Katonga Wildlife Reserve - Frontier-publications.co.uk

Organizations of Overseas FilipinosThe following are the list of organizations of Overseas Filipinos:Atikha Overseas Workers and Communities Initiative is a non-governmentorganization that provides economic and social services to overseas Filipinos andtheir families in the Philippines. The organization aims to help address the socialcost of migration and tap the development potential of migration.Kalayaan Centre is a Filipino community centre in Vancouver, British Columbia,Canada. Kalayaan Centre has various organizations which asserts the rights andwelfare of and social justice for Filipinos in Canada, while supporting the strugglefor human rights, national freedom and democracy of the Filipino people.Kalayaan Resource and Training Centre (KRTC), is a non-profit society and acommunity-based organization which provides comprehensive research, resourcesand skills training to create a space for Filipino-Canadians to be socially activemembers in the Filipino community and Canadian society at large. It was founded in1996.SIKLAB is an organization of Filipino migrant workers in Canada. SIKLAB(which stand for flameburst) is the acronym for Sulong, Itaguyod ang Karapatan ngManggagawang Pilipino sa Labas ng Bansa (Forward, Uphold the Rights ofOverseas Filipino Workers!)Filipino Nurses Support Group (FNSG) is a support group for registerednurses from the Philippines who are doing domestic work in Canada. It seeks tofacilitate their accreditation, support their personal and professional development,and advance their rights, dignity, and welfare as workers in Canada.

For Laura, who loved Katonga

Katonga Wildlife ReserveivPREFACEThe Society for Environmental ExplorationThe Society for Environmental Exploration is a non-profit making company limited by guarantee. The Society’s objectives are toadvance field research into environmental issues and implement practical projects contributing to the conservation of naturalresources. Projects organised by the Society are joint initiatives developed in collaboration with national research agencies in cooperatingcountries. The Society promotes co-operation between scientists and technical officers from collaborating institutions andcounterparts in the UK and elsewhere.The Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)The Uganda Wildlife Authority is the parastatal organisation responsible for the management of Uganda’s Wildlife ProtectedAreas. The primary focus is on wildlife conservation with an emphasis on the development of strategies to generate sustainableincome from wildlife resources. It was formed in July 1996 and takes over the duties of the former Game Department and UgandaNational Parks.Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife, and Antiquities (MTWA)The Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife, and Antiquities is the government body responsible for wildlife affairs and the management ofUganda’s wildlife resources both inside and outside Protected Areas. It is responsible for national wildlife policies.Frontier-UgandaFrontier-Uganda undertakes project activities in Uganda on behalf of the Society for Environmental Exploration, in conjunctionwith Ugandan institutions and government bodies. Frontier-Uganda was initiated in 1991, and was originally involved with thetourism development project in Kibale Forest (now Kibale National Park), in conjunction with Makerere University. In 1993Frontier-Uganda embarked on the Frontier-Uganda Game Reserves Project, based on a Memorandum of Understanding with theformer Game Department. This project continues, in collaboration with UWA, as the Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected AreasProject. The aim of the project is to assess the biological and socio-economic status of Uganda’s Wildlife Protected Areas and toassist with the development of management strategies.To date Frontier-Uganda has involved over 250 participants from both Ugandan and overseas institutions. Results of projectactivities are summarised in a series of reports published by the Society for Environmental Exploration. More formal scientificpapers resulting from research are published in appropriate international journals to achieve wider dissemination of information.The activities of Frontier-Uganda are supervised by a Project Advisory Committee whose members at the time of writing are:Dr. Yacobo MoyiniMr. Arthur MugishaMr. Samson WerikheMs. Apophia Atukunda-MuhimburaMr. Abdul MuwanikaMr. Moses OkuaDr. Panta KasomaMs. Rebecca PhillipsMs. Karen ZwickActing Executive Director, UWAActing Deputy Director: Field Operations, UWAResearch & EIA Co-ordinator, UWAMonitoring Co-ordinator, UWAPlanning Co-ordinator, UWACommissioner for Wildlife, MTWADirector, Makerere University Institute of Environment & Natural ResourcesProject Co-ordinator, Frontier-UgandaResearch Co-ordinator, Frontier-UgandaFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife ReservevACKNOWLEDGEMENTSAcknowledgements are due to all of the Uganda Wildlife Authority staff, past and present, who supportedthis work, and in particular to Dr. Eric Edroma, the former Executive Director, and Mr. John Otekat, theformer Deputy Director: Field Operations. The work would not have been possible without the support inthe field of Mr. Severino Rukwago, the Warden in Charge of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve, Mr. DavidAbaho, the Law Enforcement Warden, and Mr. Paul Ross, the Community Conservation Warden, towhom we are especially grateful. Acknowledgements are also due to Mr. Moses Okua, the Commissionerfor Wildlife at the Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife, and Antiquities.Thanks to Eiblies Fanning, the Director of The Society for Environmental Exploration. The Society hasprovided administrative and financial support for this work. Equipment was generously donated by theBritish High Commission, Kampala, and additional administrative support was gratefully received fromIUCN in Kampala.Thanks go to the staff at Makerere University for their supporting role. Prof. Derek Pomeroy advised onthe ornithological work, Mr. Robert Kityo identified the small mammals, Mr. Mathius Behangana theherptiles, Ms. Dorothy Kalibakate Kaggwa the butterflies, Mr. Patrick Etyang the dragonflies, and Ms.Olivia Wanyana Maganyi the botanical specimens.Mr. Robert Kityo and Ms. Leigh Stubblefield made valuable comments on earlier drafts.Frontier-Uganda staffMark Graves Project Co-ordinator Duncan Sivell Research Co-ordinatorGarry White Field Co-ordinator UG962 Lee Stewart Large Mammals Co-ordinatorRebecca Phillips Field Co-ordinator UG963 Julia Lloyd Small Fauna Co-ordinatorAsst. Field Co-ordinator UG962 Tracy Lee Socio-economics Co-ordinator UG962Miles Kemplay Asst. Field Co-ordinator UG963 Karen Zwick Socio-economics Co-ordinator UG963Mustapha Kiika Driver/MechanicResearch Assistants UG962Lorraine AlexanderLuke BarclayClaire BessantTimothy BraunholtzHenrietta ByngEleanor CornwallClare DarkeNicholas DavisCarolyn DempsterKirsten DoodyRebecca FullerAmy HawkinsDaniel JeffreyDemian KhanRangersBua GeorgeBusinga JosephBwambale NoahKato PaulKatorogo LeegiKibonndo KlieiumKuyamba DonozioLutwol JohnMazinga JohnIan LewisPhilippa LewisRichard MatthewsAlexander MellorStephen MoizerLeigh O’NiellMichael PalmerClare TurnerSamantha WilliamsResearch Assistants UG963Marigold CharlesNavdeep ChinnaJess ColesLauren GallowayMark GrindleyDeborah HallJayne HawdonJonathan HollingsSteven HowsonDavid JacksonCharles JarvisRobert JohnstoneOrla KeadyTrevor KirkupNacumosa SebastianOcaya RobertOgwai DicksonOkum CaesarRugundana NasanSekitiko CharlesTimbisimirwa MosesTwiikirrize JustusAlys LangdaleCatherine LaurenceAlexis McDougallDevang PatelElizabeth PimleyNancy RedgroveAdrian ReillyLee RisbyLaura SalisburyMark van VlietGraeme WalkerVictoria WillsFiona WilsonFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife ReserveviEXECUTIVE SUMMARYA baseline biological and socio-economic survey of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve, Kabarole District, wascarried out between April and September 1996.One-hundred and fifty-five species of flowering plant from 35 families were identified, and five majorvegetation types were described: savannah woodland/wooded grassland mosaic, which covers most of thereserve, thickets, riverine woodland, and seasonal and permanent swamps. Almost a third of the reserveshowed evidence of recent disturbance. The results of previous vegetation and disturbance studies arebriefly reviewed, and past and possible future changes discussed.Twenty-eight species of large mammal from 15 families were identified, bringing the total number of largemammal species recorded in the reserve to 30. Distribution maps and information on habitat use arepresented, and the conservation status of each species discussed. Although there has been a drastic declinein numbers of animals, there are still populations of primates, small carnivores, hyena, leopard, aardvark,warthog, bushpig, bushbuck, blue duiker, common duiker, waterbuck, and reedbuck which are likely to beviable. The reserve is also home to several species of international and national conservation interest, suchas elephant, hippopotamus, buffalo, sitatunga, and porcupine, albeit in very small numbers, and it isimportant nationally for typically Tanzanian savannah species such as zebra and dwarf mongoose, whichare not widely distributed in Uganda.In total 13 species of small rodent, eight species of shrew, 14 species of bat, 154 species of bird, 17 speciesof reptile, 15 species of amphibians, 99 species of butterfly, and eight species of dragonfly and damselflywere recorded, representing some 12% of the country’s diversity for these taxa: species accumulationcurves indicate that collection is not yet exhausted. Three Ugandan endemics, Crocidura selina, C. tarella,and Campethera abingoni were identified, as were two species of international conservation interest,Crocidura selina and C. gracilipes, although the conservation status of many species is yet to be assessed.Rapid and Participatory Rural Appraisal (R/PRA) methods, including community meetings and householdinterviews were used to gather information on the communities living in and around the reserve. Over halfof the households interviewed were pastoralists, whose main concern was access to pasture and water fortheir cattle, followed by the prevalence of ticks and tsetse flies and predation by hyena and leopard.Cultivators fell into two groups: those encroaching on the Kyaka I Refugee Settlement to the north of thereserve, who were mostly recent arrivals to the area, and those encroaching on the reserve, who weremostly longer term residents. Both groups were concerned with land tenure issues, particularly followingthe evictions from the reserve of June 1996 and subsequent events, as well as with crop raiding by bushpigand poor access to markets. The natural resources of the reserve, which include land and pasture, water,fuelwood and construction materials, and medicinal plants, are very important to local people. Attitudestowards the reserve and its staff were shaped dramatically by the events of June and July, and weregenerally negative, although people were interested in increased contact. Understanding of the reserve’spurpose and conservation issues generally was very low.Although the reserve has not been a great conservation success to date, it is still of considerable potentialand actual conservation value, and should be maintained as a conservation area.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife ReserveviiCONTENTSPREFACEACKNOWLEDGEMENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARYiiiiii1.0 INTRODUCTION 11.1 Aims 11.2 Site description 11.3 History 41.4 Current situation 61.5 References cited 82.0 VEGETATION SURVEY (Karen L. Zwick) 92.1 Summary 92.2 Introduction 92.2.1 Aims 92.2.2 Previous studies 92.3 Methods 132.3.1 Vegetation 132.3.2 Disturbance 142.4 Results 142.4.1 Checklist 142.4.2 Vegetation types 192.4.2.1 Savannah woodland/wooded grassland mosaic 192.4.2.2 Thickets 193.4.2.3 Riverine woodland 202.4.2.4 Seasonal swamp 202.4.2.5 Permanent swamp 202.4.3 Disturbance 212.5 Discussion 212.5.1 Vegetation changes 212.5.2 Disturbance 222.6 Conclusions 232.7 References cited 24Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserveviii3.0 LARGE MAMMAL SURVEY (Lee Stewart & Karen L. Zwick) 263.1 Summary 263.2 Introduction 263.2.1 Aims 263.2.2 Previous studies 263.3 Methods 273.4 Results 273.4.1 Checklist 273.4.2 Distribution and habitat use 293.4.3 Flight distance 393.5 Discussion 393.5.1 Primates 393.5.2 Carnivores 393.5.3 Elephant 403.5.4 Zebra 413.5.5 Aardvark 413.5.6 Artiodactyls 413.5.6.1 Suids 413.5.6.2 Hippopotamus 413.5.6.3 Buffalo 413.5.6.4 Bushbuck 423.5.6.5 Sitatunga 423.5.6.6 Blue duiker 423.5.6.7 Common duiker 423.5.6.8 Waterbuck 423.5.6.9 Reedbuck 423.5.7 Porcupine 433.6 Conclusions 433.7 References cited 44Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserveix4.0 SMALL FAUNA SURVEY (Julia Lloyd) 454.1 Summary 454.2 Introduction 454.2.1 Aims 454.2.2 Previous studies 454.3 Overview of methods 454.4 Small rodents and shrews 474.4.1 Introduction 474.4.2 Aim 474.4.3 Methods 474.4.4 Results 474.4.5 Discussion 504.4.5.1 Shrews 504.4.5.2 Squirrels 514.4.5.3 Cricetid rats 514.4.5.4 Rats and mice 514.5 Bats 524.5.1 Introduction 524.5.2 Aim 524.5.3 Methods 524.5.4 Results 534.5.5 Discussion 544.5.5.1 Mega bats 554.5.5.2 Micro bats 554.6 Birds 564.6.1 Introduction 564.6.2 Aim 564.6.3 Methods 564.6.4 Results 564.6.5 Discussion 604.7 Reptiles 614.7.1 Introduction 614.7.2 Aim 614.7.3 Methods 614.7.4 Results 614.7.5 Discussion 634.7.5.1 Lizards 634.7.5.2 Snakes 634.8 Amphibians 644.8.1 Introduction 644.8.2 Aim 644.8.3 Methods 644.8.4 Results 644.8.5 Discussion 664.8.5.1 Toads 664.8.5.2 Frogs 66Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reservex4.9 Butterflies 674.9.1 Introduction 674.9.2 Aim 674.9.3 Method 674.9.4 Results 674.9.5 Discussion 704.10 Dragonflies and damselflies 714.10.1 Introduction 714.10.2 Aims 714.10.3 Methods 714.10.4 Results 714.10.5 Discussion 724.10.5.1 Dragonflies 724.10.5.2 Damselflies 724.11 Conclusions 724.12 References cited 74Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reservexi5.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY (Karen L. Zwick) 775.1 Summary 775.2 Introduction 775.2.1 Aims 775.2.2 Community conservation and the 1996 wildlife statute 775.2.3 Previous studies 785.2.4 People 785.2.5 Settlements 795.2.5.1 Kabagole 795.2.5.2 Karwenyi 795.2.5.3 Rushayumbe 805.2.5.4 Kazinga 805.2.5.5 Biguri 805.2.5.6 Oburama 805.2.5.7 Kataraza 805.3 Methods 815.3.1 Rapid and participatory rural appraisal 815.3.2 Community meetings 825.3.3 Informal unstructured key informant interviews 825.3.4 Informal semi-structured household interviews 825.3.5 Collection of ethnobotanical specimens 835.4 Results 835.4.1 Pastoralism 845.4.2 Cultivation 855.4.3 Communications and infrastructure 875.4.4 Use of natural resources 885.4.4.1 Land 885.4.4.2 Water 885.4.4.3 Pasture 895.4.4.4 Fuelwood 895.4.4.5 Construction materials 905.4.4.6 Utensils and handicrafts 905.4.4.7 Medicinal plants 915.4.4.8 Wild collected foods 915.4.4.9 Honey 915.4.4.10 Fish 915.4.4.11 Wild animals 915.4.4.12 Traditional management practices 925.4.5 Attitudes towards the reserve 925.5 Discussion 935.5.1 Pastoralism and conservation 935.5.2 Cultivation and conservation 945.5.3 Development and conservation 955.5.4 Use of natural resources 955.5.5 Attitudes towards the reserve 965.6 Conclusions 965.7 References cited 976.0 CONCLUSIONS 98Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife ReservexiiFIGURESFigure 1.1 Location of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 2Figure 1.2 Protected Areas of western Uganda 2Figure 1.3 Topography and hydrology of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 3Figure 2.1 1959 physiognomic vegetation types of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 10(Langdale-Brown, 1960)Figure 2.2 1959 plant communities of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 10(Langdale-Brown, 1960)Figure 2.3 1989 - 1992 land cover of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 11(Forest Department, 1996)Figure 2.4 1982 distribution of huts within the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 12(Eltringham et al., 1992)Figure 2.5 1995 distribution of huts within the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 12(Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996)Figure 2.6 1995 distribution of cultivation within the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 13(Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996)Figure 2.7 Disturbance within the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 21Figure 3.1 Distribution of vervet monkey in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 29Figure 3.2 Distribution of olive baboon in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 30Figure 3.3 Distribution of black-and-white colobus in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 30Figure 3.4 Distribution of small carnivores in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 31Figure 3.5 Distribution of spotted hyena in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 31Figure 3.6 Distribution of serval and leopard in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 32Figure 3.7 Distribution of African elephant in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 32Figure 3.8 Age structure of the African elephant population of the Katonga 33Wildlife ReserveFigure 3.9 Distribution of plain’s zebra and aardvark in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 33Figure 3.10 Distribution of warthog in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 34Figure 3.11 Distribution of bushpig in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 34Figure 3.12 Distribution of hippopotamus and African buffalo in the Katonga 35Wildlife ReserveFigure 3.13 Distribution of bushbuck in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 35Figure 3.14 Distribution of sitatunga in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 36Figure 3.15 Distribution of blue duiker in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 36Figure 3.16 Distribution of common duiker in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 37Figure 3.17 Distribution of waterbuck in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 37Figure 3.18 Distribution of Bohor reedbuck in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 38Figure 3.19 Distribution of crested porcupine in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 38Figure 3.20 Age structure of the African elephant population of the Katonga 40Wildlife Reserve (Allan, 1995)Figure 4.1 Location of small fauna sampling sites within the Katonga Wildlife 46ReserveFigure 4.2 Species accumulation rate for small rodents and shrews captured 49in snap-traps in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigure. 4.3 Species accumulation rate for shrews captured in pitfall traps in 50the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigure 4.4 Species accumulation rate for bats in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 54Figure 5.1 Settlements in and around the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 79Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife ReservexiiiTABLESTable 2.1 Disturbance scores for different types of human use of the Katonga 14Wildlife ReserveTable 2.2 Checklist of the flowering plants of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 15Table 2.3 Habitats of the indigenous trees and shrubs of the Katonga Wildlife 19ReserveTable 3.1 Checklist of the large mammals of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 28Table 3.2 Average flight distances for the more common large mammals of 39the Katonga Wildlife ReserveTable 4.1 Small fauna sampling techniques used at each site in the Katonga 46Wildlife ReserveTable 4.2 Sampling intensity and capture rates for small rodents and shrews 48in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveTable 4.3 Species inventory of the small rodents and shrews of the Katonga 48Wildlife ReserveTable 4.4 Species inventory of the bats of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 53Table 4.5 Species inventory of the birds of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve. 56Table 4.6 Species inventory of the reptiles of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 62Table 4.7 Species inventory of the amphibians of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 65Table 4.8 Species inventory of the butterflies of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 68Table 4.9 Species inventory of the dragonflies and damselflies of the Katonga 71Wildlife ReserveTable 4.10 Diversity by taxa for the small fauna of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve 72Table 5.1 Species preferred for use as fuelwood in and around the Katonga 89Wildlife ReserveTable 5.2 Species preferred for use as poles in and around the Katonga 90Wildlife ReserveTable 5.3 Species used for utensils and handicrafts in and around the Katonga 91Wildlife ReserveFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 11.0 INTRODUCTIONUganda has an extremely rich and diverse biota (NEIC, 1994), which represents theintersection of no less than six biogeographic zones: the Guineo-Congolian, Sudanian, andSomalia-Masai regional centres of endemism, the Afromontane archipelago-like centre ofendemism, the Guinea-Congolia-Sudania regional transition zone, and the Lake Victoriaregional mosaic (White, 1983). Its moist tropical climate allows for high levels of primaryproductivity which promotes overall alpha diversity by allowing for greater nichedifferentiation, and its varied topography allows for high beta diversity (Whittaker, 1972).This diversity directly supports the 90% of the population (NEAP, 1993) who depend onnatural resources for their day to day livelihoods.During the political turmoil of the 1970s and 80s there was next to no control on theharvesting of plants and animals, and many of the nation’s protected areas were encroachedupon, eroding the rich natural resource base. In 1996 the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)was formed from the former Game Department and Uganda National Parks. It is responsiblefor the conservation of the nation’s wild animals and plants, and the management of WildlifeProtected Areas, including the production of management plans. The aims of the Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project Baseline Surveys Programme are to assess thebiological and socio-economic status of the nation’s Wildlife Protected Areas to assist UWAwith the development of management strategies: the specific aims of this survey are outlinedin section 1.1 below.1.1 AimsThe survey of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve aims to:• collect baseline biological information about the vegetation, large mammals, and smallfauna of the reserve;• collect baseline socio-economic information about the communities living in and aroundthe reserve, including information on their attitudes towards and their impacts on thereserve;• evaluate the opportunities for and threats to conservation in and around the reserve;• contribute to existing knowledge at a national and international level; and• train self funding volunteer research assistants in biological and socio-economic surveytechniques.1.2 Site descriptionThe reserve covers an area of 207km 2 , and is located in western Uganda between 30°34’ and30°55’E, and 0°12’ and 0°18N (Fig. 1) in Kabarole District, although it is contiguous withMbarara District to the south. It is covered by the Lands and Surveys Department map sheets67/1, 67/2, 67/3, and 67/4 (Series Y732) at 1:50,000.