcher-Thrush<br />
801 Turdus pelios African Thrush<br />
817 Apalis cinerea Grey Apalis<br />
819 Apalis jacksoni Black-throated Apalis<br />
823 Apalis nigriceps Black-capped Apalis<br />
826 Apalis rufogularis Buff-throated Apalis<br />
829 Bathmocercus rufus Black-faced Rufous Warbler<br />
834 Bradypterus carpalis White-winged Warbler<br />
837 Camaroptera brachyura Grey-backed Camaroptera<br />
838 Camaroptera chloronota Olive-green Camaroptera<br />
841 Camaroptera superciliaris Yellow-browed Camaroptera<br />
843 Chloropeta natalensis Yellow Warbler<br />
850 Cisticola brachypterus Siffling Cisticola<br />
853 Cisticola carru<strong>the</strong>rsi Carru<strong>the</strong>r’s Cisticola<br />
857 Cisticola erythrops Red-faced Cisticola<br />
864 Cisticola lateralis Whistling Cisticola<br />
869 Cisticola robustus Stout Cisticola<br />
873 Cisticola woosnami Trilling Cisticola<br />
875 Eminia lepida Grey-capped Warbler<br />
889 Hylia prasina Green Hylia<br />
891 Hyliota flavigaster Yellow-bellied Hyliota<br />
895 Macrosphenus concolor Grey Longbill<br />
896 Macrosphenus fiavicans Yellow Longbill<br />
68 The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Britton No. Species Common Name<br />
901 Pholidornis rushiae Tit -Hylia<br />
907 Phylloscopus sibilatrix Wood Warbler<br />
911 Prinia leucopogon White-chinned Prinia<br />
913 Prinia subflava Tawny-flanked Prinia<br />
917 Sylvia atricapilla Blackcap<br />
921 Sylvietta brachyura Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Crombec<br />
924 Sylvietta virens Green Crombec<br />
926 Muscicapa infuscata Sooty Flycatcher<br />
934 Melaenornis edolioides Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Black Flycatcher<br />
936 Muscicapa adusta African Dusky Flycatcher<br />
938 Muscicapa caerulescens Ashy Flycatcher<br />
940 Muscicapa comitata Dusky Blue Flycatcher<br />
942 Myioparus griseigularis Grey-throated Flycatcher<br />
946 Myioparus plumbeus Lead-coloured Flycatcher<br />
949 Batis minor Black-headed Batis<br />
955 Bias musicus Black and White Shrike- Flycatcher<br />
956 Megabias fiammulatus AfricanShrike Flycatcher<br />
957 Dyaphorophyia jamesoni Jameson’s Wattle-eye<br />
958 Dyaphorophyia castanea Chestnut Wattle-eye<br />
960 Platysteira cyanea Brown-throated Wattle-eye<br />
961 Platysteira peltata Black-throated Wattle-eye<br />
963 Elminia longicauda African Blue Flycatcher<br />
967 Terpsiphone rufiventer Red-bellied Paradise -Flycatcher<br />
968 Terpsiphone viridis African-Paradise Flycatcher<br />
972 Trochocercus nigromitratus Dusky Crested- Flycatcher<br />
973 Trochocercus nitens Blue-headed Crested- Flycatcher<br />
978 Anthus leucophrys Plain-backed Pipit<br />
984 Anthus trivialis Tree Pipit<br />
988 Macronyx croceus Yellow-throated Longclaw<br />
991 Motacilla aguimp African Pied Wagtail<br />
996 Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail<br />
998 Dryoscopus angolensis Pink-footed Pufflack<br />
1004 Laniarius aethiopicus Tropical Boubou<br />
1007 Laniarius leucorhynchus Sooty Boubou<br />
1008 Laniarius luehderi Luhder’s Bush -Shrike<br />
1009 Laniarius mufumbiri Papyrus Gonolek<br />
1013 Malaconotus bocagei Grey-green Bush Shrike<br />
1022 Tchagra australis Brown-crowned Tchagra<br />
1035 Lanius mackinnoni Mackinnon’s Fiscal<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
69
Britton No. Species Common Name<br />
1038 Lanius senator Woodchat Shrike<br />
1048 Cinnyricinclus leucogaster Violet-backed Starling<br />
1052 Creatophora cinerea Wattled Starling<br />
1058 Lamprotornis purpureiceps Purple-headed Starling<br />
1061 Lamprotornis splendidus Splendid Starling<br />