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 2Figure 1.1 Location of the Katonga Wildlife ReserveThe reserve is part of the south-western suite of savannah and forest Protected Areas (PAs). Itis surrounded to the west, north, and east by the Katonga Controlled Hunting Area, which iscontiguous with Kibale National Park to the west. To the south lie the rangelands of Ankole(Mbarara and Busheyni Districts), Lake Mburo National Park, and Tanzania. The reserve isreached from Kyegegwa on the Fort Portal road along a rough track, or from (near)Lyantonde on the Mbarara road via Kabagole and passenger ferry across the Katonga River(Fig. 1.2).Figure 1.2 Protected Areas of western UgandaFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 3The reserve is gazetted as:‘the area comprised within the following boundaries:• commencing at a point where the Kaisunga River (Dwamanyanja) joinsthe Katonga River;• thence in a north-easterly direction following the eastern bank of theKaisunga River to its confluence with the Nyandagura River;• thence in a north-easterly direction to the highest point of Kabuya Hill;• thence in an easterly direction to Kitemba Hill;• thence to the peak of Zina Hill;• thence following the western side of the Mpara/Kabagole road (track) tothe Katonga River;• thence following the northern bank of the Katonga River to the point ofcommencement’.The Katonga River, from which the reserve gets its name, forms a wide band of permanentswamp. Numerous watercourses drain into it from the surrounding hillsides: within thereserve, the most important of these are the Kaisunga River, the Kabega River, and theKakula River, which dissect and drain the rolling hills to the north. These support a mosaic ofwoodland and wooded grassland, with more cover by woody plants in valleys and alongdrainage lines, and less on the hillsides and hilltops. Altitude ranges from approximately1,190m at the Katonga River to 1,463m at the boundary marker at the top of Kabuya Hill(Fig. 1.3).Figure 1.3 Topography and hydrology of the Katonga Wildlife ReserveRainfall is between 1,000 and 1,250mm, and increases to the north (Department of Lands andSurveys, 1967). It is typically bi-modally distributed, with peaks between mid-March andmid-May, and mid-August and the end of October. The mean annual minimum temperature is15.0 to 17.5°C, and the mean annual maximum between 25.0 and 27.5°C (Lubwama, 1994).Soils are mostly red and yellowish ferrallitic sandy loams, with hydromorphic soils along thecourse of the Katonga River (Department of Lands and Surveys, 1967).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 4The only ranger post is located in the south-east of the reserve, across the Katonga River fromKabagole. At the time of the survey the Warden In Charge (WIC) was not based in thereserve. The reserve was staffed by a Junior Community Conservation Warden (CCW) and17 field force rangers, who were joined in August 1996 by a Junior Law Enforcement Warden(LEW). Basic equipment such as uniforms, boots, arms and ammunition was old and limitedin availability, and there was no radio. The WIC had a vehicle, but this was also old andsomewhat unreliable, and was not kept in the reserve, which, in any case, has no roads.1.3 HistoryIn the 1950s the Katonga River valley was reportedly one of the best wildlife areas in thecountry. Elephant used it as a migratory route between northern Ankole and the forests of thewest, and there were large herds of topi, buffalo, and eland, with numerous hippopotamus inthe swamps. However, the construction of the railway line to Kasese in 1954 forced many ofthe elephant into nearby agricultural land where they were shot on control, and in the late1950s the fine herds of topi, buffalo, and eland were also shot on control in the mistakenbelief that this would control tsetse. Nonetheless, the Katonga Controlled Hunting Area wasgazetted in 1961 to protect the remaining wildlife populations which included typicallyTanzanian savannah species, such as zebra and eland, at the northern limits of their range.The gazettement of the reserve followed in 1964 (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996).At this time the area was ‘just bush’, and practically uninhabited due to infestation by tsetse(Kayabwe, 1994), and no legal settlements were recognised. There were, however, two blocksof private freehold mailo land (Blocks 93 and 94), belonging to three families, in the centre ofwhat became the reserve. Apparently, these families were to have been given equivalent landat the edge of the reserve, which was then to have been degazetted, but this never took place.Despite ongoing consultations between the landowners and the Game Department from 1991onwards, the issue is still unresolved, and the landowners and their tenants remain inside thereserve (Paul Ross, pers. comm.).Also in 1964, the year the reserve was gazetted, the government gazetted approximately140km 2 of land immediately to the north as the Kyaka I Refugee Settlement to accommodateRwandan refugees. The northern section of the settlement was set aside for homesteads andcultivation, while the larger (approximately 110km 2 ) southern section, bordering the reserve,was allocated for communal grazing. There was no demarcation of the boundaries of eitherthe reserve or the settlement, and because all of the watercourses in the area drain south intothe Katonga River, and the lowland pasture in the valley bottom is of high quality, dry seasonencroachment by Rwandan herdsmen and their cattle became a feature of the reserve almostfrom its inception (Kayabwe, 1994).It was not only the Rwandan herdsmen who found the dry season pasture and permanentwater of the Katonga River valley attractive. With the control of tsetse in the late 1960s(Fraser Stewart, 1992) semi-nomadic Bahima subsistence pastoralists began to bring theircattle up from Ankole to the Katonga River valley in the dry seasons. Initially the impact ofthis encroachment was relatively low. Cattle numbers were not excessive, the reserve wasonly used for short periods in the worst of the dry seasons, and the impact on wildlife wasminimal, as the Bahima traditionally do not hunt (Kayabwe, 1994; Fraser Stewart, 1992).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 5A number of factors caused this situation to change. Increases in the number of cattle as aresult of the control of tsetse, the advent of modern veterinary medicine, and theestablishment of artificial watering points began to put pressure on the traditional Ankolegrazing lands. This pressure was exacerbated from the late 1960s onwards by the conversionof 650km 2 of grazing land from traditional communal use to (mainly) privately held, fencedleaseholds through the government sponsored Ankole Ranching Scheme. Although thescheme was specifically aimed at bringing traditional subsistence pastoralists into the modernlivestock industry, eligibility criteria tended to rule out most true pastoralists in favour ofthose who were already part of the cash economy. The result was that most pastoralists wereleft without access to enough land for their ever increasing herds. The situation deterioratedstill further as the arrival of internal refugees, displaced by the troubles of the 1970s and highhuman population growth rates, led to encroachment of grazing lands by cultivators (FraserStewart, 1992). Squeezed out of their traditional grazing lands in Ankole, many Bahimamigrated to the Katonga River valley, and stayed year round (Kayabwe, 1994). UnderresourcedGame Department staff were unable to stop them encroaching on the reserve, andan aerial survey showed that in 1982 it was home to almost 11,000 cattle, and contained some2,300 huts (Eltringham et al., 1992).The 1982 aerial survey also showed that wildlife populations had declined massively duringthe 1970s, as was typical of PAs throughout the country (Eltringham et al., 1992). Lack ofcommitment from government left the small remaining populations poorly protected andisolated from those to the west by the expansion of agriculture, and from those to the south bythe fencing of the Ankole Ranching Scheme and other livestock industry developments.Cattle numbers, however, continued to rise through the 1980s as the refugees’ communalgrazing lands to the north and the edges of the reserve itself were encroached upon bynational (Ugandan) cultivators. As a result of population growth in their home districts, thesenationals came looking for new land to clear, to which, as citizens, they felt they had a right.The refugees’ cattle were confined to ever decreasing pockets of grazing land in the midst ofa sea of cultivation, leading to conflicts over crop damage. The encroaching nationals showedmore resolve than the Game Department, and many refugee families moved south into thereserve year round. Permanent high densities of cattle precluded traditional rangemanagement practices, such as rotational grazing, which were further undermined byinsecurity of tenure of the communal resource, leading to widespread overgrazing (Kayabwe,1994). This reduced the pasture’s capacity to support cattle, resulting in a negative spiral ofever worse overgrazing.In the early 1990s there was a series of attempts to remove both people and cattle from thereserve. These were largely unsuccessful due to lack of resources on the part of the GameDepartment, lack of political will, and because there was no attempt to find new land forthose evicted (Paul Ross, pers. comm.). They did, however, serve to sour relations betweenGame Department staff and those living within the reserve, who were forced to pay various‘fines’ and ‘fees’ before being allowed to return to the reserve. In 1992 a quarantine forContagious Bovine Pleuro-Pneumonia (CBPP) was introduced, precluding any movement ofcattle, and hence even the possibility of a relatively straight forward solution to the problem(Kayabwe, 1994).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 6In April 1993 the boundary of the reserve was resurveyed and redemarcated at key points.Until this time, the portion west of the Kabega River in Kibale county had been managedfrom Fort Portal, while the portion east of the Kabega River in Kyaka county had beenmanaged from Mubende. The position of the ranger post in the far south-east of the reserve,coupled with the lack of infrastructure, had meant that what Game Department presence therehad been during the 1970s and 80s had not really been felt in the western part of the reserve,which, as a result, was much more densely settled. When the boundary was resurveyed andredemarcated, many people living in the western part were surprised to discover that theywere inside the reserve. These people believe that the reserve had expanded and made themencroachers in areas in which they had previously been legally settled, and to them, theboundary is known as the ‘new’ boundary (Paul Ross, pers. comm.).1.4 Current situationFollowing the events of 1994, almost all of the Rwandan refugees returned home with theircattle, reducing enormously the pressure on the grazing resources of the reserve. An aerialsurvey in 1995 showed there to be less than 2,000 cattle in the reserve, a reduction of some9,000 since 1982, and only 400 huts, a reduction of some 1,900 (Lamprey & Michelmore,1996).The Bahima pastoralists who remain in the reserve use the entire area, moving their cattlesouth to the Katonga River in the dry seasons and dispersing north in the wet seasons.Cultivators have also encroached on the reserve, particularly in the north-west, aroundOburama, where there is a well established community.In June 1996, during the course of this survey, instructions were received by the reserve stafffrom UWA headquarters in Kampala to evict all encroachers by the end of that month. Therewas no opportunity for discussion, and no arrangements were made regarding alternativeland, or the movement of cattle across veterinary cordons. Despite this, albeit somewhatreluctantly, all of the encroachers left without incident before the deadline. A few familiesreturned from whence they had come, and a few left in search of new land elsewhere, butmost gathered around the edges of the reserve to wait and see what would happen. In the firstweek of July, under orders, the rangers destroyed homes, granaries, and crops left behind inthe reserve.The pastoralists, who tend to lead a fairly transient lifestyle, were relatively unaffected by thedestruction of property, but were extremely upset by the sudden denial of access to thepermanent waters of the Katonga River in the height of the dry season, and concerned aboutthe denial of access to the dry season pasture within the reserve. However, they still had theircattle, which are the basis for their subsistence and wealth, and in theory at least, could moveon. On 21 July the pastoralists had a meeting with the CCW, facilitated by the Frontier-Uganda Socio-economics Co-ordinator, at which they explained their concerns. Acompromise was reached whereby the CCW granted them permission to water their cattle atthe Katonga River for the rest of that dry season, pending a final decision on the issue,although he did not permit them to graze their cattle in the reserve, nor to stay in the reserveat night.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 81.5 References citedDepartment of Lands and Surveys. 1967. Uganda Atlas. Department of Lands and Surveys,Kampala.Eltringham, S.K., Malpas, R.C., & Tindigarukayo, J. 1992. The conservation status ofUganda’s Game and Forest Reserves in 1982-3. Uganda Institute of Ecology, Mweya.Fraser Stewart, J.W. 1992. Integrating local rural communities with Protected Areamanagement in Uganda. MTWA, Kampala & FAO, Rome.Kayabwe, S.K. 1994. A rapid assessment of pastoral grazing areas of Mpara and RwebisengoSub-Counties in Kabarole and Bundibugyo Districts. Makerere University Institute ofSocial Research, Kampala.Lamprey, R.F. & Michelmore, F. 1996. The Wildlife Protected Areas of Uganda: preliminaryaerial survey results and their assessment plus initial recommendations. MTWA,Kampala.Lubwama, H. 1994. Social studies atlas for Uganda. Macmillan (Uganda), Kampala.NEAP. 1993. National environment management policy framework. National EnvironmentAction Plan Secretariat, Ministry of Natural Resources, Kampala.NEIC. 1994. State of the environment report for Uganda 1994. National EnvironmentInformation Centre, Kampala.White, F. 1983. The vegetation of Africa. UNESCO, Paris.Whittaker, R.H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21:213-251.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 92.0 VEGETATION SURVEY (Karen L. Zwick)2.1 SummaryA vegetation survey of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve, including an assessment of disturbance,was carried out between July and September 1996. All 207 1km UTM grid squares within thereserve were sampled at a sampling intensity of about 10%. One-hundred and fifty-fivespecies of flowering plant from 35 families were identified. Most are typical of the localityand vegetation types. Five major vegetation types were identified and described: savannahwoodland/wooded grassland mosaic, which covers most of the reserve, thickets, riverinewoodland, and seasonal and permanent swamps. Almost a third of the reserve showedevidence of recent disturbance. The results of previous vegetation and disturbance studies arebriefly reviewed, and past and possible future changes discussed.2.2 Introduction2.2.1 AimsThe vegetation survey aims to:• collect baseline data on the presence and distribution of flowering plants (Angiospermae),in order to compile a preliminary annotated checklist for the reserve;• describe both physiognomically and floristically the major vegetation types found withinthe reserve; and• record evidence of disturbance.Distribution records are submitted to the National Biodiversity Data Bank at the MakerereUniversity Institute of Environment and Natural Resources.2.2.2 Previous studiesThe vegetation of the reserve was mapped in 1959 by Langdale-Brown (1960) as part of theAgriculture Department’s memoirs series on the vegetation of Uganda. He described 27physiognomic vegetation types, and detailed 79 plant communities in western Uganda, threeand five of which respectively are found within the reserve (Fig. 2.1, Fig. 2.2).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 10Figure 2.1 1959 physiognomic vegetation types of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve(Langdale-Brown, 1960)O = Combretaceous savannah woodland and tree savannahR = Compound leaf savannah woodland and tree savannahY = herb swampFigure 2.2 1959 plant communities of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve (Langdale-Brown,1960)H65 = Combretum spp. - Cymbopogon afronardus fire climax tree savannahH53 = Acacia gerradii - Themeda triandra fire climax tree savannahH112 = Acacia gerradii - Cymbopogon afronardus seral tree savannahV14 = Echinochloa pyramidalis - Cyperus dives climax aquatic grasslandV30 = Cyperus papyrus natural or fire climax herb swampMore recently, the vegetation of the reserve was mapped from satellite imagery capturedbetween 1989 and 1992 as part of the Forest Department’s National Biomass Study (ForestDepartment, 1996), which identified four land cover classes within the reserve, in addition toareas under cultivation (Fig. 2.3).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 11Figure 2.3 1989-1992 land cover of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve (Forest Department,1996)In 1994 the Frontier-Uganda Game Reserves Project (as the current project was then known)conducted a brief vegetation survey of the reserve (Allan, 1995). A sketch map depictingswamp, riverine woodland, and a complicated mosaic of Acacia-dominated, Combretumdominated,and mixed Acacia and Combretum woodlands and wooded grasslands wasproduced. It was noted that the Acacia-dominated communities had encroached upon theCombretum-dominated communities, that Cymbopogon afronardus had increased in cover atthe expense of Themeda triandra, and that cover by woody species generally had increasedsince the 1960s.No previous studies have focused specifically on disturbance within the reserve. In 1982Eltringham et al. (1992) mapped the distribution of huts, cattle, and small stock (sheep andgoats) within the reserve as part of their aerial survey programme. These maps were updatedin 1995 by Lamprey and Michelmore (1996), who also mapped the distribution of kraals andareas under cultivation within the reserve. Selected maps are reproduced in Figures 2.4, 2.5,and 2.6. Areas under cultivation between 1989 and 1992 are depicted in the ForestDepartment’s National Biomass Study land cover map (Fig. 2.3).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 13Figure 2.6 1995 distribution of cultivation within the Katonga Wildlife Reserve(Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996)= the presence of cultivation in each 6.25km 2 sampling unit.2.3 MethodsThe survey was conducted between July and September 1996.Volunteer research assistants were trained in basic navigation skills including the use of mapsand compasses and the Global Positioning System (GPS), and learned to pace distancesaccurately.They were trained in the collection and preparation of botanical specimens, data recording,and in the use of appropriate field guides and keys: Coates Palgrave (1988), Eggeling & Dale(1951), Hamilton (1981), ICRAF (1992), Katende et al. (1995), and Noad & Birnie (1989)for woody plants, Haines & Lye (1983) for sedges and rushes, and Eggeling (1941), Harker(1961), and van Oudtshoorn (1992) for grasses.Small survey teams, led by a member of staff, walked through each 1km UTM grid square ofthe reserve collecting information on the vegetation and evidence of disturbance within anapproximately 100m wide belt transect, giving a sampling intensity of about 10%.2.3.1 VegetationVoucher specimens of every species or recognisable taxonomic unit (rtu) of flowering plantencountered were collected and brought back to base camp, where they were pressedfollowing Liesner (1990). They were then given preliminary field identifications wherepossible, and used as a basic working reference collection. At the end of the study period, thepreliminary field identifications were confirmed by Ms Olivia Wanyana Maganyi at theMakerere University Herbarium. The specimens were also used in the ethnobotanicalcomponent of the socio-economic survey.The survey teams recorded information on the presence and distribution of all species offlowering plants encountered within the 100m wide belt transects, along with information onthe physiognomic and floristic composition of the various vegetation types encountered. Thisinformation was supplemented by opportunistic records made while moving through thereserve or during other survey work.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 142.3.2 DisturbanceThe survey teams recorded information on all evidence of human use of the reserveencountered within the 100m wide belt transects. Different types and levels of use weresubjectively scored to give a weighted index of disturbance for each 1km UTM grid square,as shown in Table 2.1Table 2.1 Disturbance scores for different types and levels of human use of the KatongaWildlife ReserveType Level ScorePresence of cattle (direct or indirect evidence) any 2Presence of settlements 1 - 5 huts 3> 5 huts 5Presence of cultivation 1 - 10,000m 2 3> 10,000m 2 5Presence of footpaths 1 - 5 16 - 10 2> 10 3Cut branches/felled trees 1 - 5 1> 5 22.4 ResultsThe volunteer research assistants were able to use the GPS and to follow bearings and pacedistances accurately so that they could establish UTM grid references without the GPS whennecessary. They used these skills in all aspects of the fieldwork.They were able to collect and prepare botanical specimens and to record data accurately, aswell as to identify many of the specimens from the field guides and keys available, andrecognise them in the field.All 207 1km UTM grid squares within the reserve were sampled.2.4.1 ChecklistOne hundred and fifty-five species of flowering plant from 35 families were identified, aslisted in Table 2.2.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 15Table 2.2 Checklist of the flowering plants of the Katonga Wildlife ReserveSpecific name Growth form 1 Habitat 1Family AcanthaceaeAcanthus arboreusAsystasia gangeticaDicliptera colorataHygrophila auriculataThunbergia alataFamily AlangiaceaeAlangium chinense ST fFamily AnacardiaceaeRhus longipes S/ST df,t,f,rRhus natalensis S/ST wo,t,fFamily ApocynaceaeCarissa edulisSFamily BasellaceaeBasella albaFamily BignoniaceaeMarkhamia luteaFamily CapparidaceaeCapparis tomentosa CS/ST t,g,rFamily CelastraceaeMaytenus senegalensisSTFamily ChenapodiaceaeChenopodium ambrosioidesFamily CombreteceaeCombretum collinum ST woCombretum molle ST woFamily CommilinaceaeCommelina benghalensisFamily CompostitaeAgeratum conyzoidesCrassocephalum vitellinumHelichrysum gerberifoliumSenecio hadiensisTagetes minutaVernonia amygdalina S/ST f,wo,tVernonia auriculiferaS/STVernonia brachycalyxSVernonia lasiopusSVernonia smithianiaFamily ConvolvulaceaeIpomoea cairicaFamily CyperaceaeAbildgaardia hispidulaCyperus papyrusFimbristylis madagascariensisFamily EuphorbiaceaeCroton macrostachyus S/ST f,rErythrococca bongensis S/ST f,t,rErythrococca trichogyne CS F,f,t,rEuphorbia candelabrum ST wo,g,roFleuggea virosa S/ST f,t,roPhyllanthus nummulariifolius WH/S f,wo,t,g,rPhyllanthus ovalifolius CS/S/ST f,r,tSapium ellipticum ST/TT f,rFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 16Specific name Growth form 1 Habitat 1Family LabiataeHoslundia oppositaSLeonotis neptifoliaOcimum sauveSFamily LeguminosinaeAbrus canescens WC/SS g,sAcacia gerradii S/ST woAcacia hockii S/ST woAcacia kirkii ST rAcacia seyal ST wo,rAcacia sieberiana ST wo,rAlbizia coriaria TT wo,rAlbizia zygia TT F,r,woCassia didymobotrya S f,r,g,woDesmodium adscendensDesmodium dregeanum WH/S f,r,gDesmodium ramosissimum WH/S gDesmodium velutinum WH/S/SS f,wo,gDichrostachys cinerea S/ST wo,tEntada abyssinica ST woErythrina abyssinica ST g,wo,t,f,roMimosa pigra S r,sPseudarthria hoockeri WS/SS g,t,sSesbania sesban ST rTephrosia linearisTephrosia nanaFamily LiliaceaeAloe sp.Asparagus africanusFamily MalvaceaeAbutilon mauritianumHibiscus diversifoliusHibiscus fuscusSFamily MelastomataceaeDissotis sp.Family MeliaceaeTurraea floribunda ST fTurraea robusta ST fFamily MelianthaceaeBersama abyssinica ST F,wo,g,t,rFamily MenispermaceaeCissampelos mucronataFamily PhytolaccaceaePhytolacca dodecandra CS wo,t,g,fFamily PoaceaeAndropogon canaliculatusAndropogon schirensisBeckeropsis unisetaBothriochloa glabraBothriochloa insculptaBothriochola radicansBrachiaria brizanthaBrachiaria dictyoneuraBrachiaria eminiiBrachiaria jubataBrachiaria platynotaFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 17Specific name Growth form1 Habitat1Brachiaria solutaChloris gayanaCtenium concinnumCymbopogon afronardusCymbopogon excavatusCynodon dactylonDigitaria diagonalisDigitaria scalarumEchinochloa pyramidalisEleusine indicaEleusine jaegeriEragrostis asperaEragrostis exasperataEragrostis heteromeraEragrostis mildbraediiExotheca abyssinicaHyparrhenia collinaHyparrhenia filipendulaHyparrhenia nyassaeHyperthelia dissolutaImperata cylindricaLeersia hexandraLoudetia kagerensisOlyra latifoliaPanicum deustumPanicum infestumPanicum maximumPaspalum commersoniiPaspalum vaginatumPennesetum purpureumSetaria chevalieriSetaria kagerensisSetaria plicatillisSetaria sphacelataSorghum lanceolatumSporobolus africanusSporobolus filipesSporobolus fimbriatusSporobolus pyramidalisThemeda triandraTrichopteryx gracillimaFamily PolygonaceaePolygonum setulosumRumex bequaertii WH t,g,FFamily RubiaceaeHallea rubrostipulata ST F,rRutidea orientalis C/S F,f,tRytigynia beniensisVangueria apiculata S/ST fFamily RutaceaeTeclea nobilis S/ST woFamily SapindaceaeAllophylus africanus S/ST woAllophylus macrobotrys ST F,sAllophylus welwitschiiSBlighia unijugata ST/(TT) fFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 18Specific name Growth form 1 Habitat 1Paulinia pinnataBlighia welwitschii TT FFamily ScrophulariaceaeSopubia ramosaFamily SolanaceaePhysalis peruvianaSolanum aculeastrum S/ST wo,t,scSolanum incanumSSolanum indicumFamily SterculiaceaeDombeya dawei S/ST woFamily TiliaceaeGrewia mollis S/ST woGrewia similisSTriumfetta macrophyllaSTriumfetta rhomboideaSFamily VerbenaceaeClerodendrum myricoides SClerodendrum rotundifolium SLantana trifoliaSFamily VitaceaeCissus petiolataCissus quadrangularisSCyphostemma adenocauleNomenclature and taxonomy follow Howard (1994), Harker (1961), and Ms. Olivia Wanyana Maganyi.Key1 Howard, 1994Growth formTT tall tree (> 25m) CS climbing shrubST short tree (< 25m) C woody climberS shrub WH woody herbSS sub-shrubHabitatF forest interior r riverine forest/woodlandf forest edge ro rocky placesdf dry forest t bush/thicketwo savannah woodland sc dry scrubg grassland s swampThe reserve is located in the floral region U2 (see the FTEA (Polhill et al., 1954 & following)for explanation). All of the indigenous trees and shrubs of the reserve are recorded from U2in the FTEA, except for Acacia seyal, which was recorded from U2 in the Kagombe andKitechura Forest Reserves in Kibale and Kabarole Districts respectively during the ForestDepartment’s Biodiversity Inventory Programme in 1993 (Lwanga, 1996).None of the indigenous trees and shrubs of the reserve was recorded outside the altitudinalranges specified in the FTEA.The indigenous trees and shrubs of the reserve are recorded in the FTEA from the habitatslisted in Table 2.3 (many are recorded from more than one habitat). Only Blighia welwitschi,which is recorded from forest interiors only in the FTEA, is not recorded from a habitat foundwithin the reserve.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 19Table 2.3 Habitats of the indigenous trees and shrubs of the Katonga Wildlife ReserveHabitat Number %Savannah woodland 24 49Forest edge 21 43Riverine forest/woodland 19 39Bush/thicket 17 35Grassland 13 27Forest interior 8 16Swamp 4 8Rocky places 3 6Dry forest 1 2Dry scrub 1 2Data on species accumulation rates are not available, but it is unlikely that the checklist isnear complete, especially as most of the fieldwork was done in the dry season when fewplants were in the reproductive phase of their life cycle, and many were dormant or burnt.2.4.2 Vegetation typesFive major vegetation types were identified.2.4.2.1 Savannah woodland/wooded grassland mosaicThis vegetation type covers most of the reserve in a finely grained mosaic, interspersed withthickets (see section 2.4.2.2). Cover by woody plants, mostly broad- and compound-leafeddeciduous species, is around 20% overall, but depends on catenary position, with more treesand shrubs in valley bottoms, and almost none on the shallow stony soils of the hill tops.Cover by woody plants is higher in the west of the reserve than in the east, although there isalmost never a continuous canopy. The dominant tree species are Acacia gerradii and A.hockii, with abundant Albizia zygia, Combretum collinum, and C. molle. Other commonspecies include Acacia sieberiana, Albizia coriaria, Entada abyssinica, and Maytenussenegalensis. There is a largely continuous herb layer, although the most abundant grass,Cymbopogon afronardus, tends to form large monospecific patches made up of discreettussocks surrounded by bare ground. Other common species are Hyparrhenia filipendula andThemeda triandra, followed by Brachiaria eminii, particularly under trees, B. platynota, andPanicum maximum, with occasional Chloris gayana, H. dissoluta and Loudetia kagerensis.Beckeropsis uniseta occurs along drainage lines, with patches of Imperata cylindrica in moistdepressions. The herb layer is burnt annually, and the more palatable components are grazed.2.4.2.2 ThicketsThis vegetation type occurs in discreet clumps scattered throughout the savannahwoodland/wooded grassland mosaic, particularly on termitaria. The vegetation forms a densetangle, and cover by woody plants within a thicket usually exceeds 50%. Composition varies,but includes deciduous and evergreen shrub species such as Allophylus africanus, Capparistomentosa, Carissa edulis, Cissus quadrangularis, Erythrococca bongensis, Fleuggea virosa,Grewia mollis, G. similis, Hoslundia opposita, Vernonia amygdalina, and V. brachycalyx,often around a central tree such as Euphorbia candelabrum or Teclea nobilis. There is little orno herb layer, which helps to protect the woody plants from fire. Dichrostachys cinerea alsoproduces occasional dense monospecific thickets.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 203.4.2.3 Riverine woodlandThis vegetation type occurs in thin strips along the more permanent watercourses of thereserve where soils are relatively well drained, particularly along the Kabega River, but alsoalong parts of the Katonga and Kaisunga Rivers and their tributaries. Cover by woody plantsexceeds 20%, and the tree layer forms a diffuse interlocking canopy 15 to 20m in height. It isdominated by Acacia sieberiana, but also includes A. kirkii, A. seyal, Albizia coriaria, A.zygia, and Sesbania sesban, with occasional smaller shrubs such as Cassia didymobotrya andCroton macrostachyus. There is a dense herb layer which is similar to that of the savannahwoodland/wooded grassland mosaic, but with less Cymbopogon afronardus. The herb layer isburnt often.2.4.2.4 Seasonal swampThis vegetation type occurs in low-lying areas with impeded drainage which are subject toseasonal inundation or high water tables, particularly along the course of the Kakula Riverand around the junctions of the Katonga River and its tributaries, where it forms a transitionzone between the permanent swamp and the savannah woodland/wooded grassland mosaic.Cover by woody plants is minimal, usually less than 10%, with only a few individuals ofspecies such as Mimosa pigra surviving on better drained microsites such as termitaria withinthe seasonal swamp itself. On the drier (uphill) edges of the community, as it grades into thesavannah woodland/wooded grassland mosaic, scattered individuals of tree species such asAcacia seyal, A. sieberiana, Albizia coriaria, and A. zygia become more common. There is adense herb layer which is dominated by grasses such as Echinochloa pyramidalis and Leersiahexandra, but which also includes herbs such as Cissampelos mucronata, Hygrophilaauriculata, and Ipomoea cairica, sedges such as Fimbristylis madagascariensis, and othergrasses such as Eragrostis heteromera, Imperata cylindrica, Setaria sphacelata, andSporobolus pyramidalis, with I. cylindrica and S. pyramidalis often occurring in extensivemonospecific stands. The herb layer is burnt annually and the more palatable components aregrazed, particularly in the dry season.2.4.2.5 Permanent swampThis vegetation type occurs below the 3,900ft (1,190m) contour line, where there ispermanent surface water, along the course of the Katonga River and parts of the KaisungaRiver. There are no woody plants, but a dense monospecific layer of Cyperus papyrus, withLeersia hexandra and Hibiscus diversifolius towards the edges. The herb layer is burntoccasionally.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 212.4.3 DisturbanceAlmost one third (32%) of the reserve showed evidence of recent disturbance. Thedisturbance scores for each 1km UTM grid square are mapped in Figure 2.7.Figure 2.7 Disturbance within the Katonga Wildlife Reserve= high (> 10)= moderate (6 - 10)2.5 Discussion2.5.1 Vegetation changesVegetation is an interaction between abiotic factors, such as climate, hydrology, and geology,and biotic factors, and can occur as a natural climax, or be arrested in various earliersuccessional stages. Anthropomorphic factors, such as cutting, burning, cultivation, andextensive livestock husbandry all serve to keep vegetation from reaching its natural climax,and thus play an important role in determining its nature.The potential natural climax vegetation types of the reserve were deduced and mapped byLangdale-Brown (1960): mixed savannah woodland and tree savannah (i.e., Combretaceous(broad-leafed) and compound-leafed savannah woodland and wooded grassland) in the northof the reserve, and deciduous thicket in the south. The Combretum spp.-Cymbopogonafronardus association present in the north of the reserve at the time of mapping (see Fig.2.2) is described as a fire climax tree savannah, as is the Acacia gerradii-Themeda triandraassociation in the south, while the Acacia gerradii-Cymbopogon afronardus association, alsoin the south in combination with the Themeda triandra association, is described as a seral treesavannah, part of the succession from the fire climax to the natural climax. Most of theindigenous trees and shrubs of the reserve are recorded from savannah woodland, forest edge,riverine forest/woodland, bush/thicket, and grassland habitats, reflecting both the currentvegetation types and relicts of both earlier successional stages and the natural climax types.During the 1950s and 60s the reserve was subject to only moderate grazing pressure (seesection 1.3 for more information on the history of the reserve), which would have allowedsufficient fuel to accumulate to support regular (annual) grass fires. These would have servedFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 22to maintain the Combretum sp., which are fire resistant (Buechner & Dawkins, 1961), in theface of Acacia gerradii, but caused sufficient seedling mortality to keep the woodedgrasslands open (5-25% tree cover (Langdale-Brown, 1960)). The effects of fire would havebeen compounded by the presence of high numbers of elephant, which would have causedsignificant mortality of adult trees (Buechner & Dawkins, 1961; Spence & Angus, 1971;Harrington & Ross, 1974; Pellew, 1983). Conditions of moderate grazing pressure andfrequent fire would have promoted valuable pasture species such as Themeda triandra andBrachiaria platynota which are highly palatable (Eggeling, 1941; van Oudtshoorn, 1992) butsusceptible to overgrazing (Edroma, 1981), and other fire resistant species such asHyparrhenia filipendula (Edroma, 1984).Through the 1970s and 80s grazing pressure in the reserve increased enormously, reducingthe fuel load available for grass fires during the dry season. This would have allowed someareas to escape burning long enough for woody plants, particularly Acacia sp. to establishthemselves, especially as the number of elephant declined dramatically through this period.Species typical of overgrazed areas such as Dichrostachys cinerea and Acacia hockii(Katende et al., 1995) would have invaded or increased in abundance, along with firesensitive grasses such as Brachiaria eminii and Panicum maximum (Harrington, 1974;Edroma, 1984) and Cymbopogon afronardus, which is distasteful to grazers (Eggeling, 1941),and thus flourishes in areas of heavy grazing as the more palatable species are preferentiallyconsumed.Cattle densities are now low by sustainable livestock production standards for the region(11ha per cow, using population estimates from Lamprey & Michelmore (1996), as opposedto 2ha per cow as recommended by the Department of Agriculture for the Ankole grazinglands, cited in Infield (1993)). This should allow for more frequent grass fires, and halt thewoodland and thicket regeneration and progression towards the climax types, but, with thecontinued low numbers of elephant, fire alone may not be enough to reverse the trend.Cymbopogon afronardus is difficult to get rid of as each clump must be dug out by hand(Infield, 1993), and so is likely to remain a feature of the reserve, as suggested by Langdale-Brown’s (1960) diagram of the relationships amongst vegetation types.2.5.2 DisturbancePatterns of human use and disturbance over time reflect the recent history of the reserve (seesection 1.3 for more information). Evidence of disturbance was found throughout the reserve,but particularly around Oburama in the north-west. This is similar to the distribution of bothhuts and cultivation reported in 1995 by Lamprey & Michelmore (1996) (Figs. 2.5 and 2.6).The large area under cultivation in the north-east of the reserve depicted in the ForestDepartment’s National Biomass Study land cover map (Fig. 2.3) could still be detected on theground, but had been largely abandoned following the repatriation of the Rwandan refugeesof the Kyaka I Refugee Settlement in 1994. There was no direct evidence of the 2,300 hutsdetected by Eltringham et al. (1992) in 1982 (Fig. 2.4), when the particularly high densities ofhuts to the west of the Kabega River reflected the different management of the two halves ofthe reserve.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 232.6 ConclusionsThe vegetation of the reserve has changed over the past 40 years as a result of humanactivities, particularly livestock husbandry. If conservation value is measured purely in termsof species richness, the current mosaic, with its mix of types, is almost by definition of morevalue than either the more open fire climax or seral wooded grasslands which preceded it, orthe more closed natural climax types into which it could potentially develop, although allhave their different values. The current denser vegetation does, however, reduce the potentialfor tourism based on game viewing, as visibility is reduced.The vegetation of the reserve is currently under less threat than it has been in the recent past,and although there is still evidence of considerable disturbance, this is less than in thesurrounding areas, and the reserve stands out as an area of at least semi-natural vegetation inthe face of the ever expanding areas of cultivation to the north.On a national scale, Uganda’s extensive and complex wetlands are threatened by unplannedagricultural conversion, drainage activities, pollution, and over harvesting of natural products(NEIC, 1994). The permanent and seasonal swamps of the Katonga River valley are protectedto some extent by the remoteness and underdevelopment of the area, but are potentiallythreatened by pollution from the acaricides used by pastoralists on their cattle.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 242.7 References citedAllan, C.L. 1995. Katonga Game Reserve: biological survey. Frontier-Uganda GameReserves Project Report No. 3. The Society for Environmental Exploration, London &MTWA, Kampala.Buechner, H.K. & Dawkins, H.C. 1961. Vegetation change induced by elephants and fire inMurchison Falls National Park, Uganda. Ecology. 42(4):752-766.Coates Palgrave, K. 1988. Trees of southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.Edroma, E.L. 1981. Some effects of grazing on the productivity of grassland in RwenzoriNational Park, Uganda. Afr. J. Ecol. 19:313-326.Edroma, E.L. 1984. Effects of burning and grazing on the productivity and number of plantsin Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda. Afr. J. Ecol. 22:165-174.Eggeling, W.J. 1941. An annotated list of the grasses of the Uganda Protectorate.Government Printer, Entebbe.Eggeling, W.J. & Dale, G.R. 1951. The indigenous trees of the Uganda Protectorate.University Press, Glasgow.Eltringham, S.K., Malpas, R.C., & Tindigarukayo, J. 1992. The conservation status ofUganda’s Game and Forest Reserves in 1982-3. Uganda Institute of Ecology, Mweya.Forest Department. 1996. National Biomass Study land cover stratification (vegetation).Forest Department, Kampala.Haines, R.W. & Lye, K.A. 1983. The sedges and rushes of East Africa. East African NaturalHistory Society, Nairobi.Hamilton, A.C. 1981. A field guide to Ugandan forest trees. Uganda Society & MakerereUniversity, Kampala.Harker, K.W. 1961. An illustrated guide to the grasses of Uganda. Government Printer,Entebbe.Harrington, G.N. 1974. Fire effects on a Uganda savannah grassland. Trop. Grassl. 8:87-105.Harrington, G.N. & Ross, I.C. 1974. The savannah ecology of Kidepo Valley National Park I:the effects of burning and browsing on the vegetation. E. Afr. Wildl. J. 12:93-105.Howard, P.C. 1994. An annotated checklist of Uganda’s indigenous trees and shrubs. ForestDepartment, Kampala.ICRAF. 1992. A selection of useful trees and shrubs for Kenya: notes on their identification,propagation, and management for use by farming and pastoral communities.International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi.Infield, M. 1993. Local socio-economy and natural resource use. In: J.R. Kamugisha & M.Ståhl (Eds.), Parks and people: pastoralists and wildlife. Regional Soil ConservationUnit Report No. 7. Regional Soil Conservation Unit & Swedish InternationalDevelopment Authority, Nairobi.Katende, A.B., Birnie, A., & Tengnäs, B. 1995. Useful trees and shrubs for Uganda:identification, propagation, and management for agricultural and pastoralcommunities. Regional Soil Conservation Unit, Nairobi.