1063 Onychognathus fulgidus Chestnut-winged Starling<br />
1080 Hedydipna collaris Collared Sunbird<br />
1081 Deleornis axillaris Grey-headed Sunbird<br />
1082 Anthreptes longuemarei Western Violet-backed Sunbird<br />
1087 Anthreptes rectirostris Green Sunbird<br />
1093 Cinnyris bouvieri Orange-tufted Sunbird<br />
1094 Cinnyris chloropygia Olive-bellied Sunbird<br />
1096 Cinnyris cuprea Copper Sunbird<br />
1097 Cyanomitra cyanolaema Blue-throated Brown Sunbird<br />
1098 Cinnyris erythrocerca Red-chested Sunbird<br />
1103 Cinnyris kilimensis Bronze Sunbird<br />
1112 Cinnyris olivacea Olive Sunbird<br />
1120 Chalcomitra rubescens Green-throated Sunbird<br />
1121 Anthreptes seimundi Little Green Sunbird<br />
1122 Chalcomitra senegalensis Scarlet-chested Sunbird<br />
1125 Cinnyris superba Superb Sunbird<br />
1128 Cinnyris venusta Variable Sunbird<br />
1130 Cyanomitra verticalis Green-headed Sunbird<br />
1133 Zosterops senegalensis Yellow White-eye<br />
1134 Amblyospiza albifrons Grosbeak Weaver<br />
1140 Euplectes axillaris Fan-tailed Widowbird<br />
1155 Malimbus rubricollis Red-headed Malimbe<br />
1159 Ploceus baglafecht Baglafecht Weaver<br />
1165 Ploceus cucullatus Black-headed Weaver<br />
1173 Ploceus melanocephalus Yellow-backed Weaver<br />
1174 Ploceus melanogaster Black-billed Weaver<br />
1175 Ploceus nigerrimus Vieillot’s Black Weaver<br />
1176 Ploceus nigricollis Black-necked Weaver<br />
1177 Ploceus ocularis Spectacled Weaver<br />
1184 Ploceus superciliosus Compact Weaver<br />
1186 Ploceus tricolor Yellow-mantled Weaver<br />
1188 Ploceus weynsi Weyns’s Weaver<br />
1206 Passer griseus Grey-headed Sparrow<br />
1211 Vidua chalybeata Village Indigobird<br />
1216 Vidua macroura Pin-tailed Whydah<br />
1226 Estrilda astrild Common Waxbill<br />
70 The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Britton No. Species Common Name<br />
1230 Estrilda nonnula Black-crowned Waxbill<br />
1231 Estrilda paludicola Fawn-breasted Waxbill<br />
1233 Estrilda rhodopyga Crimson-rumped Waxbill<br />
1239 Lagonosticta rubricata African Firefinch<br />
1242 Mandingoa nitidula Green-backed Twinspot<br />
1246 Nigrita canicapilla Grey-headed Negr<strong>of</strong>inch<br />
1247 Nigrita fusconota White-breasted Negr<strong>of</strong>inch<br />
1254 Pyrenestes ostrinus Black-bellied Seedcracker<br />
1259 Spermophaga rujicapilla Red-headed Bluebill<br />
1265 Lonchura bicolor Black -and -White Mannikin<br />
1266 Lonchura cucullata Bronze Mannikin<br />
1283 Serinus citrinelloides African Citril<br />
1293 Serinus sulphuratus Brimstone Canary<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
71
Table A3: Species list <strong>of</strong> Mammals (small and large) in Mabira Forest Reserve<br />
Species<br />
Insectivora<br />
Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Swamp Musk Shrew (Crocidura maurisca)<br />
Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Giant Musk Shrew (Crocidura olivieri)<br />
Hero Shrew (Scutisorex somereni)<br />
Chiroptera<br />
Straw colored Fruit Bat (Eidolon helvum)<br />
Little epauletted Fruit Bat (Epomophorus labiatus)<br />
Franquet’s Fruit Bat (Epomops franqueti)<br />
Short Pallate fruit bat (Casinycteris argynnis)<br />
Hammer-headed fruit Bat (Hypsignathus monstrosus)<br />
African Long-tongued Fruit Bat (Megaloglossus woermanni)<br />
Greater collared Fruit Bat (Myonycteris torquarta)<br />
Bocage’s Fruit Bat (Rousettus angolensis)<br />
Bates’ Slit-faced Bat (Nycteris argae)<br />
Dwarf Slit-faced Bat (Nycteris nana)<br />
Sundevall’s Leaf-nosed bat (Hipposideros caffer)<br />
Noack’s Leaf-nosed Bat (Hipposideros rubber)<br />
Halcyon Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus alcyone)<br />
Pel’s Pouched Bat (Saccolaimus peli)<br />
Schlieffen’s Bat (Nycticeinops schliefeni)<br />
Banana Bat (Pipistrellus nanus)<br />
Cape Serotine (Pipistrellus capensis)<br />
Forest Brown House Bat (Scotophilus nux)<br />
Little Free tailed Bat (Chaerophon pumila)<br />
Primates<br />
Red tailed Monkey (Cercopi<strong>the</strong>cus ascanius)<br />
Potto (Perodictictus potto)<br />
Galago (Galago senegalensis)<br />
Grey Cheeked Mangabey (Cercocebus abigena)<br />
Baboons (Papio anubis)<br />
Carnivora<br />
Side Striped Jackal (Canis adustus)<br />
Marsh Mongoose (Atilax paludinosus)<br />
Forest Genet (Genetta victoriae)<br />
Dwarf Mongoose (Hologale parvula)<br />
Slender Mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon)<br />
72 The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Serval (Felis serval)<br />
Leopard (Pan<strong>the</strong>ra pardus)<br />
Pholidota<br />
Tree Pangolin (Manis tricupsis)<br />
Hyracoidea<br />
Tree Hyrax (Dendrohyrax aboreaus)<br />
Artiodactyla<br />
Blue Duiker (Cephalophus monticola)<br />
Bushpig (Potamochoerus porcus)<br />
Red Forest Duiker (Cephalophus harveyi)<br />
Bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus)<br />
Rodentia<br />
Congo forest Rat (Deomys ferugeneous)<br />
Stella Wood Mouse (Hylomyscus stella)<br />
Eastern Brush-furred Mouse (Lophuromys flavopunctatus)<br />
Common Brush furred Mouse (Lophuromys sikapusi)<br />
Peter’s Stripped Mouse (Hybomys univitattus)<br />
Long footed rat (Malacomys longipes)<br />
Jackson’s S<strong>of</strong>t-furred Rat (Praomys jacksoni)<br />
Striped Ground Squirrel (Xerus erythropus)<br />
Crested Porcupine (Hystrix cristata)<br />
Brush tailed Porcupine (A<strong>the</strong>rurus africanus )<br />
Macroscelidea<br />
Giant Elephant Shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei)<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011<br />
73
Table A4: Amphibians <strong>of</strong> Mabira Forest Reserve -<br />
LC = Least Concern<br />
DD = Data Deficient<br />
FAMILY SPECIES COMMON NAME<br />
BUFONIDAE Bufo regularis Square-marked Toad LC<br />
HYPEROLIDAE Afrixalus fulvovitattus<br />
Hyperolius<br />
Four-lined Leaf Frog<br />
Dimorphic Reed Frog<br />
LC<br />
LC<br />
cinnamomeoventris<br />
Hyperolius kivuensis Kivu Reed Frog LC<br />
Hyperolius nasutus Gun<strong>the</strong>r’s Sharp-nosed Reed Frog LC<br />
Kassina senegalensis Bubbling Kassina LC<br />
Leptopelis bocagii Bocage’s Burrowing Frog LC<br />
RANIDAE Haplobatrachus occipitalis Groove-crowned Bullfrog LC<br />
Ptychadena oxhyrhynchus DD<br />
Ptychadena porossissima Mascarene Rigded Frog DD<br />
Ptychadena mascarenieneis Grassland Ridged Frog LC<br />
Phrynobatrachus natelensis Snoring Puddle Frog LC<br />
Phrynobatrachus acridoides East African Puddle Frog LC<br />
PIPIDAE Xenopus laevis African Clawed Toad LC<br />
ARTHROLEPTIDAE Artholeptis adolfifriederici LC<br />
Table A5: Reptiles <strong>of</strong> Mabira Forest Reserve -<br />
LC = Least Concern<br />
DD = Data Deficient<br />
IUCN (Red List)<br />
STATUS<br />
FAMILY SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS*<br />
CHMAELEONIDAE Chamaeleo bitaneatus Side-striped chameleon LC<br />
GECKONIDAE Hemidactylus mabouia House Gecko LC<br />
SCINCIDAE Mabouia maculilabris Speckle-lipped Skink LC<br />
LACERTIDAE Lacerta jacksonii Jackson’s Forest Lizard LC<br />
VARANIDAE Varanus niloticus Nile Monitor LC<br />
TYPHLOPIDAE Typholps punctatus Spotted Blind Snake LC<br />
LEPTYPHLOPIDAE Leptotyphlops sp DD<br />
COLUBRIDAE Lamprophis olivaceous Olive House Snake DD<br />
Philothamnus semivaruiagatus Variable Green Snake LC<br />