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 25Lamprey, R.F. & Michelmore, F. 1996. The Wildlife Protected Areas of Uganda: preliminaryaerial survey results and their assessment plus initial recommendations. MTWA,Kampala.Langdale-Brown, I. 1960. The vegetation of the Western Province of Uganda. Memoirs of theResearch Division Series 2 - Vegetation, Number 4. Department of Agriculture,Kampala.Liesner, R. 1990. Field techniques used by Missouri Botanical Garden. Missouri BotanicalGarden, St. Louis, Missouri.Lwanga, J. 1996. The trees and shrubs. In: P.C. Howard & T. Davenport (Eds.), Kagombe,Matiri, and Kitechura Forest Reserves: biodiversity report. Biodiversity InventoryProgramme Report No. 6, Forest Department, Kampala.NEIC. 1994. State of the environment report for Uganda 1994. National EnvironmentInformation Centre, Kampala.Noad, T.C. & Birnie, A. 1989. Trees of Kenya. T.C. Noad & A. Birnie, NairobiPellew, R.A.P. 1983. The impacts of elephant, giraffe, and fire upon Acacia tortiliswoodlands in the Serengeti. Afr. J. Ecol. 21:41-74.Polhill, R.M., Milne-Redhead, E., Turrill, W.B., & Hubbard, C.E. 1954 & following. Flora oftropical East Africa (in many parts). Crown Agents, London, & A.A. Balkema,Rotterdam.Spence, D.H.N. & Angus, A. 1971. African grassland management - burning and grazing inMurchison Falls National Park, Uganda. In: E. Duffy & A.S. Watt (Eds.), Thescientific management of animal and plant communities for conservation. BlackwellScientific, Oxford.van Oudtshoorn, F.P. 1992. Guide to the grasses of South Africa. Briza Publikasies Cc,Arcadia, South Africa.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 263.0 LARGE MAMMAL SURVEY (Lee Stewart & Karen L. Zwick)3.1 SummaryA large mammal survey of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve was carried out between April andSeptember 1996. All 207 1km UTM grid squares within the reserve were sampled at asampling intensity of about 10%. Twenty-eight species of large mammal from 15 familieswere identified, bring the total number of large mammal species recorded in the reserve to 30.Most are typical of the locality and vegetation types. Distribution maps and information onhabitat use are presented, and the conservation status of each species discussed. Althoughthere has been a drastic decline in numbers of animals over the past 40 years, and many arestill under threat, there are still populations of primates, small carnivores, hyena, leopard,aardvark, warthog, bushpig, bushbuck, blue duiker, common duiker, waterbuck, andreedbuck, which, given adequate protection, are very likely to be viable. Furthermore, thereserve is also home to several species of international and national conservation interest,such as elephant, zebra, hippopotamus, buffalo, sitatunga, and porcupine, albeit in very smallnumbers, and it is important nationally for typically Tanzanian savannah species such aszebra and dwarf mongoose, which are not widely distributed in Uganda.3.2 Introduction3.2.1 AimsThe large mammal survey aims to:• collect baseline data on the presence, distribution, and habitat use of the large mammalspecies found within the reserve.These data, obtained through ground survey techniques, will complement the 1995 aerialsurvey of the reserve (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996).Distribution records are submitted to the National Biodiversity Data Bank at the MakerereUniversity Institute of Environment and Natural Resources. Tissue (DNA) samples from deadanimals are submitted to the Institute of Population Biology at the University of Copenhagen.3.2.2 Previous studiesApart from internal Game Department reports there is little published data on the largemammal fauna of the reserve. In 1982 an aerial survey revealed the presence of almost 11,000cattle in the reserve, but no wildlife other than a small herd of plain’s zebra (Equus burchelli)(Eltringham et al., 1992), reflecting a rather dire situation. However, in 1994 the Frontier-Uganda Game Reserves Project (as the current project was then known) conducted a groundsurvey of the reserve (Allan, 1995) which recorded 20 species of large mammals: vervetmonkey (Cercopithecus aethiops), olive baboon (Papio anubis), black-and-white colobus(Colobus guereza), African clawless otter (Aonyx capensis), genet sp. (Genetta sp.), bandedmongoose (Mungos mungo), spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), African elephant (Loxodontaafricana), aardvark (Orycteropus afer), warthog (Phacochoerus africanus), bushpig(Potamochoerus porcus), hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), bushbuck (Tragelaphusscriptus), sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekii), blue duiker (Cephalophus monticola), commonduiker (Sylvicapra grimmia), oribi (Ourebia ourebi), waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus),Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 27Bohor reedbuck (Redunca redunca), and crested porcupine (Hystrix cristata), plus ananomalous sighting of a single white-collared mangabey (Cercocebus torquatus). Many ofthese species are too small to be reliably recorded from the air, and all were at low densities,reducing the likelihood that they would be recorded during just a few hours of flying time,and the 1995 aerial survey again recorded very few animals: one black-and-white colobus,three warthog, and one bushbuck (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996).3.3 MethodsThe survey was conducted in two phases from April to June and July to September 1996.Volunteer research assistants were trained in basic navigation skills (see section 2.3) andlearned to estimate distances up to 200m accurately.They were trained in data recording and the identification of both the animals they were likelyto encounter using Dorst & Dandelot (1972), and their signs using Stuart & Stuart (1994),Liebenberg (1990), and Walker (1988).Direct records were made when an animal was actually seen by an observer (an observation),and indirect records when there was evidence that an animal had visited the site, but was notactually seen by the observer (e.g., dung, footprints, holes or scratchings, remains of a deadanimal, etc.). All footprints were sketched and measured, and all dung samples (other thanelephant) collected and brought back to the base camp, where a basic working referencecollection was established. For elephant dung the diameter of the cylindrical end of all intactdung boli was measured to provide information on the age structure of the group followingJachmann & Bell (1984).In tandem with the vegetation survey, small teams, led by a member of staff, walked througheach 1km UTM grid square of the reserve collecting information on the presence, distributionand behaviour of large mammals within an approximately 100m wide belt transect, giving asampling intensity of about 10%. This information was supplemented by opportunisticrecords made while moving through the reserve or during other survey work.3.4 ResultsThe volunteer research assistants were able navigate and estimate distances accurately.They were able to record data, as well as to identify animals and their signs from the fieldguides available, and recognise them in the field.All 207 1km UTM grid squares within the reserve were sampled.3.4.1 ChecklistTwenty-eight species of large mammals were identified during the course of the survey. Theyare listed in Table 3.1, along with indigenous species recorded by Allan (1995).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 28Table 3.1 Checklist of the large mammals of the Katonga Wildlife ReserveVernacular name Specific name Vegetation type Record typeOrder PrimatesFamily CercopithecidaeVervet monkey Cercopithecus aethiops wg, rw FOlive baboon Papio anubis wg, rw OBlack-and-white colobus Colobus guereza wg, rw FOrder CarnivoraFamily CanidaeSide-striped jackal Canis adustus wg RFamily MustelidaeAfrican clawless otter Aonyx capensis ss ID †Family ViverridaeEast African civet Civettictis civetta wg ID †Rusty spotted genet Genetta tigrina wg, rw, ss R*Family HerpestidaeMarsh mongoose Atilax paludinosus ps R*Dwarf mongoose Helogale parvula wg RSlender mongoose Herpestes sanguineus wg RBanded mongoose 1Mungos mungoFamily HyaenidaeSpotted hyena Crocuta crocuta wg, rw, ss IDFamily FelidaeServal Felis serval wg RLeopard Panthera pardus wg, ss R*Order ProboscideaFamily ElaphantidaeAfrican elephant Loxodonta africana wg, ps R*Order PerissodactylaFamily EquidaePlain’s zebra Equus burchelli wg ROrder TubulidentataFamily OrycteropodidaeAardvark/ant bear Orycteropus afer wg IDOrder ArtiodactylaFamily SuidaeWarthog Phacochoerus africanus wg OBushpig Potamochoerus porcus wg, ss, ps R*Family HippopotamidaeHippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibius wg, ps R*Family BovidaeAfrican buffalo Syncerus caffer rw, ss IDBushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus wg, ss FSitatunga Tragelaphus spekii ss, ps RBlue duiker Cephalophus monticola wg OCommon duiker Sylvicapra grimmia wg, ss AOribi 1Ourebia ourebiWaterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus wg, rw OBohor reedbuck Redunca redunca wg, rw, ss AOrder PholidotaFamily ManidaeGiant pangolin Manis gigantea wg ID †Order RodentiaFamily HystricidaeCrested porcupine Hystrix cristata wg IDNomenclature and taxonomy follow Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 29Key1 Allan, 1995Vegetation typeswg savannah woodland/wooded grassland mosaicrw riverine woodlandss seasonal swampps permanent swampRecord typesID indirect indirect records onlyR rare direct records made once or twice, with one or two indirect recordsR* rarely observed direct records made once or twice, with many indirect recordsO occasional direct records made weeklyF frequent direct records made twice or three times weeklyA abundant direct records made daily† record uncertain3.4.2 Distribution and habitat useDistribution maps are presented in Figures 3.1 to 3.7 and 3.9 to 3.19.Figure 3.1 Distribution of vervet monkey in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by V.Vervet were observed in small groups in riverine and valley woodland, frequently inassociation with colobus.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 30Figure 3.2 Distribution of olive baboon in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by B.Baboon were observed in groups of up to 50 in riverine and valley woodland. Indirect recordswere also made in wooded grassland.Figure 3.3 Distribution of black-and-white colobus in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by C.Colobus were observed on almost all occasions in small groups high in riverine or valleywoodland canopies, but on two occasions individuals were observed to dwell briefly in openburnt areas before returning to nearby woodland.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 31Figure 3.4 Distribution of small carnivores in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by J (side-striped jackal), G (rusty spotted genet), and M (mongoose sp).The jackal was observed in wooded grassland, and the genet was observed on severaloccasions scavenging rubbish from the base camp, although indirect records were also madein riverine woodland and seasonal swamp. Marsh mongoose were observed in permanentswamp, with dwarf and slender mongooses in wooded grassland.Figure 3.5 Distribution of spotted hyena in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by H.Hyena were mainly recorded calling at night around camps. Footprints were recorded in allvegetation types other than permanent swamp, but only one kill, of a cow, was recorded.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 32Figure 3.6 Distribution of serval and leopard in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by S (serval) and L (leopard).The serval was observed in wooded grassland, and the leopard in seasonal swamp, althoughfootprints were recorded frequently around drinking holes and along footpaths along theKatonga River. No kills were recorded.Figure 3.7 Distribution of African elephant in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by E.Elephant were observed on two occasions in woodland, once in a group of three, and once ina group of seven, including four males and two females. Indirect records, including treedamage, were also made mainly in woodland. The sizes of the dung boli encountered wereused to determine the age classes of the individuals producing them following Jachmann &Bell (1984). The frequency with which boli from each age class was encountered provides anindication of the age structure of the group, as shown in Figure 3.8.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 33Figure 3.8 Age structure of the African elephant population of the Katonga WildlifeReserve3025Frequency201510500-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 >25Age class (years)Figure 3.9 Distribution of plain’s zebra and aardvark in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by Z (plain’s zebra) and A (aardvark).A solitary zebra was observed in wooded grassland. Dung was also recorded in woodedgrassland over 15km away from the direct observation. Aardvark holes were recorded inwooded grassland and woodland throughout the reserve, often around termitaria.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 34Figure 3.10 Distribution of warthog in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by W.Warthog were observed in wooded grassland and woodland.Figure 3.11 Distribution of bushpig in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by B.A bushpig was observed in wooded grassland, with many indirect records from woodland,wooded grassland, seasonal swamp, and permanent swamp.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 35Figure 3.12 Distribution of hippopotamus and African buffalo in the Katonga WildlifeReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by H (hippopotamus) and B (African buffalo).A juvenile hippopotamus was observed in permanent swamp, and indirect records were madein permanent swamp and wooded grassland. Indirect records of buffalo were made nearwater, including two separate records of an adult and a juvenile together.Figure 3.13 Distribution of bushbuck in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by B.Bushbuck were observed in woodland, with indirect records from seasonal swamp.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 36Figure 3.14 Distribution of sitatunga in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by S.Sitatunga were observed on three occasions in permanent swamp. Indirect records were alsomade in seasonal swamp.Figure 3.15 Distribution of blue duiker in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by Bd.Blue duiker were observed in woodland and wooded grassland.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 37Figure 3.16 Distribution of common duiker in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by Cd.Common duiker were observed in woodland, wooded grassland, and seasonal swamp. On twooccasions individuals were observed standing up on their hind legs to reach mushrooms ontermitaria.Figure 3.17 Distribution of waterbuck in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by W.Waterbuck were observed in riverine and valley woodland near water.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 38Figure 3.18 Distribution of Bohor reedbuck in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by R.Reedbuck were observed near water in riverine and valley woodland and in seasonal swamp.Figure 3.19 Distribution of crested porcupine in the Katonga Wildlife ReserveFigures represent the maximum number of individuals observed in any one day per km 2 .Indirect records are indicated by P.Porcupine quills and dung were recorded in wooded grassland.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 393.4.3 Flight distanceAverage flight distances for the more commonly observed species are given in Table 3.2.Table 3.2 Average flight distances for the more common large mammals of the KatongaWildlife ReserveSpecies Average flight distance (m) nVervet monkey 68 35Olive baboon 74 28Black-and-white colobus 103 92Warthog 82 11Bushbuck 64 87Blue duiker 23 17Common duiker 25 117Waterbuck 80 24Bohor reedbuck 60 1973.5 DiscussionThese results confirm that there are far more animals in the reserve than were detected by the1995 aerial survey (Lamprey & Michelmore, 1996). Most of the species recorded here werealso recorded by Allan (1995), but the side-striped jackal, marsh, dwarf, and slendermongooses, serval, leopard, plain’s zebra, and African buffalo are all additions to her list, andthe genet sp. was confirmed as a rusty spotted genet. No records were made during thissurvey of banded mongoose or oribi, both of which she recorded uncommonly. No furtherrecords were made of the anomalous white-collared mangabey.3.5.1 PrimatesNone of three species of primate was rare in the reserve, nor of particular conservationinterest, nor under particular threat in the reserve. They are of high tourist interest, althoughthey will require habituation to bring down flight distance before they are of real tourist value.3.5.2 CarnivoresAll of the small carnivores were recorded only rarely in the reserve, but this may be areflection of their largely crepuscular and nocturnal lifestyles (Kingdon, 1977). None is ofparticular conservation interest, but it is likely that local people kill jackal, civet, genet, andserval when possible to protect poultry. They are important predators of small mammals,small birds, amphibians, and small reptiles (Kingdon, 1977), and of moderate tourist interest.Large carnivores are intrinsically rare (Vaughan, 1986), but both hyena and leopard seemedrelatively abundant in the reserve. Hyenas are classed as ‘Lower Risk: ConservationDependent’ (LR:CD) in the 1996 Red List (i.e., they are not currently classed as threatened,but would be should targeted conservation programs end) (Baillie & Groombridge, 1996), butleopards are not of particular conservation interest. Both are under serious threat fromlivestock keepers, who lose animals regularly (see section 5.4.1), and who have alreadyexterminated lion (Panthera leo) through poisoning. They are probably much less effective atregulating herbivore populations than humans, and due to their relative abundance, cattle andsmall stock probably make up a considerable portion of their diet. They are of very hightourist interest.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 403.5.3 ElephantAllan (1995) observed a total of 25 individuals, which is in accordance with reports fromrangers and local people: the age structure she observed is presented in Figure 3.20.Figure 3.20 Age structure of the African elephant population of the Katonga WildlifeReserve (Allan, 1995)3025Frequency201510500-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 >25Age class (years)This survey recorded a higher proportion of younger animals, although this was by indirectmethods. Neither survey had more than a small number of records, and the discrepancy islikely to be an artefact of sampling, as it is not possible for the demography to have changedin this way during the intervening period. Both surveys show a young, and therefore probablyrapidly reproducing population. This survey shows them to be using a larger area than the1994 survey (Allan, 1995).This population is very small, and is at very high risk of extinction in the very near future (seee.g., Armbruster & Lande, 1993). Elephant are classed as ‘Endangered’ (E) in the 1996 RedList (Baillie & Groombridge, 1996). They are probably not seriously directly threatened in thereserve, as they are too large and too dangerous to be attractive to subsistence poachers, butcould be subject to control measures if they disturb local people. They are extremelyimportant in shaping their environment, and their decline numbers is no doubt at leastpartially responsible for the increase in woody cover over recent decades (see section 2.5.1).They are of very high tourist interest, but this population is very shy and will requirehabituation before it is of real tourist value.In the long term, the reserve is too small for elephant conservation without very intensive(and therefore very expensive) management. If adequately protected, it could eventuallysupport a population of about 250 individuals (using figures from Armbruster & Lande(1993)), although this would require fencing to prevent movement out of the reserve, andpossibly periodic culling to maintain the population at this level, which would, in any case,cause extensive vegetation changes. Population viability analysis reveals that this populationwould be subject to about a 10% chance of extinction over the next 500 years, which wouldincrease if the population was culled below the carrying capacity (e.g., to limit vegetationchange) (Armbruster & Lande, 1993).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 413.5.4 ZebraThe record of just one individual is in accordance with reports from rangers and local people.Even if there is more than one, this is clearly a very small population, which is at extremelyhigh risk of extinction in the very near future (and if the population is just one individual, it isclearly not viable at all!). The species is of high national conservation interest, and thisindividual/population is threatened by the subsistence poaching which most likely caused thedemise of the rest of the population. Zebra are coarse grazers (Kingdon, 1979), and, as such,are important in facilitating smaller fine grazers, although in the reserve this function iscurrently being fulfilled by cattle. In greater abundance, they are of very high tourist interest.3.5.5 AardvarkAardvark were recorded frequently in the reserve, although their extremely prolific tunnelling(Kingdon, 1974) can lead to overestimation of their abundance. They are not of particularconservation interest, nor under particular threat in the reserve. They are important for themany other species who use their holes and tunnels, but, being almost exclusively nocturnal(Kingdon, 1974), are of low tourist interest.3.5.6 Artiodactyls3.5.6.1 SuidsWarthog and bushpig are not rare in the reserve, nor of particular conservation interest.Warthog are not under particular threat in the reserve, but being grazers (Kingdon, 1979),may not be thriving under the conditions of increased cover by woody plants and unpalatablegrasses resulting from heavy grazing by cattle. Bushpig are hunted by local people, primarilyto protect crops, but also for meat. Warthog are of high tourist interest, but being almostentirely nocturnal (Kingdon, 1979), bushpig are not.3.5.6.2 HippopotamusHippopotamus were recorded rarely for such an obvious species. More information isrequired on their abundance and distribution throughout the Katonga River valley to ascertainwhether or not the individuals using the reserve are part of a larger (more viable) population,or merely relicts. They are of national conservation interest, but are probably no longerseriously directly threatened in the reserve, as they are too large and too dangerous to beattractive to subsistence poachers. They are important in shaping their environment inmaintaining large areas of short grass and promoting high fish stocks (Kingdon, 1979). Theyare of very high tourist interest, although they are hard to view in swamp.3.5.6.3 BuffaloBuffalo were recorded rarely for such an obvious species, probably reflecting a smallpopulation at risk of extinction. They are classed as LR:CD in the 1996 Red List (Baillie &Groombridge, 1996), and are probably still under threat from subsistence poaching within thereserve. They are coarse grazers (Estes, 1993), and, as such, are important in facilitatingsmaller fine grazers, although in the reserve this function is currently being fulfilled by cattle.In greater abundance, they are of very high tourist interest.