Thrasops jacksonii Jackson’s Tree Snake LC<br />
Dispholidus typus Boomslang LC<br />
Natriceteres olivaceous Olive Marsh Snake LC<br />
Dasypeltis scabra Egg-eater Snake LC<br />
Bothrophthalmus lineatus Red and Black-striped Snake DD<br />
PYTHONIDAE Python sebae African Rock Python LC<br />
ELAPIDAE Dendroaspis jamesoni Jameson’s Forest Mamba LC<br />
Pseudohaje goldii Gold’s Tree Cobra LC<br />
Naja melanoleuca Forest Cobra LC<br />
Boiga blandignii Fanged Tree Snake LC<br />
VIPERIDAE A<strong>the</strong>ris squamiger Bush Viper LC<br />
Bitis gabonica Gaboon Viper LC<br />
Bitis nasicornis Rhinoceros Viper LC<br />
Causus rhombeatus Rhombic night Adder LC<br />
*IUCN, Conservation International, and <strong>Nature</strong>Serve. 2006. Global Amphibian Assessment. <br />
74 The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Table A6: Species list <strong>of</strong> butterflies recorded in Mabira Forest Reserve<br />
PAPILIONIDAE<br />
Papilioninae<br />
Papilio bromius Broad-banded Swallowtail<br />
Papilio cynorta<br />
Papilio dardanus Mocker Swallowtail<br />
Papilio demodocus Citms Swallowtail<br />
Papilio lormieri Central Emperor Swallowtail<br />
Papilio nireus Narrow G-Banded Swallowtail<br />
Papilio phorcas Green Patch Swallowtail<br />
Papilio zoroastres Zoroaster Swallowtail<br />
Graphiumpolicenes Small Striped Swordtail<br />
PIERIDAE<br />
Coliadinae<br />
Eurema hapale Marsh Grass Yellow<br />
Eurema hecabe Common Grass Yellow<br />
Eurema senegalensis Forest Grass Yellow<br />
Pierinae<br />
Nepheronia argia Large Vagrant<br />
Nepheronia pharis<br />
Nepheronia thalassina Cambridge Vagrant<br />
Colotis elgonensis Elgon Crimson Tip<br />
Belenois calypso Calypso Caper White<br />
Belenois creona African Caper<br />
Belenois solilucis<br />
Belenois subeida<br />
Belenois <strong>the</strong>ora<br />
Belenois thysa False Dotted Border<br />
Belenois victoria Victoria White<br />
Dixeia charina African Small White<br />
Dixeia orbona<br />
Appias epaphia African Albatross<br />
Appias sabina Sabine Albatross<br />
Appias sylvia Albatross<br />
Mylothris continua<br />
Leptosia alcesta African Wood White<br />
Leptosia hybrida Hybrid Wood White<br />
Leptosia nupta Immaculate Wood White<br />
Leptosia wigginsi Opaque Wood White<br />
LYCAENIDAE<br />
Lipteninae<br />
Pentilapauli Spotted Pentila<br />
Epitola catuna<br />
Miletinae<br />
Megalopalpus zymna<br />
Lachnocnema bibulus Woolly Legs<br />
Theclinae<br />
Tanue<strong>the</strong>ira timon<br />
Hypolycaena ant faunus<br />
Hypolycaena hatita<br />
Polyommatinae<br />
An<strong>the</strong>ne definita Common Ciliate Blue<br />
An<strong>the</strong>ne indejinita<br />
An<strong>the</strong>ne larydas Spotted Ciliate Blue<br />
An<strong>the</strong>ne ligures<br />
An<strong>the</strong>ne schoutedeni Schouteden’s Ciliate Blue<br />
Uranothaumafalkensteini<br />
Phlyaria cyara<br />
Cacyreus audeoudi Audeoud’s Bush Blue<br />
Cacyreus lingeus Common Bush Blue<br />
Tuxentius cretosus<br />
Tuxentius margar`itaceus<br />
Azanus isis<br />
Azanusjesous African Babul Blue<br />
Azanus mirza Pale Babul Blue<br />
Azanus moriqua Black-Bordered Babul Blue<br />
Azanus natalensis Natal Babul Blue<br />
Eicochrysops hippocrates White Tipped Blue<br />
Oboronia punctatus<br />
NYMPHALIDAE<br />
Danainae<br />
Danaus chrysippus African Queen<br />
Amauris albimaculata Layman<br />
Amauris hecate Dusky Danaid<br />
Amauris niavius Friar<br />
Amauris tartarea Monk<br />
Tirumalaformosa Beautiful Tiger<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 75
Tirumala petiverana African Blue Tiger<br />
Satyrinac<br />
Gnophodes betsimena Banded Evening Brown<br />
Melanitis leda Common Evening Brown<br />
Bicyclus auricrudus<br />
Bicyclus campinus<br />
Bicyclus funebris<br />
Bicyclus graueri<br />
Bicyclus jefferyi Jeffery’s Bush Brown<br />
Bicyclus mesogena<br />
Bicyclus mollitia<br />
Bicyclus sajitza Common Bush Brown<br />
Bicyclus sambulus<br />
Bicyclus sandace<br />
Bicyclus sebetus<br />
Bicyclus smithi Smith’s Bush Brown<br />
Bicyclus sop hrosyne<br />
Bicyclus unformis<br />
Bicyclus vulgaris<br />
Henotesiapeitho<br />
Ypthima albida Silver Ringlet<br />
Ypthima asterope Common Three Ring<br />
Charaxinae<br />
Charaxes ameliae<br />
Charaxes bipunctatus Two Spot Charaxes<br />
Charaxes boueti Red Forest Charaxes<br />
Charaxes brutus White Barred Charaxes<br />
Charaxes candiope Green Veined Charaxes<br />
Charaxes castor Giant Charaxes<br />
Charaxes cedreatis<br />
Charaxes cynthia Western Red Charaxes<br />
Charaxes etesipe Savannah Charaxes<br />
Charaxes e<strong>the</strong>ocles Demon Charaxes<br />
Charaxes eupale Common Green Charaxes<br />
Charaxesfulvescens Forest Pearl Charaxes<br />
Charaxes lucretius Violet Washed Charaxes<br />
Charaxes numenes<br />
Charaxes pleione<br />
Charaxes porthos<br />
Charaxes protoclea Flame Bordered Charaxes<br />
76<br />
Charaxes pythodoris Powder Blue Charaxes<br />
Charaxes subornatus Ornata Green Charaxes<br />
Charaxes tiridates<br />
Charaxes varanes Pearl Charaxes<br />
Charaxes virilis<br />
Charaxes zingha<br />
Euxan<strong>the</strong> crossleyi Crossley’s Forest Queen<br />
Palla ussheri<br />
Apaturinae<br />
Apaturopsis cleochares Painted Empress<br />
Nymphalinae<br />
Euryphura albimargo<br />
Euryphura chalcis<br />
Cymothoe caenis Migratory Glider<br />
Cymothoe herminia<br />
Cymothoe hobarti Hobart’s Red Glider<br />
Harma <strong>the</strong>obene<br />
Pseudathyma plutonica<br />
Pseudoneptis bugandensis Blue Sailer<br />
Bebearia cocalia Spectre<br />
Euphaedra eleus Orange Forester<br />
Euphaedra harpalyce<br />
Euphaedra medon Common Forester<br />
Euphaedra preussi<br />
Euphaedra uganda <strong>Uganda</strong>n Forester<br />
Aterica galene Forest Glade Nymph<br />
Catuna cri<strong>the</strong>a<br />
Pseudacraea clarki<br />
Pseudacraea eurytus False Wanderer<br />
Pseudacraea lucretia False Diadem<br />
Neptisconspicua<br />
Neptis melicerta Streaked Sailer<br />
Neptis metella<br />
Neptis nemetes<br />
Neptis nicomedes<br />
Neptis saclava Small Spotted Sailer<br />
Neptis trigonophora<br />
Cyrestis camillus African Map Butterfly<br />
Sallya boisduvali Brown Tree Nymph<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011
Sallya garega<br />
Sallya natalensis Natal Tree Nymph<br />
Sallya occidentalium Velvety Tree Nymph<br />
Byblia anvatara African Joker<br />
Ariadne enotrea African Castor<br />
Ariadne pagenstecheri Pagenstecher’s Castor<br />
Neptidopsis ophione Scalloped Sailer<br />
Eurytela dryope Golden Piper<br />
Eurytela hiarbas Pied Piper<br />
Hypolimnas dinarcha<br />
Hypolimnas dubius Variable Diadem<br />
Hypolimnas misippus Diadem<br />
Hypolimnas salmacis Blue Diadem<br />
Salamis cacta Lilac Beauty<br />
Salamis parhassus Forest Mo<strong>the</strong>r-<strong>of</strong>-Pearl<br />
Junonia chorimene Golden Pansy<br />
Junonia Sophia Little Commodore<br />
Junonia stygia Brown Pansy<br />
Junonia terea Soldier Commodore<br />
Junonia westermanni Blue Spot Pansy<br />
Antanartia delius Orange Admiral<br />
Phalanta eurytis African Leopard Fritillary<br />
Acraeinae<br />
Acraea aganice Wanderer<br />
Acraea alth<strong>of</strong>fi Alth<strong>of</strong>fs Acraea<br />
Acraea aurivilli Aurivillius’ Acraea<br />
Acraea cabira Yellow Banded Acraea<br />