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 423.5.6.4 BushbuckBushbuck are not rare in the reserve, nor of particular conservation interest. They areprobably still under threat from subsistence poaching within the reserve, and are lessabundant in the west, despite the habitat in that area being more suitable (woodier), possiblyas a result of the higher levels of disturbance there. They are of moderate tourist interest, butare shy and often inactive during the day.3.5.6.5 SitatungaSitatunga were recorded relatively rarely, but this may reflect their elusive ways andpreference for inaccessible swamp habitats. More information is required on their abundanceand distribution throughout the Katonga River valley to ascertain whether or not theindividuals using the reserve are part of a larger (more viable) population, or merely relicts.They are classed as ‘Lower Risk: Near Threatened’ (LR:NT) in the 1996 Red List (i.e., theyare not currently classed as threatened, but are close to it) (Baillie & Groombridge, 1996).They are probably still under threat from subsistence poaching within the reserve, and werenot recorded in the west, possibly as a result of the higher levels of disturbance there. Theyare reported to be easy to snare because they repeatedly use the same pathways and tunnels(Kingdon, 1982). They are of very high tourist interest, but are shy and elusive.3.5.6.6 Blue duikerBlue duiker are not rare in the reserve, nor of particular conservation interest. They areprobably still under threat from subsistence poaching within the reserve, and are lessabundant in the west, despite the habitat in that area being more suitable (woodier), possiblyas a result of the higher levels of disturbance there. They are reported to be easy to net andsnare because of their localised habits and pathways (Kingdon, 1982). They are of moderatetourist interest, but are shy and often inactive during the day.3.5.6.7 Common duikerCommon duiker are not rare in the reserve, nor of particular conservation interest. They areprobably not under particular threat in the reserve as they are reportedly resistant to the effectsof poaching, and may even increase in abundance as other species decline (Kingdon, 1982).They are of moderate tourist interest but are shy and often inactive during the day.3.5.6.8 WaterbuckWaterbuck are not rare in the reserve, although they are classed as LR:CD in the 1996 RedList (Baillie & Groombridge, 1996). They are probably still under threat from subsistencepoaching within the reserve, and being relatively fine grazers (Estes, 1993), may not bethriving under the conditions of increased cover by woody plants and unpalatable grassesresulting from heavy grazing by cattle. They are of high tourist interest.3.5.6.9 ReedbuckReedbuck are not rare in the reserve, although they are classed as LR:CD in the 1996 Red List(Baillie & Groombridge, 1996). They are probably still under threat from subsistencepoaching within the reserve, and being relatively fine grazers (Estes, 1993), may not bethriving under the conditions of increased cover by woody plants and unpalatable grassesresulting from heavy grazing by cattle. They are of moderate tourist interest, but are shy andoften inactive during the day.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 433.5.7 PorcupinePorcupine were recorded only rarely, and are classed as LR:NT in the 1996 Red List (Baillie& Groombridge, 1996). They are not under particular threat in the reserve, and are of lowtourist interest.3.6 ConclusionsThere has been a drastic decline in the numbers of large mammals within the reserve over thepast 40 years (including the eradication of species such as lion, topi (Damaliscus lunatus),and common eland (Taurotragus oryx)), and many of the animals remaining are still underthreat from poaching. This is mostly subsistence poaching to limit the effects of crop raidingand livestock predation and for meat for domestic consumption as opposed to commercialexploitation, but nonetheless precludes effective conservation. Eliminating it from thereserve, however, will require considerable community outreach and law enforcementactivities, which will be particularly difficult under current conditions, and for which thereserve staff currently do not have the resources. At current population levels only a verysmall harvest is likely to be sustainable, and for most species this would probably keeppopulations at unstable equilibrium points, precluding any formal harvesting scheme fromproviding legal benefits to local people in the near future. At the same time, opportunities forgenerating revenue, e.g., from game viewing tourism, are limited as access to the reserve ispoor, there are no roads or other facilities within the reserve, visibility is low, and the smallnumbers of animals are very shy.Despite the threats however, the large mammal fauna of the reserve is still of value andimportance, with populations of primates, small carnivores, hyena, leopard, aardvark,warthog, bushpig, bushbuck, blue duiker, common duiker, waterbuck, and reedbuck, which,given adequate protection, are very likely to be viable. It is also home to several species ofinternational and national conservation interest, such as elephant, zebra, hippopotamus,buffalo, sitatunga, and porcupine, albeit in very small numbers: with careful management,these too may prove to be viable. Finally, it is important nationally for typically Tanzaniansavannah species such as zebra and dwarf mongoose, which are not widely distributed inUganda. In time, as populations increase, the potential exists for both formal sustainableharvesting schemes and ‘wilderness’ tourism.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 443.7 References citedAllan, C.L. 1995. Katonga Game Reserve: biological survey. Frontier-Uganda GameReserves Project Report No. 3. The Society for Environmental Exploration, London &MTWA, Kampala.Armbruster, P. & Lande, R. 1993. A population viability analysis for African elephant(Loxodonta africana): how big should reserves be? Cons. Biol. 7:602-610.Baillie, J. & Groombridge, B. (Eds.). 1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of threatened animals.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge.Davies G. & Vanden Berghe E. 1994. Checklist of the mammals of East Africa. East AfricanNatural History Society, Nairobi.Dorst, J. & Dandelot, P. 1972. A field guide to the larger mammals of Africa. Collins,London.Eltringham, S.K., Malpas, R.C., & Tindigarukayo, J. 1992. The conservation status ofUganda’s Game and Forest Reserves in 1982-3. Uganda Institute of Ecology, Mweya.Estes, R.D. 1993. The safari companion: a guide to watching African mammals. ChelseaGreen Publishing Co., White River Junction, Vermont.Jachmann, H. & Bell, R.H.V. 1984. The use of elephant droppings in assessing numbers,occupance and age structure: a refinement of the method. Afr. J. Ecol. 22:127-141.Kingdon, J. 1974. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. I. Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago.Kingdon, J. 1977. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. III, Part A(Carnivores). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Kingdon, J. 1979. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. III, Part B(Large mammals). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Kingdon, J. 1982. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. III, Part C(Bovids). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Lamprey, R.F. & Michelmore, F. 1996. The Wildlife Protected Areas of Uganda: preliminaryaerial survey results and their assessment plus initial recommendations. MTWA,Kampala.Liebenberg, L. 1990. A field guide to the animal tracks of southern Africa. David PhilipPublishers, Clairemont, South Africa.Stuart, C. & Stuart, T. 1994. A field guide to the tracks and signs of southern and EastAfrican wildlife. Southern Book Publishers, Cape Town.Vaughan, T. 1986. Mammalogy. Saunders College Publishing, Orlando, Florida.Walker, C. 1988. Signs of the wild: a field guide to the spoor and signs of the mammals ofsouthern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 454.0 SMALL FAUNA SURVEY (Julia Lloyd)4.1 SummaryA survey of selected taxa of small fauna: small rodents; shrews; bats; birds; reptiles;amphibians; butterflies; and dragonflies and damselflies of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve wascarried out between April and September 1996. Standard and repeatable methods were usedat nine sites throughout the reserve. Preliminary identifications were made in the field, andconfirmed by taxonomists at Makerere University. In total, 13 species of small rodent, eightspecies of shrew, 14 species of bat, 154 species of bird, 17 species of reptile, 15 species ofamphibian, 99 species of butterfly, and eight species of dragonfly and damselfly have beenidentified in the reserve, representing some 12% of the national diversity for these taxa.Species accumulation rates indicate that collection is not yet exhausted, and that theinventories are unlikely to be complete. Three Ugandan endemics, Crocidura selina, C.tarella, and Campethera abingoni were identified, as were two species of internationalconservation concern, Crocidura selina and C. gracilipes, although the conservation status ofmany species is yet to be assessed. Most species are typical of savannah woodlands, woodedgrasslands, and swamp, but some are typical of disturbed areas, reflecting the currentsituation in the reserve, or forest, reflecting past denser vegetation.4.2 Introduction4.2.1 AimsThe small fauna survey aims use standard and repeatable methods to:• collect baseline data on the presence, distribution, and habitat use of selected taxa of smallfauna: small rodents; shrews; bats; birds; reptiles; amphibians; butterflies; and dragonfliesand damselflies found within the reserve.Specimens are curated at the Zoology Museum at Makerere University, and distributionrecords are submitted to the National Biodiversity Data Bank at the Makerere UniversityInstitute of Environment and Natural Resources. Tissue (DNA) samples from snakes aresubmitted to the Institute of Population Biology at the University of Copenhagen.4.2.2 Previous studiesIn 1994 the Frontier-Uganda Game Reserves Project (as the current project was then known)conducted a brief small fauna survey of the reserve (Allan, 1995), and this remains the onlypublished work on the area: where appropriate, information from that survey is included here.Also in 1994, Robert Kityo collected data on the small mammals of the reserve: these havenot been previously published, and I am grateful to be able to include them here.4.3 Overview of methodsThe survey was conducted in two phases from April to June and July to September 1996.Volunteer research assistants were trained in appropriate animal capture and handlingtechniques, data recording, and in the use of appropriate field guides and keys.Standard and repeatable methods were used to survey seven taxonomic groups: small rodents;shrews; bats; reptiles; amphibians; butterflies; and dragonflies and damselflies. These groupsFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 46were chosen for their ease of collection, preservation and identification. Furthermore they arelikely to be indicators of overall diversity and habitat quality. Preliminary speciesidentification was carried out in the field, and voucher specimens were taken of each speciesfor confirmation of identification by taxonomists from the Department of Zoology, MakerereUniversity.Small fauna were surveyed at the sites depicted in Figure 4.1. Opportunistic collection ofspecimens was also carried out throughout the reserve. The sampling techniques used at eachsite are summarised in Table 4.1.Figure 4.1 Location of small fauna sampling sites within the Katonga Wildlife ReserveTable 4.1 Small fauna sampling techniques used at each site in the Katonga WildlifeReserveTechnique 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9pitfall trapping vsnap trapping v v v v v v v vbat netting v v v v vamphibian collecting v v v v v v v v vinvertebrate collecting v v v v v v v v vCompared to other taxa, birds have been relatively well studied in Uganda. Our efforts atcollecting data on birds were limited because of difficulty in accurately identifying them tospecies level in the field, and the fact that specimens were not taken. However, detailed fieldrecords were submitted for confirmation of identification to Prof. Derek Pomeroy at theMakerere University Institute of Environment & Natural Resources.Where possible, typical habitat preferences were determined for each species to enableinterpretation of ecological relationships, and the East African countries (Kenya, Uganda andTanzania) from which each has previously been recorded noted. Also, where known, theconservation status of each species is presented, although the status of many East Africanspecies is unknown as a result of little or poor information regarding distributions and habitatpreferences (Bakamwesiga & Pomeroy, 1997).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 47For mammals the cumulative number of species identified was plotted against the cumulativenumber of individuals captured to show species accumulation rates (sensu Howard &Davenport, 1996). This provides an indication of whether the documentation of diversity foreach taxon is nearly exhausted with respect to the sampling technique.4.4 Small rodents and shrews4.4.1 IntroductionFor a country of its size, Uganda possesses an ‘unusually rich rodent fauna’ (Delany, 1975)and is the third richest African country in shrew species (Nicoll & Rathbun, 1990). Smallmammals play important ecological roles as prey species, seed dispersers and seed predators(Rabinowitz, 1993). They have an impact on humans as several species of rodents arecommensal, living in houses, potentially bringing disease, whereas others are pests of storedproducts (Delany & Happold, 1979).4.4.2 AimTo survey and document the small rodent and shrew diversity of the reserve with reference todifferent habitat types.4.4.3 MethodsSnap traps and pitfall traps were used to sample diurnal, crepuscular, and nocturnal smallmammals. The snap traps (10.2 x 4.6 cm) were placed in suitable habitats (e.g. wateringholes, river edge, sheltered places, on branches of trees) to target terrestrial and arborealspecies. Traps were baited with peanuts or banana or a mixture of the two. They werechecked twice daily.Lines of pitfall traps were used to catch ground dwelling fauna, particularly those not likely tobe captured by the snap traps. Two rows of five buckets (34 cm diameter, 35 cm deep) weresunk to ground level at 5 m intervals. Plastic sheeting was run vertically along the middle ofthe bucket row to guide passing animals into the traps. Traps were checked twice daily.Animals captured opportunistically and those found dead within the reserve were alsorecorded and field records were made for other small mammals sighted, for examplesquirrels. Field identification was carried out using Delany (1975), Haltenorth & Diller(1977), Kingdon (1974ab). Voucher specimens and field records were sent for confirmationof identification to Robert Kityo (MSc) at the Department of Zoology, Makerere University.4.4.4 ResultsSnap traps were set at selected sites across the reserve, while pitfall traps were set in Acacia-Cymbopogon tall wooded grassland and thicket (Table 4.1, Fig. 4.1). Sampling intensity andcapture rates are shown in Table 4.2.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 48Table 4.2 Sampling intensity and capture rates for small rodents and shrews in theKatonga Wildlife ReserveSampling intensity CapturesCapture rate(no. traps x no. nights)Snap traps 2,080 61 2.9%Pitfall traps 530 4 0.8/100 trap nightsOther - 4 -Totals - 69 -Nine species of mice and rats and ten species of shrews were captured, and observations weremade of two species of squirrel. The species inventory, which includes species recorded byAllan (1995) and Kityo during 1994 (unpubl. data, pers. comm.), is presented in Table 4.3.Table 4.3 Species inventory of the small rodents and shrews of the Katonga WildlifeReserveVernacular name Specific name Habitatin KWRTypicalhabitatRangeStatusOrder InsectivoraFamily Soricidae: shrewsTiny musk shrew Crocidura fuscomurina wg - KUT DDPeter’s musk shrew C. gracilipes wg rw m KUT DD/CRHildegarde’s musk shrew C. hildegardeae wg rw f m c KUT DDJackson’s musk shrew C. jacksoni rw - KUT DDGreater grey-brown musk C. luna wg rw m KUT DDshrewDwarf musk shrew C. nanilla sg s KU LR (LC)Northern giant musk shrew C. olivieri wg rw - KUT LR (LC)Ugandan forest musk shrew* C. selina - - U DD cc/ENUgandan musk shrew C. tarella wg - U DDSouthern woodland musk C. turba wg m KU LR (LC)shrewClimbing forest shrew Sylvisorex megalura wg rw f rr g m c KUT DDOrder RodentiaFamily Sciuridae: squirrelsRed-legged sun squirrel Heliosciurus rufobrachium w w fe sw f KUT LR (LC)Geoffrey’s ground squirrel Xerus erythropus wg w f s c KUT LR (LC)Family Cricetidae: Cricetid ratsBrant’s climbing mouse Dendromus mesomelas rw s w T NEChestnut climbing mouse D. mystacalis wg g s c KUT DDTropical groove-toothed rat† Otomys tropicalis s s c KU LR (LC)Family Muridae: mice & ratsShaggy marsh rat† Dasymys incomtus s s c KUT LR (LC)Common thicket rat Grammomys dolichurus wg rw fe s KUT LR (LC)Stella wood mouse Hylomyscus stella rw f KUT LR (LC)Common striped grass mouse Lemniscomys striatus wg rw g s g c h KUT LR (LC)Eastern brush-furred rat Lophuromys flavopuntatus sg g f m h KUT LR (LC)Common brush-furred rat L. sikapusi wg rw sg f g m h KU LR (LC)Pygmy mouse M. minutoides wg rw f s h KUT DDJackson’s soft-furred rat Praomys jacksoni wg rw w f fe m KUT LR (LC)Nomenclature and taxonomy follow Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 49Key*Allan (1995)†Kityo (unpubl. data, pers. comm.)Habitat (after White, 1983)w woodland g grasslandrw riverine woodland sg swamp grasslandwg wooded grassland s swampTypical habitat (from Delany, 1975; Nicoll & Rathbun, 1990; Kingdon, 1974ab; Rosevear, 1969)f forest g grassland rr riverinefe forest edge sw swamp s savannahw woodland c cultivation m moisth human presenceRange (East African countries from which the species is recorded by Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994))K KenyaU UgandaT TanzaniaStatusUgandan context (Kityo, 1996) Global context (Baillie & Groombridge, 1996)cc conservation concern CR critically endangeredLR (CD) low risk (conservation dependent) EN endangeredLR (LC) low risk (least concern) LR:NT lower risk: near threatenedDDdata deficientNEnot evaluatedSpecies accumulation rates are shown in Figures 4.2 and 4.3.Figure 4.2 Species accumulation rate for small rodents and shrews captured in snaptrapsin the Katonga Wildlife Reserve20Number of species1510500 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Number of individuals capturedFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 50Figure. 4.3 Species accumulation rate for shrews captured in pitfall traps in theKatonga Wildlife Reserve5Number of species432100 5 10 15 20Number of individuals captured4.4.5 DiscussionThis survey added 12 species of small rodents and shrews to Allan’s (1995) inventory,bringing the total to 24 species from four families. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 suggest that thecollection of small rodents and shrews is not yet exhausted using these sampling techniques.4.4.5.1 ShrewsThe most common shrews, Crocidura hildegardeae and C. gracilipes, were captured by theKatonga River. C. turba, described as an equatorial species, and C. luna, described as acentral African species (Kingdon, 1974a) were also recorded. All four species are known tobe widely distributed in the moister parts of East Africa (Kingdon, 1974a).Crocidura gracilipes is classed as CR in the 1996 Red List, where it listed as beingdistributed in Kenya and Tanzania only (Baillie & Groombridge, 1996). It is, however,distributed in Uganda and has been recorded from several sites during the ForestDepartment’s Biodiversity Inventory Programme, including Kitechura Forest in KabaroleDistrict (Dickenson, 1996), although Kityo (1996) classes it as DD in the Ugandan context.This is the first record of Crocidura nanilla for the west of Uganda. Previous records havebeen for northern Uganda and northern Kenya (Kingdon, 1974a) and more recently in JubiyaForest Reserve (Dickenson & Kityo, 1996).Crocidura tarella is a Ugandan endemic, but has been recorded from several sites during theForest Department’s Biodiversity Inventory Programme, including Matiri and Mujuzi ForestReserves in Kabarole and Masaka Districts (Dickenson, 1996; Dickenson & Kityo, 1996).Crocidura selina was collected by Allan (1995) in the reserve and is also a Ugandan endemic.This species is classed as E in the 1996 Red List (Baillie & Groombridge, 1996). It has beenrecorded from several sites during the Forest Department’s Biodiversity InventoryProgramme, including Kagombe Forest in Kibale District (Dickenson, 1996). However, Kityo(1996) classes it as DD cc in the Ugandan context.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 514.4.5.2 SquirrelsHeliosciurus rufobrachium was sighted in woodland. However, Delany (1975) classes thissquirrel as a forest species, and Kingdon (1974b) notes that it occupies predominantly forestenvironments, forest edge and swamp.Xerus erythropus was sighted in Acacia wooded grassland. Although this species is known tooccupy a diverse range of habitats, its presence is characteristic of cultivated land in Uganda(Kingdon, 1974b). It lives on the edge of cultivated land where it steals newly planted seedsand crops (Delany, 1975; Kingdon, 1974b). Its other foods include roots, grass seeds, greenleaves, fallen fruit, nuts and Acacia pods. It also eats eggs, young birds and small reptiles andis said to steal the eggs and chicks of poultry (Kingdon, 1974b). In the area where thissquirrel was sighted there is ample opportunity to eat Acacia pods and crops, and steal eggsand chicks. This animal is understandably classed as a nuisance to farmers (Kingdon, 1974b),and is hunted and eaten by local people.4.4.5.3 Cricetid ratsDendromus mesomelas is widely distributed in southern, central and eastern Africa withisolated populations in Cameroon (Kingdon, 1974b). Although Davies & Vanden Berghe(1994) do not list this species for Uganda, it was recorded in south-western Uganda byDelany (1975). One specimen was captured by hand in a banana plantation, where Delany(1975) suggests this species is particularly common.Otomys tropicalis is known to occur in East Africa from eastern Zaire to central Kenya andon high mountains in Cameroon. It has been recorded in seven National Parks in Uganda(Wilson, 1995).4.4.5.4 Rats and miceGrammomys dolichurus is an arboreal rodent which was frequently captured in trees in tallCymbopogon wooded grassland and riverine woodland. Delany (1975) suggests that in thescrub forest of Uganda they are found mostly in branches. This species is primarily adapted toliving in tall grass and is found in a wide range of vegetation types (Kingdon, 1974b).The omnivorous Hylomyscus stella was found in riverine woodland. It is classified as a forestspecies by Delany (1975) and as a rainforest species by Kingdon (1974b), restricted in EastAfrica to the lower altitude forests of Uganda and western Kenya. This typical forest speciesis an interesting find in wooded grassland.The herbivorous Lemniscomys striatus is one of the larger of the zebra mice. It is a dominantand successful species occupying a wide variety of grassy habitats and areas of humanhabitation, eating seeds and crops (Kingdon, 1974b; Rosevear, 1969). This would explain thepresence of this species in cultivated land. Cymbopogon afronardus, one of the most commongrasses in the reserve, is a common habitat for this species (Rosevear, 1969).Moisture and grass are important to the existence of brush-furred rats (Kingdon, 1974b;Rosevear, 1969). Lophuromys flavopunctatus and L. sikapusi were both captured in habitatsclose to water.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 52Africa’s smallest rodent, Mus minutoides (Delany & Happold, 1979) has been caught in arange of habitats including forest (Kingdon, 1974b). This species complex is currently beinganalysed to distinguish between five possible species in Uganda (Robert Kityo, pers. comm.).In East Africa, Praomys are reportedly exclusively forest and forest edge rats, preferringhumid habitats (Kingdon, 1974b). Baranga’s (1992) findings support this, discovering P.jacksoni to be one of the most common rats in the forests of Bwindi Impenetrable Forest.However, related species in West Africa are reported to show a preference for degraded forestareas and have adapted to cultivation within the forest zone, even entering houses (Delany,1975; Kingdon, 1974b; Rosevear, 1969). Robert Kityo (pers. comm.) captured Praomysjacksoni close to cultivated land by the ranger post in the reserve. We found this species toinhabit wooded grassland, riverine woodland and woodland.Forty-one percent of the small rodents and shrews of the reserve are classed as DD or NE inthe Ugandan context (Kityo, 1996). The majority favour moist conditions and savannahhabitats. Sampling sites were biased towards moist areas close to the Katonga River: areaswithout a source of water may exhibit different species. Many of the species are attracted todisturbed habitats. In addition, several species are typically associated with forest or forestedge.4.5 Bats4.5.1 IntroductionMega bats (Megachiropterans) play an important role as pollinators and seed dispersers fortropical plants including many useful to humans. In some areas they may be key species in themaintenance of the natural vegetation (IUCN, 1992). Many micro bats (Microchiropterans)feed on insects (Kingdon, 1974a) which helps to control disease.4.5.2 AimTo survey and document the bat diversity of the reserve with reference to different habitattypes.4.5.3 MethodsMist nets were set across suitable flight paths and over rivers and watering holes. Differentspecies hunt at different altitudes (Kingdon, 1974a) so the nets were set at various heights upto 10 m to maximise the number of species caught. Different species also hunt at differenttimes of night (Kingdon, 1974a) so the nets were observed constantly between dusk (1900hours) and dawn (0600 hours). The area around the nets was baited with fruit such as mango,banana and pawpaw when available.Bats captured opportunistically and those found dead within the reserve were also recorded.Field identification was carried out using Happold & Happold (1989), Kingdon, (1974a) andMeester & Setzer (1971). Voucher specimens were sent for confirmation of identification toRobert Kityo (MSc) at the Department of Zoology, Makerere University.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 534.5.4 ResultsMist nets were set at selected sites within the reserve (Table 4.1, Fig. 4.1). Sampling intensitywas 2,652 metre net hours. Eleven bats were captured giving a capture rate of 0.41/100 metrenet hours. The majority (73%) were captured in the evening between 2000 hours and 2300hours. The species inventory, which includes species recorded by Allan (1995) and Kityo(unpubl. data, pers. comm.), is presented in Table 4.4.Table 4.4 Species inventory of the bats of the Katonga Wildlife ReserveVernacular name Specific name Habitat Typical Range Statusin KWR habitatOrder Macrochiroptera: mega batsFamily Pteropodidae: fruit batsSubfamily PteropodinaeLittle epauletted fruit bat Epomophorus labiatus rw fe w s c KUT DDPygmy epauletted fruit bat E. minimus (E. anurus) rw fe w s c KUT DDOrder Microchiroptera: micro batsFamily Megadermatidae: false vampire batsYellow-winged bat· Lavia frons wg s m KUT LR (LC)Family Rhinolophidae: horseshoe batsRüppell’s horseshoe bat† Rhinolophus fumigatus - s h KUT DDFamily Hipposideridae: leaf-nosed batsNoack’s leaf-nosed bat* Hipposideros ruber wg rw f s KUT LR (LC)Family Vespertilionidae: vesper batsCape serotine bat Eptesicus capensis wg rw - KUT DDRufous mouse-eared bat* Myotis bocagei wg - KUT DDAfrican yellow house bat Scotophilus dinganii rw - KUT DDNorthern lesser house bat* Scotophilus leucogaster rw - K DDAfrican giant house bat S. nigrita sg f w s KT DD/LR:NTForest brown house bat S. nux rw - KU DDFamily Molossidae: free-tailed batsLittle free-tailed bat Chaerophon pumila rw h KUT LR (LC)Railer free-tailed bat· Mops thersites rw f UT DDwrinkled-lipped bat* Tadarida (Mops) sp. building - - -Nomenclature and taxonomy follow Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 54Key*Allan (1995)†Kityo (unpubl. data, pers. comm.)·Identified in the fieldHabitat (after White, 1983)w woodland g grasslandrw riverine woodland sg swamp grasslandwg wooded grassland s swampTypical habitat (from Kingdon, 1974a)f forest g grassland rr riverinefe forest edge sw swamp s savannahw woodland c cultivation m moisth human presenceRange (East African Countries from which the species is recorded by Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994))K KenyaU UgandaT TanzaniaStatusUgandan context (Kityo, 1996) Global context (Baillie & Groombridge, 1996)cc conservation concern CR critically endangeredLR (CD) low risk (conservation dependent) EN endangeredLR (LC) low risk (least concern) LR:NT lower risk: near threatenedDDdata deficientNEnot evaluatedThe species accumulation rate is shown in Figure 4.4.Figure 4.4 Species accumulation rate for bats in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve10Number of species864200 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Number of individuals captured4.5.5 DiscussionThis survey added eight species of bat to Allan’s (1995) inventory, bringing the total to 14species from six families. Figure 4.4 suggests that the collection of bats is not yet exhausted.One reason for the low success rate of the mist nets could be due to the fact that micro batscan often detect the mist nets using ultrasound (Robert Kityo, pers. comm.).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 554.5.5.1 Mega batsEpomophorine bats are exclusively African, and have radiated into eight species, withEpomophorus exhibiting several ‘size classes’ (Kingdon, 1974a). The Epomophorus gambiuscomplex includes the smallest size class, E. labiatus and the lower middle size class, E.minimus.Epomophorine bats are common along forest edges and in the mosaic of cultivation and scrubthat is typical of former forest belts (Kingdon, 1974a). E. labiatus was netted by the KatongaRiver. The land on the other side of the river is cultivated with banana plantations: accordingto Kingdon (1974a) a favourite perch is along the main rib of banana or palm fronds, or underthe eaves of roofs.4.5.5.2 Micro batsThe range of forms within the micro bats is greater than in any similar taxon of mammals(Delany & Happold, 1979). Eight families are represented in East Africa (Davies & VandenBerghe, 1994), four of which were found in the reserve. These bats are the most effectiveharvesters of nocturnal insects with their only serious competitor being nightjars (Kingdon,1974a), which were frequently encountered within the reserve.Savannah-adapted forms such as Lavia frons range all over tropical Africa. This bat iscommon in riverine Acacia woodland and is generally limited to vegetation in the vicinity ofwater (Kingdon, 1974a). It also favours Euphorbia trees for roosting (Kingdon, 1974a),which were common in the reserve. This species is classed as nocturnal, as the principlefeeding period is after dusk (Kingdon, 1974a), and was captured at 2115 hours during thissurvey. However, it was also sighted before dusk, and is known to be active during the day(Kingdon, 1974a).Vesper bats are a very large and successful family, and are subdivided into six subfamilies.Three of these, consisting of 10 genera and over 30 species, occur in East Africa (Kingdon,1974a). Six species from three genera were recorded in the reserve.Scotophilus nigrita was recorded by the Katonga River close to the ranger post. According toKingdon (1974a), they will hunt undeterred by rain and drink while flying at speed, sweepingclose to the water’s surface. On this occasion it had been raining heavily and the net was setacross the opening of the river creating an ideal flight path for this species. This is among thefirst known specimens of this species for Uganda (Robert Kityo, pers. comm.). This species isclassed as LR:NT in the 1996 Red List, although it is not listed for Uganda (Baillie &Groombridge, 1996). Kityo (1996) classes it as DD cc in the Ugandan context.Scotophilus leucogaster was captured in West Nile in 1992 by Robert Kityo (unpubl. data,pers. comm.). This is the only previous known record of this species for Uganda, suggestingthat the collection of this bat in the Katonga Wildlife Reserve is the second record forUganda. Wilson & Reeder (1993) describe its distribution as ranging from Mauritania andSenegal to northern Kenya and Ethiopia.Chaerephon pumila was netted just two metres above the ground and after light showers. Thedistinctive Mops thersites is regarded as a forest species by Kingdon (1974a) and wascaptured in riverine woodland, in the same location as Eptescius capensis.The majority of the bats are typical of locality and vegetation types. Seventy-one percent areclassed as DD in the Ugandan context (Kityo, 1996).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 564.6 Birds4.6.1 IntroductionBirds are of high tourist interest, and are sensitive environmental indicators. They are used askey components in environmental impact assessments. Some species are beneficial to man,playing a role in seed dispersal, and consuming mosquitoes and other pests. Conversely, somebirds are pests themselves, feeding on crops and food stores (Pomeroy, 1992).4.6.2 AimTo survey and document the bird diversity of the reserve with reference to different habitattypes.4.6.3 MethodsOpportunistic observations of birds were carried out throughout the reserve. Observationswere made with the use of 10x50 mm and 7x50 mm binoculars.Field identification of birds was carried out using The Birds of Africa (Brown et al., 1982;Urban et al., 1986; Fry et al., 1988; Keith et al., 1992), Newman (1991), Sinclair et al.(1993), Van Perlo (1995) and Williams & Arlott (1981). Field records were sent forconfirmation of identification to Prof. Derek Pomeroy at the Makerere University Institute ofEnvironment & Natural Resources.4.6.4 ResultsBirds were observed opportunistically throughout the day. However, the majority of thesightings were recorded during periods of peak bird activity: early morning and lateafternoon.One hundred and twenty-seven species of birds were identified. The species inventory, whichincludes species recorded by Allan (1995) is presented in Table 4.5, as compiled by DuncanSivell (MSc).Table 4.5 Species inventory of the birds of the Katonga Wildlife ReserveVernacular name Specific name Habitatin KWRFamily Phalacrocoracidae17. Long-tailed cormorant Phalacrocorax africanus sFamily Ardeidae25. Grey heron Ardea cinerea wg27. Black-headed heron* A. melanocephala sg28. Purple heron* A. purpurea s33. Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis wg38. Yellow-billed egret* Egrretta intermedia rw40. Night heron* Nycticorax nycticorax rwFamily Ciconiidae43. Open-billed stork Anastomus lamelligerus wg s44. Abdim’s stork* Ciconia abdimii rw46. Woolly-necked stork C. episcopus wg s48. Saddle-billed stork Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis wg s49. Marabou Leptoptilos crumeniferus wg50. Yellow-billed stork Mycteria ibis sFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 57Vernacular name Specific name Habitatin KWRFamily Threskiornithidae51. Hadada Bostrychia hagedash w wg sFamily Anatidae72. Yellow-billed duck* Anas undulata sFamily Accipitridae85. African white-backed vulture Gyps africanus wg95. African marsh harrier Circus ranivorus wg s100a. Black-chested snake eagle Circaetus pectoralis wg101. Bateleur Terathopius ecaudatus wg111. African goshawk* Accipiter tachiro wg116. Tawny eagle Aquila rapax wg122. Common buzzard Buteo buteo wg130. Long-crested eagle Lophaetus occipitalis wg131. Gabar goshawk Melierax gabar wg134. Martial eagle Polemaetus bellicosus w wg137. Fish eagle Haliaeetus vocifer wg138. Black kite Milvus migrans wg142. Black-shouldered kite Elanus caeruleus wgFamily Phasianidae167. Red-necked spurfowl Francolinus afer wg172. Heuglin’s francolin* F. icterorhynchus wg182. Crested francolin F. saphaena wgFamily Numididae188. Crested guineafowl Guttea edouard wg190. Helmeted guineafowl Numida meleagris wgFamily Gruidae194. Crowned crane Balearica pavonina wg sFamily Rallidae201. Black crake* Limnocorax flavirostra sFamily Otididae218. Black-bellied bustard Eupodotis melanogaster sFamily Rostratulidae227. Painted snipe Rostratula benghalensis sFamily Charadriidae246. Senegal plover Vanellus lugubris wg248. Wattled plover V. senegallus wgFamily Columbidae346. Ring-necked dove Streptopelia capicola wg347. Mourning dove* S. decipiens wg350. Red-eyed dove S. semitorquata wg355. Blue-spotted wood dove* Treron afer wg358. Green pigeon T. australis wgFamily Psittacidae367. Brown parrot Poicephalus meyeri wg sFamily Muscophagidae375. Bare-faced go-away bird Corythaixoides personata wg376. Eastern grey plantain eater Crinifer zonurus wg377. Ross's turaco Musophaga rossae wgFamily Cuculidae388. Didric cuckoo Chrysococcyx caprius wg394. Levaillant’s cuckoo Clamator levaillantii wg399. Red-chested cuckoo Cuculus solitarius w wg403. Black coucal Centropus grillii wg406. White-browed coucal C. superciliosus wgFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 58Vernacular name Specific name Habitatin KWRFamily Caprimulgidae434. White-tailed nightjar Caprimulgus natalensis wg441. Pennant-winged nightjar Macrodipteryx vexillarius wgFamily Apodidae449. Alpine swift Apus melba wgFamily Coliidae459. Speckled mousebird Colius striatus wg461. Blue-naped mousebird* C. macrourus wgFamily Alcedinidae466. Malachite kingfisher Alcedo cristata s472. Striped kingfisher Halcyon chelicuti wg474. Blue-breasted kingfisher H. malimbica wg475. Woodland kingfisher H. senegalensis w478. Pygmy kingfisher* Ispidina picta wgFamily Meropidae480. Eurasian bee-eater* Merops apiaster wg484. Black bee-eater M. gularis wg488. Cinnamon-breasted bee-eater M. oreobates wg s490. Blue-cheeked bee-eater M. persicus s491. Little bee-eater M. pusillus wgFamily Coraciidae500. Broad-billed roller Eurystomus glaucurus w wg501. Blue-throated roller E. gularis wgFamily Upupidae502. Hoopoe Upupa epops wgFamily Phoeniculidae508. Green wood hoopoe Phoeniculus purpureus wgFamily Bucerotidae513. Black and white casqued hornbill Bycanistes subcylindricus w wg515. Crowned hornbill Tockus alboterminatus wg521. Black dwarf hornbill* T. hartlaubi rw524. Grey hornbill T. alboterminatus w wg528. Ground hornbill Bucorvus cafer wgFamily Capitonidae534. Double-toothed barbet Lybius bidentatus wg539. Spotted-flanked barbet L. lacrymosus wg548. Yellow-rumped tinkerbird Pogoniulus bilineatus wgFamily Picidae575. Red-throated wryneck Jynx ruficollis wg578. Golden-tailed woodpecker Campethera abingoni wg583. Nubian woodpecker C. nubica wg585. Cardinal woodpecker Dendropicos fuscescens wg594. Bearded woodpecker* Thripias namaquus rwFamily Alaudidae621. Flappet lark Mirafra rufocinnamomea wgFamily Hirundinidae624. Striped swallow Hirundo abyssinica s627. Angola swallow* H. angolensis all types630. Red-rumped swallow* H. daurica wg634. Eurasian swallow* H. rustica wg635. Rufous-chested swallow* H. semirufa sg636. Mosque swallow H. senegalensis wg639. White-headed roughwing Psalidoprocae albiceps wgFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 59Vernacular name Specific name Habitatin KWRFamily Dicruridae644. Drongo Dicrurus adsimilis wg645. Square-tailed drongo D. ludwigii wgFamily Oriolidae649. Black-headed oriole Oriolus larvatus wg652. Montane oriole O. percivali wgFamily Paridae666. Black tit Parus leucomelas wgFamily Remizidae668. African penduline tit* Remiz caroli wg683. Black-lored babbler Turdoides melanops wgFamily Campephagidae688. Black cuckoo shrike Campephaga flava wFamily Pycnonotidae732. Common bulbul Pyconotus barbatus w wgFamily Turdidae751. White-browed robin chat Cossypha heuglini wg771. Sooty chat* Myrmecocichla nigra wg783. Whinchat* Saxicola rubetra sg784. Stonechat S. torquata s801. African thrush Turdus pelios wgFamily Sylviidae913. Tawny-flanked prinia Prinia subflava wgFamily Muscicapidae927. Grey flycatcher Bradornis microrhyncus wg938. Ashy flycatcher Muscicapa caerulescens wg946. Lead-coloured flycatcher Myioparus plumbeus wg949. Black-headed batis Batis minor wg951. Chin-spot batis B. molitor wgFamily Montacillidae978. Plain-backed pipit Anthus leucophrys wg988. Yellow-throated longclaw Macronyx croceus wg991. African pied wagtail* Motacilla aguimp rw996. Yellow wagtail M. flava wgFamily Malaconotidae1003. Black-headed gonolek Laniarius barbarus wg1004. Tropical boubou L. ferrugineus wg1013. Grey-green bush shrike Malaconotus bocagei wg1019. Sulphur-breasted bush shrike M. sulphureopectue wg1022. Brown-headed tchagra Tchagra australis wg1024. Marsh tchagra T. minuta s1025. Black-headed tchagra T. senegala wgFamily Laniidae1029. Fiscal* Lanius collaris wg1032. Grey-backed fiscal L. excubitorius wg sFamily Prionopidae1041. White-crowned shrike* Eurocephelus rueppelli wg1043. Helmet shrike Prionopus plumata wFamily Sturnidae1048. Violet-backed starling Cinnyricinclus leucogaster w wg1054. Bronze-tailed glossy starling Lamprotornis chalcurus wg1055. Blue-eared glossy starling L. chalybaeus wg1060. Rüppell’s long-tailed glossy starling L. purpuropterus wg1061. Splendid glossy starling L. splendidus wgFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 60Vernacular name Specific name Habitatin KWRFamily Nectariniidae1092. Little purple-banded sunbird Nectarinia bifasciata wg1096. Copper sunbird N. cuprea wg1098. Red-chested sunbird N. erythroceria wg1107. Mariqua sunbird N. mariquensis wg1122. Scarlet-chested sunbird N. senegalensis wgFamily Ploecidae1138. White-winged widowbird Euplectes albonotatus s1139. Red-naped widowbird E. ardens s1140. Fan-tailed widowbird E. axillaris wg s1146. Black-winged red bishop E. hordeaceus wg1150. Southern red bishop E. orix wg1155. Red-headed malimbe Malimbus rubricollis wg1165. Black-headed weaver Ploceus cucullatus wg1170. Masked weaver P. intermedius wg1191. Cardinal quelea Quelea cardinalis wg1199. White-browed sparrow weaver* Plocepasser mahali wg1206. Grey-headed sparrow Passer griseus wg1216. Pin-tailed whydah Vidua macroura wg sFamily Estrilidae1226. Waxbill Estrilda astrild wg1230. Black-crowned waxbill* E. nonnula wg1238. Jameson’s firefinch Lagonosticta rhodopareia wg1241. Red-billed firefinch L. senegala wg1266. Bronze mannikin Lonchura cucullata wgNomenclature and numbering follow Britton (1980).Key*Allan (1995)Habitat (after White, 1983)w woodland g grasslandrw riverine woodland sg swamp grasslandwg wooded grassland s swamp4.6.5 DiscussionThis survey added 72 species of birds to Allan’s (1995) inventory, bringing the total to 154species from 54 families. Observations of birds were entirely opportunistic and timeconstraints as well as the inexperience of personnel limited the results of the ornithologicalsurvey.The majority of the birds are typical of locality and vegetation types. However, species ofinterest include Tokus hartlaubi, recorded by Allan (1995), and Campethera abingonirecorded this survey and by Allan (1995).Allan (1995) records an observation of a pair of T. hartlaubi, which was the second record ofthis species for Uganda. With the aid of 7 x 50 mm binoculars, a thin white line running fromthe eye to the nape of the neck could be clearly seen. The upper-parts were black and the billred and black, and the underside was white (Allan, 1995). The previous sighting was made inthe Bwamba lowlands (possibly the Semliki Wildlife Reserve) of the western region ofUganda between 700 and 900 m where it is apparently a scarce resident (Britton, 1980). TheFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 61Katonga Wildlife Reserve is located approximately 110 km to the east of this, and theobservation was made at an altitude of around 1,190 m (Allan, 1995).Campethera abingoni is endemic to Uganda. It has two subspecies, C. a. abingoni and C. a.chrysura, which have been recorded for north-west Uganda, south from the Rwenzori regionthrough western Uganda to Bwamba Forest (Semliki National Park). Thus, this record fromthe Katonga Wildlife Reserve is beyond the eastern limits for this. A male C. abingoni wasseen with characteristic streaking effect on the chest. The crest was red from forehead tonape, with a red moustachial stripe. The back and upper-sides of the wings were olive-greenwith paler speckles. The tail was olive with golden patches. The legs and beak were darkgrey. It is of interest that this species is recorded in the same area as C. nubica.4.7 Reptiles4.7.1 IntroductionReptiles have not been comprehensively studied in Uganda (Mathius Behangana, pers.comm.), due to the difficulty in collecting these animals. Therefore, the status of the majorityof East African reptiles has not yet been assessed. Reptiles have an important role in theecosystem, many consuming insects and vermin that may carry diseases.4.7.2 AimTo survey and document the reptile diversity of the reserve with reference to different habitattypes.4.7.3 MethodsLines of pitfall traps were established to catch ground dwelling fauna (see section 4.4.3).Reptiles were also captured opportunistically by hand (except potentially poisonous snakes)and those found dead within the reserve were recorded.Field identification of reptiles were carried out using Broadley & Howell (1991), Branch(1988) and Hedges (1983). Voucher specimens were sent for confirmation of identification toMathius Behangana (MSc) at the Department of Zoology, Makerere University.4.7.4 ResultsThe pitfall traps were set in Acacia-Cymbopogon tall wooded grassland and thicket at Site 1(Fig. 4.1). Sampling intensity was 530 trapping nights. Only one reptile was captured giving acapture rate of 0.2/100 trapping nights. Eight species of reptile were capturedopportunistically by hand.Nine species of reptiles were recorded. Unfortunately, seven of these have not been identifiedto species level, due to inadequate reference material. The species inventory, which includesspecies recorded by Allan (1995) is presented in Table 4.6.