Acraea egina Elegant Acraea<br />
Acraea epaea<br />
Acraea eponina Orange Acraea<br />
Acraeajodutta<br />
Acraeajohnstoni Johnston’s Acraea<br />
Acraea lycoa<br />
Acraea macaria<br />
Acraea macarista<br />
Acraea natalica Natal Acraea<br />
Acraea orinata<br />
Acraea peneleos<br />
Acraea penelope Penelope’s Acraea<br />
Acraea pharsalus<br />
Acraea pseudegina<br />
Acraea guirinalis<br />
Acraea rogersi Rogers’ Acraea<br />
Acroeo semivitreo<br />
Acraea servono<br />
Acroeo tellus<br />
Acroeo viviono<br />
Liby<strong>the</strong>inae<br />
Liby<strong>the</strong>o lobdoco African Snout<br />
HESPERHDAE<br />
Coeliadinae<br />
Coeliodesforeston Striped Policeman<br />
Pyrginae<br />
Celoenorrhinus bettoni<br />
Celoenorrhinus golenus Orange Sprite<br />
Celoenorrhinus proximo<br />
Eretis lugens<br />
Sorongeso bouvieri<br />
Sorongeso Jucidello Marbled Fifin<br />
Hesperiinae<br />
Gomolio elmo African Mallow Skipper<br />
Cerotrichio mobirensis<br />
Acleros mockenii Macken’s Skipper<br />
Coenides doceno<br />
Monzo cretoceo<br />
Borbo gemello Twin Swift<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | 2011 77
ANNEX 2 INVENTORY DATA<br />
Table III<br />
Mabira Forest Reserve<br />
Stand table <strong>of</strong> Total volume (m3) for Cpt 184 (605.6 ha, 33 plots)<br />
Species Diameter class (cm) Quality (50cm+)<br />
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<br />
volume<br />
241 Celtis zenkeri 633 1,091 1,589 1,885 0 5,199 4,566 3,475 2,977 1,589 4,566<br />
240 Celtis mildbraedii 229 252 400 1,110 886 1,325 0 4,202 3,321 1,325 555 2,766 2,766<br />
228 Alstonia boonei 1,629 0 1,629 1,629 1,629 1,629 1,629<br />
243 Chrysophyllum albidum 90 1,582 0 1,673 1,582 791 791 1,582<br />
465 Ficus spp 806 1,190 925 592 865 0 4,378 1,458 865 1,458<br />
238 Celtis durandii 608 868 637 849 0 2,962 849 849<br />
231 Antiaris toxicaria 123 60 425 555 0 1,163 555 555 555<br />
204 Albizia gummifera 477 0 477 477 477<br />
308 Broussonetia papyrifera 3,216 4,984 7,896 545 397 0 17,037 397 397<br />
212 Markhamia lutea 327 889 321 0 1,537<br />
542 Trema orientalis 210 332 270 0 812<br />
423 Bosquiea phoberos 50 320 705 0 1,075<br />
242 Celtis wightii 302 297 316 0 916<br />
Magaritaria (Phyllanthus)<br />
510<br />
306 43 0 349<br />
discoideus<br />
444 Croton macrostachys 64 463 0 527<br />
604 Croton oxypetalus (sylivaticus) 190 218 0 408<br />
549 Uvariopsis congensis 230 0 230<br />
545 Trichilia prieuriana 72 138 0 210<br />
420 Blighia unijugata 131 0 131<br />
205 Albizia zygia 104 79 0 182<br />
286 Spathodea campanulata 53 88 0 140
264 Funtumia elastica 111 0 111<br />
272 Morus (lactea) mesozygia 93 0 93<br />
245 Chrysophyllum mnerense 78 0 78<br />
583 Maerua duchensii 57 0 57<br />
Sub total <strong>of</strong> 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<br />
Sub total <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r spp 0<br />
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<br />
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%<br />
RME (P=95.0%) 4,537 7,777 7,867 639 312 33,448 5,297 745 874 519<br />
Table IV: Summary Table <strong>of</strong> Key Timber Species and Paper Mulberry in Compartment 184 for graphical analysis<br />
Botanical Names Midpoint 39375 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90+<br />
Celtis zenkeri 15 0 0 0 633 0 1091 1589 1885 0<br />
Celtis mildbraedii 25 229 252 400 0 1110 886 1325 0 0<br />
Chrysophyllum albidum 35 0 90 0 0 0 1582 0 0 0<br />
Celtis durandii 45 608 868 637 0 849 0 0 0 0<br />
Antiaris toxicaria 55 123 60 0 425 555 0 0 0 0<br />
Broussonetia papyrifera 65 3216 4984 7896 545 397 0 0 0 0<br />