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 62Table 4.6 Species inventory of the reptiles of the Katonga Wildlife ReserveVernacular name Specific name Habitat Typical Range Statusin KWR habitatOrder SauriaFamily Gekkonidae: geckosgecko sp.* Hemidactylus sp. - - - NEFamily Scincidae: skinksSubfamily Scincinaeburrowing skink sp.Scelotes sp. - - - -(under review)Subfamily LygosomatinaeShort-necked skink Mabuya brevicollis wg - KUT NESpeckle-lipped skink· M. m. maculilabris wg f w KUT NESouth-eastern rainbow skink M. quinquetaeniata wg - KT NEmargaritiferCommon stripped skink* M. striata wg - KUT NEVariable skink · M. v. varia wg g s KUT NEFamily Agamidae: agamasCommon tree agama* Agama atricollis - - KUT NEagama sp.* Agama sp. - - - -Family Chamaeleonidae: chameleonschameleon sp.* Chamaeleo sp. - - - -Order SerpentesFamily Atractaspididae: aspsSubfamily Atractaspidinaeburrowing asp sp. Atractaspis sp. wg - - -Family Colubridae: colubrid snakesSubfamily LamprophiinaeCommon brown house snake* Lamprophis fuliginosus - - KUT NEwater snake sp.* Lycodonomorphus sp. - - - -Subfamily Colubrinaegreen snake sp.(skin specimen) Philothamnus sp. wg - - -Subfamily ViperinaePuff adder Bitis arietans wg s KUT NEGreen night adder Causus resimus - m s f KUT NEFamily Boidae: pythons & boasSubfamily PythoninaeAfrican rock python Python sebae wg rr s KUT NENomenclature and taxonomy follow Broadley & Howell (1991).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 63Key*Allan (1995)·Identified in the fieldHabitat (after White, 1983)w woodland g grasslandrw riverine woodland sg swamp grasslandwg wooded grassland s swampTypical habitat (from Branch, 1988; Broadley & Howell, 1991)f forest g grassland rr riverinefe forest edge sw swamp s savannahw woodland c cultivation m moisth human presenceRange (East African Countries from which the species is recorded by Howell (undated a))K KenyaU UgandaT TanzaniaStatus (Mathius Behangana, pers. comm.)ccconservation concernLR (CD) low risk (conservation dependent)LR (LC) low risk (least concern)DDdata deficientNEnot evaluated4.7.5 DiscussionThis survey added seven species to Allan’s (1995) inventory, bringing the total to 17 speciesfrom seven families. The pitfall traps yielded poor results for capturing reptiles, therefore thespecies inventory relied heavily on opportunistic captures and sightings. The inventory mostlikely represents a limited sample of the reptile fauna within the reserve.4.7.5.1 LizardsSkinks were the most frequently sighted and captured reptile, attracted by the tarpaulins atbase camp which reached high temperatures during the day.Allan (1995) also recorded Agama atricolis which is known to favour Acacia trees (Branch,1988). Such trees were common within the reserve.4.7.5.2 SnakesA group of six snake eggs were discovered in a disused termite mound, which hatched at theend of June 1996. One specimen was taken, but has not yet been identified. The shed skin ofa Philothamnus snake was discovered close to the ranger post, however, the condition of theskin prevented identification to species level. Allan (1995) also recorded a Lamprophisfuliginosus, well known as a major predator of rodents (Hedges, 1983).The two largest snakes found in the reserve were the highly poisonous Bitis arietans andPython sebae. Both specimens were killed by local people. B. arietans is a heavily built snakeconsidered by many to be Africa’s most dangerous snake, commonly frequenting villages(Hedges, 1983). P. sebae was spotted several times in the reserve basking in the sun. It isunderstandably feared by villagers being the only snake large enough to consider humansFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 64edible (Branch, 1988). On one occasion this snake was observed with its young in the hollowof a tree.All of the reptiles are typical of locality and vegetation types, with the majority recorded inwooded grassland. None of the reptile species of the reserve has been evaluated with regardto conservation status.4.8 Amphibians4.8.1 IntroductionAmphibians have not been comprehensively studied in Uganda (Mathius Behangana, pers.comm.). Therefore, the status of the majority of the East African amphibians has not yet beenassessed. Amphibians are ecologically important, being predators of insects, some of whichare pests to crops or vectors of disease. Amphibians are also now recognised as sensitiveenvironmental indicators: impact on their habitat is reflected by a change of abundance anddiversity in a short time (Behangana, 1995).4.8.2 AimTo survey and document the amphibian diversity of the reserve with reference to differenthabitat types.4.8.3 MethodsLines of pitfall traps were established to catch ground dwelling fauna (see section 4.4.3).Amphibians captured opportunistically by hand and those found dead within the reserve werealso recorded.Field identification of amphibians were carried out using Schiøtz (1975) and Stewart (1967).Voucher specimens were sent for confirmation of identification to Mathius Behangana (MSc)at the Department of Zoology, Makerere University.4.8.4 ResultsThe pitfall traps were set in Acacia-Cymbopogon tall wooded grassland and thicket at Site 1(Fig. 4.1). Sampling intensity was 530 trapping nights. Seven amphibians were capturedgiving a capture rate of 1.3/100 trapping nights. In addition to capturing amphibians in thepitfall traps, opportunistic hand capturing of frogs, guided by their song, was carried out inthe evenings. Particular attention was paid to swampy habitats in and around the KatongaRiver. Thirty-nine specimens were caught by hand.Fifteen species of amphibians were recorded. Unfortunately, some of these have not beenidentified to species level, due to inadequate reference material. The species inventory, whichincludes species recorded by Allan (1995) is presented in 4.7.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 65Table 4.7 Species inventory of the amphibians of the Katonga Wildlife ReserveVernacular name Specific name Habitat Typical Range Statusin KWR habitatOrder AnuraFamily Bufonidae: toadsSquare-marked toad Bufo regularis wg g s - - NEtoad sp.* Bufo sp. - - -Family Pipidae: clawed toadsSubfamily XenopinaeMuller’s clawed toad* Xenopus mulleri - rw s KT(U?) NEFamily Hyperoliidae: sedge frogs -Subfamily HyperoliinaeKivu reed frog Hyperolius kivuensis s s m K NEreed frog sp. H. k. kivuensis wg - UT NEreed frog sp. H. quinquevittatus wg sw s T NEreed frog sp. H. viridiflavus bayoni wg s m - NEreed frog sp. H. v. viridiflavus wg s m KU NEVariable tree frog H. viridiflavus variabilis wg s m UT NEAngola tree frog Leptopelis angolensis wg - - NESubfamily Kassinae- Afrixalus quadrivittatus wg s - NEBubbling kassina Kassina senegalensis wg s sw s KUT NEFamily Ranidae: common frogsSubfamily Phrynobatrachinaepuddle frog sp. Phrynobatrachus dendrobates wg - U NESnoring puddle frog* P. natalensis - s KUT NEpuddle frog sp. Phrynobatrachus sp. s - - NESubfamily RaninaeSavannah ridged frog* Ptychadena anchietae - - KUT NEMascarene ridged frog P. mascareniensis wg g sw KUT NEGrassland ridged frog P. porossissima wg g m KUT NENomenclature and taxonomy follow Howell (undated b)Key*Allan (1995)Habitat (after White, 1983)w woodland g grasslandrw riverine woodland sg swamp grasslandwg wooded grassland s swampTypical habitat (from Stewart, 1967)f forest g grassland rr riverinefe forest edge sw swamp s savannahw woodland c cultivation m moisth human presenceRange (East African Countries from which the species is recorded by Howell (undated b))K KenyaU UgandaT TanzaniaStatus (Mathius Behangana, pers. comm.)ccconservation concernLR (CD) low risk (conservation dependent)LR (LC) low risk (least concern)DDdata deficientNEnot evaluatedFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 664.8.5 DiscussionThis survey added eight species of amphibians to Allan’s (1995) inventory, bringing the totalto 15 species from four families. Pitfall traps capture some species more effectively thanothers. They mainly intercept animals moving on the surface of the ground, for example,species of the genus Bufo. Other species, such as treefrogs, can often escape the trap with theuse of their toe pads (Behangana, 1995).4.8.5.1 ToadsBufo regularis was found abundantly throughout the reserve, often far from water.4.8.5.2 FrogsWithin the family Hyperoliidae, four species were identified from the subfamilyHyperoliinae. Within this group of small African sedge (reed) frogs at least 28 species arefound in eastern Africa (Stewart, 1967).Hyperolius kivuensis, has been recorded in Budongo Forest Reserve and Queen ElizabethNational Park (Stewart, 1967). Termite mounds are ubiquitous throughout the reserveproviding ideal resting points for these frogs. H. viridiflavus is a superspecies whosemembers occurring in eastern Africa are strictly savannah-living, found by permanent orsemi-permanent stagnant pools (Stewart, 1967). The subspecies H. v. bayoni, H. v.viridiflavus and H. viridiflavus variabilis were all captured in and around a stagnant pool bythe Katonga River bordered by papyrus swamp.This family also contains Kassina senegalensis, a species known to feed mainly on termites(Stewart, 1967), an abundant food source within the reserve.Three species of the ridged (grass) frogs were recorded including Ptychadena anchietae.Stewart (1967) suggests that the calling of this frog is stimulated by Phrynobatrachusnatalensis with which they are frequently found. Both species were collected by Allan (1995)in the reserve.Five specimens of cricket frogs, Phrynobatrachus sp., were collected during this survey.Unfortunately, the identification of Phrynobatrachus specimens to species (and subspecies)level proves very difficult when the specimen is not live or at least fresh (Mathius Behangana,pers. comm.) so some specimens are only identified to genus level.All of the amphibians are typical of locality and vegetation types. None of the amphibianspecies of the reserve has been evaluated with regard to conservation status.When researching amphibians of the Rwenzori Mountains, Behangana (1995) discovered thatspecies richness of amphibians increased with disturbance of vegetation and decreased withaltitude. Therefore species richness is expected to be relatively high due to the highdisturbance within the reserve and the medium altitude.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 674.9 Butterflies4.9.1 IntroductionPerhaps the most widely appreciated butterflies are the swallowtails, birdwings and theirallies, Papilionidae, which have recently received substantial conservation attention (New,1993). Members of this family occur in association with most vegetation types, with manyspecies having very precise environmental requirements. Therefore, some butterflies haveconsiderable potential for use as indicator species as their incidence and abundance reflectsmall degrees of habitat change (Collins & Morris, 1985). Moreover, butterflies are not onlyof conservation value, but are also attractive to tourists.4.9.2 AimTo survey and document the butterfly diversity of the reserve with reference to differenthabitat types.4.9.3 MethodFive fine mesh Blendon traps were baited with a variety of rotting fruits including banana,pawpaw and pineapple. The nets were hung from trees at heights from 0.5 to 1 m above theground. Hand held sweep nets were used to collect species of butterflies not usually caught inBlendon traps.Field identification of butterflies were carried out using Migdoll (1992) by Lee Stewart.Voucher specimens were sent for confirmation of identification to Dorothy KalibakateKaggwa at the Department of Zoology, Makerere University.4.9.4 ResultsButterfly traps were placed at selected sites (Table 4.1, Fig. 4.1) in suitable wooded habitats.Sweep netting was concentrated around areas of riverine woodland and swamp. One hundredand eighty-seven specimens of 77 species were captured. Unfortunately, some of these havenot been identified to species level, due to inadequate reference material. The speciesinventory, which includes species recorded by Allan (1995) is presented in Table 4.8.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 68Table 4.8 Species inventory of the butterflies of the Katonga Wildlife ReserveSpecific nameHabitatin KWREcologicalclassificationFamily PapilionidaeSubfamily PapilioninaePapilio bromius wg fP. cynorta - FLP. dardanus w W fP. echerioides w fP. phorcas w FPrinceps sp.* - -Family PieridaeSubfamily ColiadinaeCatopsila florella* - O m cEurema b. brigitta wg W m cE. desjardinsi marshalli* - WE. floricola wg FE. regularis g s WSubfamily PierinaeBelenois a. aurota* - O mB. crawshayi w FB. gidica* - W mB. solilucis w rw fB. subeida wg fB. sudanensis w FB. t. thysa* - fB. z. zochalia w f mColotis antevippe wg rw OC. aurigineus wg WC. euippe wg rw WC. ione* - ODixeia orbona wg WD. pigea w WEronia cleodora wg OE. leda* - WLeptosia alcesta inalcesta* - WMylothris kivuensis wg FM. rubricosta w SM. rueppelli haemus* - f mFamily LycaenidaeSubfamily LipteninaePentila pauli wg fSubfamily TheclinaeAxiocerces bambana wg OHypolycaena antifaunus w FH. hatita wg FIolaus sp. - -Spindasis mozambica wg OSubfamily PolyommatinaeAnthene butleri livida* - WA. larydas rw FAzanus natalensis sg WLeptotes sp. - -Lycaena sp.* - -Pseudonacaduba sichela w wg WUranothauma delatorum w fFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 69Specific nameHabitatin KWREcologicalclassificationFamily NymphalidaeSubfamily DanainaeAmauris. a. albimaculata rw w FA. niavius dominicanus* - WA. tartarea rw f fDanaus chrysippus aegyptius w O m cTirumala formosa wg w fSubfamily SatyrinaeBicyclus campinus wg fB. dentatus w fB. istaris wg fB. jefferyi wg fB. s. safitza* - W cB. sausseurei wg sg FB. vulgaris w WHenotesia perspicua wg -Ypthima albida w wg sg fYpthima sp. w -Subfamily CharaxinaeCharaxes brutus natalensis* - fC. jasius saturnus* - OC. pollux w f fC. varanes wg W m cC. viola wg OC. xiphares* - FHSubfamily NymphalinaeAriadne enotrea wg fAterica galene w fByblia anvatara achloia wg W mEunica sp. wg -Euphaedra medon wg rw FE. rex w FEurytela dryope angulata g w W m f cE. hiarbus angustata* - fHypolimnas anthedon wahlbergi* - F fJunonia chorimene w OJ. oenone oenone* - W cJ. natalica natalica* - fJ. sophia sg rw WJ. stygia w sg fJ. terea elgiva wg W fJ. westermanni w wg FNeptidopsis ophione w fNeptis goochii* - WN. laeta w WN. morosa sg g WN. saclava marpessa w WPrecis pelarga w fSallya boisduvali wg f mS. garega w wg F mS. occidentalium w F mSallya sp. rw -Subfamily ArgynninaePhalanta phalantha aethiopica wg O m cFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 70Specific nameHabitatin KWREcologicalclassificationSubfamily AcraeinaeAcraea acerata rw WA. alicia w WA. encedon wg W mA. eponina wg w W m cA. esebria esebria* - fA. perenna w wg sg f fA. viviana w wg fNomenclature and taxonomy follow Davenport (1996). Many species of butterfly have not been ascribed acommon name, hence only specific names are presented here.Key*Allan (1995)Habitat (after White, 1983)w woodland g grasslandrw riverine woodland sg swamp grasslandwg wooded grassland s swampEcological classification (from Davenport, 1996) (from Larsen, 1991)F forest-dependent species O open habitat species m migratory speciesFH highland closed forest species S swamp/wetland species f typical of forestsFL lowland forest species W widespread species c rapid colonisers off forest edge/woodland species m migratory species fields, towns & roadverges4.9.5 DiscussionThis survey added 68 species to Allan’s (1995) inventory, bringing the total to 99 speciesfrom five families. It is interesting that that there is only a 9% overlap between the twosurveys. This may reflect seasonal differences in the species composition: Allan’s study wasconducted in the dry season between January and March, whereas this study extended fromApril to September, taking in the wet season. Seasonal variation is expected since 16% of thespecies recorded are known to be migratory (Davenport, 1996; Larsen, 1991).Most species are widespread and are typical of open habitats. Despite the fact that the reserveconsists mainly of savannah woodland and wooded grassland, 26% of the species recordedare typical of forests (Davenport, 1996; Larsen, 1991). Larsen (1991) notes that some of thesewidely-distributed species typical of forest differ from most in having a tolerance for moreopen forest and riverine vegetation, and will, therefore, sometimes be found together withsavannah species in places where few other forest dependent species occur.Nine percent of the species recorded are classed as rapid colonisers of fields, towns and roadverges (Larsen, 1991), which suggests an affinity to disturbed land.Although Charaxes are relatively common and easily attracted to bait, butterflies from thefamilies Lycaenidae and Hesperiidae are rarely caught in traps and most are small,inconspicuous and easily overlooked (Davenport, 1996). Therefore these families may beunder-represented by this inventory.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 714.10 Dragonflies and damselflies4.10.1 IntroductionDragonfly and damselfly larvae are sensitive ecological indicators of pollution of freshwater,and environmental changes have resulted in extinction of damselflies (Wells et al., 1983).Literature regarding Odonata as an indicator taxon is currently unavailable, however, thespecies inventory may be used in the future to assess the quality of the habitat.4.10.2 AimsTo survey and document the dragonfly and damselfly diversity of the reserve with referenceto different habitat types.4.10.3 MethodsHand held sweep nets were used to collect dragonflies and damselflies on an opportunisticbasis throughout the reserve. Stealing from spiders’ webs also proved to be an effectivemethod of collection.Voucher specimens were sent for confirmation of identification to Patrick Etyang at theDepartment of Zoology, Makerere University.4.10.4 ResultsHand netting was concentrated in moist and wooded areas. The majority of the specimenswere found by the Katonga River, around the swamp. They were frequently encounteredresting on papyrus that edged the river. Forty-three specimens were captured by hand andthree were collected from spiders’ webs.A total of five species of dragonflies and three species of damselflies from three familieswere recorded. Unfortunately, three specimens remain unidentified to species level due toinadequate reference material. The species inventory is presented in Table 4.9.Table 4.9 Species inventory of the dragonflies and damselflies of the Katonga WildlifeReserveSpecific nameHabitatOrder OdonataSuborder Anisoptera :dragonfliesFamily AshnidaeAcanthagyna africanasgFamily LibellulidaeSubfamily BrachydiplacinaeHemistigma albipunctasgOrthetrum juliawSubfamily DiastatopidinaePapopleura luciawPapopleura sp.sgSuborder Zygoptera: damselfliesFamily LestidaeLestes virgatussgFamily CoenagioidaeCeriagrion sp.sgEnallagama sp.wNomenclature and taxonomy follow Pinhey (1961). Many species of dragonfly and damselfly have not beenascribed a common name, hence only specific names are presented here.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 72KeyHabitat (after White, 1983)w woodland g grasslandrw riverine woodland sg swamp grasslandwg wooded grassland s swamp4.10.5 DiscussionLittle is known about the density and diversity of Odonata in Uganda, making it difficult todraw conclusions from the above data. It is possible that some species of dragonflies anddamselflies may have evaded capture because of their rapid flight, leading to anunderestimation of diversity.4.10.5.1 DragonfliesAcanthagyna africana is a typically west African species. Hemistigma albipuncta is generallycommonest at reedy pools at altitudes below 4,000 feet, and is known from most parts oftropical and subtropical Africa, from South Africa to Sudan. Orthetrum julia is a species ofthick forest, from Uganda to west Africa. Papopleura lucia is a common and widespreadspecies in Ethiopia favouring quite waters, preferably reedy pools, in either open country orforest. It is a dominant species in less open forest (Pinhey, 1961).4.10.5.2 DamselfliesLestes virgatus is a common and widespread species in forest or thick bush near pools orsluggish streams (Pinhey, 1961).The species of Odonata recorded in the reserve are typical of slow waters, often swamp areaswith a general preference for forested regions (Pinhey, 1961).4.11 ConclusionsThe reserve has a rich and diverse small fauna, which comprises a considerable fraction of thecountry’s diversity, as shown in Table 4.10.Table 4.10 Diversity by taxa for the small fauna of the Katonga Wildlife Reserve%TaxonNo. of speciesNo. of speciesrecorded in KWR recorded in Uganda 1Butterflies 99 1,241* 8Dragonflies & damselflies 8 - -Amphibians 15 75* 20Reptiles 17 191* 9Birds 154 1,008* 15Micro bats 12 77 16Mega bats 2 13 15Shrews 11 35 31Rats & mice 8 48 17Cricetid rats 3 15 20Squirrels 2 12 17TOTALS 331 2,715 121From Davies & Vanden Berghe (1994);*Pomeroy & Tushabe (1996).