Celtis wightii 75 0 302 297 316 0 0 0 0 0<br />
Trichilia prieuriana 85 72 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 0<br />
Albizia zygia 105 104 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | March 2008 79
Fig AI<br />
Icut id nonsimu sperurbitiac rei cus, fuium tuastio in publibus sterace remover essimissatin at. Mulego<br />
ex sedo, Catum crentro hala nonsule simius publicut omnostandest perritam prips, quius cupiostod im<br />
in tionsus nos Mulica; halestistori ingultus et, veriorum occhilicae ficient? Qua cae quem consupie tuis<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> Paper Mulberry, Key Timber Species and Total Volume by Diameter Classes,<br />
cae, nocurente at. Sp. Hossimihica vivit ius cernum publicit.<br />
Compartment 184<br />
Estro ca L. Sendam pra, sa enat vit. ete, Cast faccissente, et? in ducid coentiu is, nos actus iu videpervivid<br />
Cato condam mo urnis.<br />
14000<br />
Ectum teste consulic maximpotia? Hus porentra vendestrum ius, pato incere pultorum inatum octum in<br />
senatis eribunt.<br />
Lut viverte 12000mperioribus;<br />
nonsunticaet nes, ca inte, norditu mum Roma, clut factuiurbis, nocaper fernum<br />
quam horum sena, quam me ad C. Overo, consus, orest pris, coneniu et Catiena tilnem rem trari patus<br />
nos erebatuit quam, consuam verit, seniam nox muntum ocaed re tam. Verit; hos horibus, Catusa L. Mae<br />
condacrei 10000 publicu pplicienit, cont dessena, dempl. Sulis estere mus publi, oc, aris.<br />
Dem perrio, quam deo ermius, cri ta, que ma, te in vaterebatus es reo Cat.<br />
Dectemque constis cavemo a Sima, qui seniculegere acture me con viviriondam in Etractuam di con re<br />
priampe 8000 rtemquam hos mediestem tem te re, Casdam scrum reo, furs adduc facerem mantis conemus<br />
labulium senervider que iam ad caetici ses adhuspiorum iu mist accis Mae hori cupplist L. Halessuperes<br />
mor iaelabul vilnes hos, octe, vide ex sa publissolus, quos anulictaris aut castrestris? Viu vissolinpro<br />
horituidies 6000contemuri<br />
isseniu mus, con huciis con suliconfecii in tem facios etemei popte ium que es<br />
ex mandi pri pra? An venatu consce remei sesi ideatam moruntil con horum pero mum ore am is vem<br />
prorum postracci in publiura? Nam ve, simus, ubitis bonsulatius constri sunita, quam conde iu verit.<br />
4000<br />
Terferfiris cusquasterte me quodien terrarid cientrac teremus am nonum Romanti ferobse nimulem auc<br />
fachilin Ita L. Sa nox serital arbis, conture, Ti. Vivis dit.<br />
Irmium, moenderi st que porterei silin viverni quastis me deri simantemura re audem popublicam ilis.<br />
2000<br />
Sime quius, sesua prae patus actus cone con trum senatur hacchil convent, optimanum dervirtus C.<br />
Ibunclerce con anum curox mentic iu clus, C. Torum intium ter ac trendam. Ostorio iae consilin horte<br />
hordie ia? Etratus 0 culissolus ellem tuus, nos veret rebus confice ca me derteri es coeniam con teroptis<br />
spiossu liquos, noniu 15 cupici 25 cotis bonte 35nequam 45 tem etodius, 55 iam arissenatror 65 75 iam hinatum 85 il veniam 105<br />
inaterfinte inatque no. Nam es confex niri, contra Diameter peres cae Mid-Point iam re conc (cm) factam. Catum quidendie orbit,<br />
faci probut publicaequo pubita ca; nequiti stanum factu consulvita, quamenterit? Nam diu condeo<br />
patabit. Sendum, ompordi caedo, sentemu ntiacci consul hostemquis, seres dicae tur, quidem idiu vid<br />
Key Timber Species<br />
Paper Mulberry<br />
Total Volume<br />
Volume (m 3 )
dem quastanum publicaet publici orbit? Tum, quem cleris? Mantero pticast notessentem sulto C.<br />
Fig AII<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> Paper Mulberry, Key Timber Species ,Total Volume By Diameter Mid Point Classes in<br />
Compartment 184<br />
Celtis zenkeri<br />
Celtis midbraedii<br />
Chrysophyllum albidum<br />
Celtis durandii<br />
Antiaris toxicaria<br />
Broussonetia papyrifera<br />
Celtis wightii<br />
Trichilia prieuriana<br />
13000<br />
12500<br />
12000<br />
11500<br />
11000<br />
10500<br />
10000<br />
9500<br />
9000<br />
8500<br />
8000<br />
7500<br />
7000<br />
6500<br />
6000<br />
5500<br />
5000<br />
4500<br />
4000<br />
3500<br />
3000<br />
2500<br />
2000<br />
1500<br />
1000<br />
500<br />
0<br />
Volume (M 3 )<br />
Albizia zygia<br />
Total Volume<br />
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 105<br />
Diameter Mid Point (Cm)<br />
The Economic Valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Degazettement <strong>of</strong> Mabira CFR | March 2008 81
About <strong>Nature</strong><strong>Uganda</strong><br />
<strong>Nature</strong><strong>Uganda</strong>, <strong>the</strong> East Africa Natural History Society is <strong>the</strong> oldest conservation organization<br />
in East Africa having been set up in 1909 as a scientific organization with <strong>the</strong><br />
primary aim <strong>of</strong> documenting <strong>the</strong> diversity <strong>of</strong> wildlife in East Africa. Although <strong>the</strong> activities<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> society were disrupted by political instability in <strong>Uganda</strong> in 1970s-1980s, <strong>the</strong><br />
activities were rejuvenated in early 1990s with <strong>the</strong> identification <strong>of</strong> Key Biodiversity<br />
Areas (KBAs) such as <strong>the</strong> Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Ramsar sites. Over <strong>the</strong> past<br />
20 years, <strong>the</strong> activities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization have diversified to embrace biodiversity<br />
conservation and sustainable Natural Resource Management.<br />
The organization implements research, conservation and advocacy programmes with<br />
particular focus on priority species, sites and habitats across <strong>the</strong> country. This is<br />
achieved through conservation projects, environmental education toge<strong>the</strong>r with government<br />
lead agencies, local government and local communities, and membership<br />
programmes activities such as Public Talks, excursions and <strong>Nature</strong>-walks that are key<br />
advocacy and public awareness tools.<br />
Our mission is to promote <strong>the</strong> understanding, appreciation and conservation <strong>of</strong> nature.<br />
In pursuing this mission <strong>Nature</strong><strong>Uganda</strong> strives to:<br />
• Create a nature-friendly public<br />
• Enhance knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uganda</strong>’s natural history<br />
• Advocate for policies favorable to <strong>the</strong> environment<br />
• Take action to conserve priority species sites and habitats<br />
<strong>Nature</strong><strong>Uganda</strong> is <strong>the</strong> BirdLife International partner in <strong>Uganda</strong> and a member <strong>of</strong> IUCN.<br />
Contact address:<br />
<strong>Nature</strong><strong>Uganda</strong>, The East African Natural History Society<br />
P. O Box 27034, Kampala, Plot 83 Tufnell Drive, Kamwokya,<br />
Tel.: +256-414-540719, Fax: +256-414-533528,<br />
Website: www.natureuganda.org or email: nature@natureuganda.org<br />
Promoting <strong>the</strong> Understanding, Appreciation and Conservation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Nature</strong>