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 73However, species accumulation curves suggest that collection is not yet exhausted using thesetechniques, and therefore the inventories are not complete. Further research using moretrapping techniques should identify even more species.Although endemism is low in Uganda (IUCN, 1986) due to the overlap of biogeographiczones, the reserve is home to three Ugandan endemics: Crocidura selina, C. tarella, andCapethera abingoni. It is also home to two species of international conservation concern,Crocidura gracilipes, and C. selina. The conservation status of many more of these species isyet to be assessed, and it is hoped that this information can contribute to this.Most species are typical of wooded grassland, woodland and swamp, but a number areassociated with human habitation and cultivated land, reflecting current conditions within thereserve. In addition, several species are associated with forest or forest edge, suggesting thatthe reserve once exhibited areas of denser vegetation than it does today. These species mayrepresent remnant populations experiencing a time lag before localised extinction.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 744.12 References citedAllan, C.L. 1995. Katonga Game Reserve: biological survey. Frontier-Uganda GameReserves Project Report No. 3. The Society for Environmental Exploration, London &MTWA, Kampala.Baillie, J. & Groombridge, B. (Eds.) 1996. 1996 IUCN Red list of threatened animals. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge.Bakamwesiga, H. & Pomeroy, D. 1997. The seventh Regional Biodiversity Meeting.Makerere University Institute of Environment & Natural Resources, Kampala.Baranga, J. 1992. The small mammals of Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, south-west Uganda.Israel J. Zool. 38.Behangana, M. 1995. The status of amphibians in Rwenzori Mountains, western Uganda.M.Sc. thesis. Makerere University, Kampala.Branch, B. 1988 A field guide to the snakes and other reptiles of southern Africa. NewHolland Publ. Ltd., Cape Town.Britton, P.L. (Ed.) 1980. Birds of East Africa: their habitat, status and distribution. EastAfrican Natural History Society, Nairobi.Broadley, D.G. & Howell, K.M. 1991. Syntarsus - a check list of the reptiles of Tanzania,with synoptic keys. National Museum & Monuments of Zimbabwe, Bulawayo.Brown, L.H., Urban, E.K. & Newman, K.B. 1982. Birds of Africa, Vol. 1. Academic Press,London.Collins, N.M. & Morris, M.G. 1985. Threatened swallowtail butterflies of the world: theIUCN Red Data Book. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Davenport, T. 1996 (revised). The butterflies of Uganda: an annotated checklist. ForestDepartment, Kampala.Davies, G. & Vanden Berghe, E. 1994. Checklist of the mammals of East Africa. EastAfrican Natural History Society, Nairobi.Delany, M.J. 1975. The rodents of Uganda. Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History),London.Delany, M.J. & Happold, D.C.D. 1979. Ecology of African mammals. Longman Group Ltd.,London.Dickenson, C. & Kityo, R. 1996. Small mammals. In: T. Davenport, P. Howard, & R.Matthews (Eds.), Mujuzi, Sesse Islands and Jubiya Forest Reserves: biodiversityreport. Biodiversity Inventory Programme Report No. 23, Forest Department,Kampala.Dickenson, C. 1996. Small mammals. In: P. Howard & T. Davenport (Eds.), Kagombe,Matiri and Kitechura Forest Reserves: biodiversity report. Biodiversity InventoryProgramme Report No. 6, Forest Department, Kampala.Fry, C.H., Keith, S. & Urban, E.K. 1988. Birds of Africa, Vol. 3. Academic Press, London.Haltenorth, T. & Diller, H. 1977. A field guide to the mammals of Africa includingMadagascar. Collins, London.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 75Happold, D.C.D. & Happold, M. 1989. The bats (Chiroptera) of Malawi, Central Africa:checklist and keys for identification. Nyala 142:89-112.Hedges, N.G. 1983. Reptiles and amphibians of East Africa. Kenya Literature Bureau,Nairobi.Howard, P. & Davenport, T. (Eds.). 1996. Kagombe, Matiri and Kitechura Forest Reserves:biodiversity report. Biodiversity Inventory Programme Report No. 6, ForestDepartment, Kampala.Howell, K. M. (undated a). Draft checklist of East African reptiles. Unpublished paperHowell, K. M. (undated b). Draft checklist of East African amphibians. Unpublished paperIUCN. 1986. Review of the protected areas system in the Afrotropical realm. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland.IUCN. 1992. Old world fruit bats: an action plan for their conservation. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland.Keith, S., Urban, E.K. & Fry, C.H. 1992. Birds of Africa, Vol. 4. Academic Press, London.Kingdon, J. 1974a. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. II, Part A(Insectivores and bats). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Kingdon, J. 1974b. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa: Vol. II, Part B(Hares and rodents). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Kityo, R. M. 1996. Draft red data list for Ugandan mammals. Unpublished paper.Larsen, T.B. 1991. The butterflies of Kenya and their natural history. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.Meester, J. & Setzer, H. W. 1971. The mammals of Africa. An identification manual.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Migdoll, I. 1992. Field guide to the butterflies of southern Africa. New Holland Publ. Ltd.,London.New, T.R. 1993. Conservation biology of Lycaenidae (butterflies). IUCN, Gland,Switzerland.Newman, K. 1991. Newman’s birds of southern Africa. Southern Book Publ., Cape Town.Nicoll, M.E. & Rathbun, G.B. 1990. African Insectivora and elephant shrews: an action planfor their conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Pinhey, E.C.G. 1961. A survey of the dragonflies (Order Odonata) of eastern Africa. Trusteesof the British Museum (Natural History), London.Pomeroy, D. & Tushabe, H. 1996. Biodiversity of Karamoja: Part One: ground surveys,results and analyses. Makerere University Institute of Environment & NaturalResources, Kampala.Pomeroy, D. 1992. Counting birds: a guide to assessing numbers, biomass and diversity ofAfrotropical birds. African Wildlife Foundation, Nairobi.Rabinowitz, A. 1993. Wildlife field research and conservation training manual. The WildlifeConservation Society, Conservation International, New York.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 76Rosevear, D. 1969. The rodents of West Africa. Trustees of the British Museum (NaturalHistory), London.Schiøtz, A. 1975. The treefrogs of eastern Africa. Steenstrupia, Copenhagen.Sinclair, I., Hockey, P., Tarboton, W., Hayman, P. & Arlott, N. 1993. Birds of southernAfrica. Struik, Cape Town.Stewart, M. 1967. Amphibians of Malawi. State University of New York Press, Albany, NewYork.Urban, E.K., Fry, C.H. & Keith, S. 1986. Birds of Africa, Vol. 2. Academic Press, London.Van Perlo. 1995. An illustrated checklist of the birds of East Africa. Harper-Collins, London.Wells, S.M., Pyle, R.M. & Collins, N.M. 1983. The IUCN invertebrate red data book. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland.White, F. 1983. The vegetation of Africa. UNESCO, Paris.Williams, J.G. & Arlott, N. 1981. Birds of East Africa. Collins, London.Wilson, D. E. & Reeder, D. M. 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic andgeographic reference. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Wilson, S.E. 1995. Bird and mammal checklists for ten National Parks in Uganda. NationalBiodiversity Data Bank, Makerere University Institute of Environmental & NaturalResources, Kampala.Personal CommunicationsMathius Behangana, MSc, Dept. of Zoology, Makerere University, PO Box 7062, Kampala.Robert Kityo, MSc, Dept. of Zoology, Makerere University, PO Box 7062, Kampala.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 775.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY (Karen L. Zwick)5.1 SummaryA socio-economic survey of the communities living in and around the Katonga WildlifeReserve was carried out between April and September 1996. Rapid and Participatory RuralAppraisal (R/PRA) methods were used. Nine community meetings and fifty-two informalsemi-structured household interviews were carried out. Over half of the householdsinterviewed were pastoralists, whose main concern was access to pasture and water for theircattle, followed by the prevalence of ticks and tsetse flies and predation by hyena and leopard.Cultivators fell into two groups: those encroaching on the Kyaka I Refugee Settlement, whowere mostly recent arrivals to the area, and those encroaching on the reserve, who weremostly longer term residents. Both groups were concerned with land tenure issues,particularly following the evictions from the reserve of 30 June and subsequent events, aswell as with crop raiding by bushpig and poor access to markets. The natural resources of thereserve, which include land and pasture, water, fuelwood and construction materials, andmedicinal plants, are very important to local people. Attitudes towards the reserve and itsstaff were shaped dramatically by the events of June and July, and were generally negative,although people were interested in increased contact. Understanding of the reserve’s purposeand conservation issues generally was very low. Opportunities for and threats to bothdevelopment and conservation are discussed.5.2 Introduction5.2.1 AimsThe socio-economic survey aims to:• collect baseline sociological and economic data on the communities living in and aroundthe reserve;• collect data on the use of the reserve’s natural resources by local people, includingassessing the importance of these resources to the people, and the impact of this use onthe reserve; and• investigate attitudes towards and awareness of the reserve and conservation issues,including identifying areas of conflict.5.2.2 Community conservation and the 1996 wildlife statuteThere is growing recognition that although traditional-style exclusive protected areas can be avital part of a national conservation strategy, on their own they are largely failing to conservewild animals and plants adequately throughout the world, and perhaps most so in Africa(Makombe, 1994). Such protected areas allow for very restricted, if any, human use of thenatural resources within them, and the restrictions are targeted at the rural people living in theimmediate vicinity, who are often very poor. The costs of these restrictions to these peopleare often unbearable, and in much of Africa, rural life within the law is just not possible(Pangeti, 1992). The realisation that wild animals and plants will continue to be utilised,either legally or illegally, has lead to a shift in focus away from protected areas defended froma country’s own citizens by paramilitary law enforcement organisations to the development ofmultiple resource use areas, where a range of sustainable uses of the natural resources areFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 78permitted with a view to balancing conservation objectives with the day to day anddevelopment needs of local communities.Fraser Stewart (1992) recognised that local participation was critical to sustainable PAmanagement and conservation in Uganda, and, while ownership of all wildlife is still vestedin the state, the 1996 wildlife statute makes extensive provisions for wildlife use rights forboth individuals and communities. Although a defensive and protectionist ethic still pervadesamong the old guard, newly recruited UWA wardens are committed to the management ofprotected areas to benefit local communities, and every PA now has at least one wardendedicated to community conservation (e.g., a CCW).5.2.3 Previous studiesThe only published work on the area is an assessment of pastoralism in Mpara sub-county byKayabwe (1994), who investigated the factors leading to mismanagement of communalpastoral resources. In 1994 the Frontier-Uganda Game Reserves Project (as the currentproject was then known) conducted a brief socio-economic survey alongside their biologicalsurvey (Allan, 1995). However the data were not analysed and presented at that time. Whereappropriate, information from that survey is included here, although recent events have mademuch of it out of date.5.2.4 PeopleTo the south of the reserve in Mbarara District (Ankole) live the Banyankole, and to the northin Kabarole District, the Batoro. Both are Bantu peoples, and there are many culturalsimilarities between them. Both societies were traditionally stratified into pastoralists(Bahima or Bahuma) and cultivators (Bairu) (Nzita & Mbaga, 1995). The areas surroundingthe reserve are partly cultivated, settled by both Banyankole and Batoro Bairu, as well asother recent migrants, and partly grazing lands, used by the semi-nomadic Bahimasubsistence pastoralists and their long horned Ankole cattle. The reserve itself is encroachedupon by both Bahima pastoralists, who move their cattle south to the Katonga River in thedry seasons and disperse north in the wet seasons, and cultivators, particularly in the northwestaround Oburama.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 795.2.5 SettlementsThe settlements and human features of the area are depicted in Figure 5.1Figure 5.1 Settlements in and around the Katonga Wildlife Reserveroad (track)railway5.2.5.1 KabagoleKabagole is the largest settlement in the area. The train stops here on its way to and fromKasese, and has played an important part in the development of the town. It is also served byroad with daily public transport to and from Lyantonde on the Mbarara road, and there is aregular passenger ferry service across the Katonga River. Most people grow crops for familyconsumption, but many also grow a surplus which they sell locally or send by rail to urbanmarkets. Some keep cattle, usually in addition to cultivating, although there are somepastoralists in the areas around the trading centre. The trading centre supports severalprofessional traders and others with formal sector employment. There is a private clinic witha medical assistant, midwife, and nursing assistant, which also provides governmentimmunisation and family planning services, and a private primary school with four classes.There is a police post, and easy access to the ranger post across the river.5.2.5.2 KarwenyiKarwenyi is served by a very poor road which connects it to Mpara and Kyegegwa on the FortPortal road. There is no public transport, and access is by walking or cycling to either Mpara,from where it is possible to get a lift to Kyegegwa, or to the river crossing to Kabagole. Mostpeople grow crops for family consumption, but far fewer than in Kabagole grow a surplus asaccess to markets is poor. As at Kabagole, some keep cattle, usually in addition to cultivating,although there are some pastoralists in the areas around the trading centre, some of whomused pasture within the reserve in the past. The trading centre supports a few professionaltraders. There is a dispensary but no school, although there is a police post.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 805.2.5.3 RushayumbeRushayumbe is a small trading centre accessible only by footpath. Most people grow cropsfor family consumption, but very few grow a surplus as access to markets is poor. Again,some keep cattle, usually in addition to cultivating, although there are some pastoralists, someof whom used pasture within the reserve in the past. There are no educational, health, orgovernment administrative facilities.5.2.5.4 KazingaKazinga was the site of the head office for the Kyaka I Refugee Settlement, and has manyfacilities provided by the UNHCR. It is now populated by nationals (Ugandans), most ofwhom have moved there since the departure of the Rwandan refugees following the events of1994. However, as the land has not been degazetted as a refugee settlement, these nationalsare still considered encroachers. It is served by a very poor road which connects it with Mparaand Kyegegwa. There is a large market on Fridays, which is regularly attended by a fewvehicles but there is no regular public transport. Most people grow crops for familyconsumption, and many also grow a surplus which they sell at the Friday market, althoughprices are low because of the poor communications. Again some keep cattle, usually inaddition to cultivating, although there are some pastoralists in the areas around the tradingcentre. The trading centre supports a few professional traders. There is a very largegovernment clinic, built by the UNHCR, with a medical assistant and two nursing assistants,although many of the buildings have now fallen into disrepair. There is also a trainedTraditional Birthing Attendant’s (TBA’s) clinic and a dispensing herbalist. There is a largegovernment primary school with seven classes, also built by the UNHCR and also nowsomewhat dilapidated, but there are no government administrative facilities.5.2.5.5 BiguriBiguri is served by the same very poor road with no regular public transport. There are fourvehicles which regularly visit the settlement. Most people grow crops for familyconsumption, and some also grow a surplus which they sell at the local Wednesday market,although prices are low because of the poor communications. Again, some keep cattle,usually in addition to cultivating, although there are some pastoralists in the areas around thetrading centre. The trading centre supports a few professional traders. There is a dispensaryand a primary school with four classes which has just been given government status. Thereare no government administrative facilities.5.2.5.6 OburamaOburama is a small settlement inside the reserve. It is served by footpath only. Most peoplegrow crops for family consumption, and some also grow a small surplus which they sell at themarket at Biguri. Again, prices are low because of the poor communications. Some keepcattle, usually in addition to cultivating. There are no health facilities, although there is aprivate nursery school. There are no government administrative facilities.5.2.5.7 KatarazaAs at Kabagole, the train stops here on its way to and from Kasese, and has played animportant part in the development of the town. The town is not however served by road,although there is a fording point across the Katonga River. Most people grow crops for familyconsumption, and some also grow a surplus which they send by rail to urban markets. Manykeep cattle, some in addition to cultivating, some as pastoralists. There is a dispensary, but noeducational or government administrative facilities.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 815.3 MethodsThe survey was conducted in two phases. During the first phase (April to June 1996) attentionwas focused on the pastoralists within the reserve. During the second phase (July toSeptember) attention was focused on the settled communities around the reserve andOburama. Discussions during this phase were dominated by issues surrounding the evictionsof 30 June and subsequent events (see section 1.4). The survey was carried out in conjunctionwith the CCW: preliminary background discussions with him and locally recruited rangersserved to establish priorities and refine its focus.5.3.1 Rapid and participatory rural appraisalThe methods of appraisal employed in this survey follow the general approaches and methodsgrouped under the headings of Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) and Participatory RuralAppraisal (PRA), as developed by organisations such as the Institute of Development Studiesand the International Institute for the Environment and Development.RRA developed from both a dissatisfaction with more traditional techniques of investigatingrural life, such as questionnaires and surveys, which tend to be tedious and unreliable, and adesire to tap into indigenous technical knowledge to increase the efficiency with whichdevelopment professionals and others could acquire this information. It seeks to enableoutsiders to gain information and insight from rural people themselves about rural conditions.This information is then taken away for analysis and presentation (Chambers, 1992).PRA is based on RRA and other fields, and seeks to move beyond RRA. PRA draws on thephilosophies of activist participatory research, which seeks to enhance self awareness and selfconfidence and thus empower people by allowing them to conduct their own analyses of theirown reality. It absorbed techniques such as transect walking, informal mapping, anddiagramming from agro-ecosystems analysis, and from applied anthropology it absorbed theimportance of attitude, behaviour, and rapport, as well as the ideas of the etic - the mentalframe, categories, and world view of the outsider - and the emic - those of the insider. Incontrast to RRA, PRA seeks not to elicit information for use by an outsider but to stimulatecommunity awareness, with the outsider’s role being that of a catalyst which starts a processoff but lets it follow its own course. The investigation, analysis, and presentation ofinformation is by rural people themselves (Chambers, 1992).Both RRA and PRA stress the importance of listening and learning directly from rural peoplethemselves, of seeking out the opinions of those who might otherwise go unheard, of usingflexible, open-ended methodologies and being receptive to improvisation, and of selfawareness and constant self criticism on the part of the outsider (Chambers, 1992). RRAtends to be used in academic work for learning by outsiders who require information for somepurpose of their own. PRA tends to be used by development workers who seek to empowerthe rural people with whom they are working, and the information collected remains with thecommunity, and is used to create an action plan. In practise, of course, there is a continuumbetween the two extremes.This survey was just that, a survey, in which the information collected was taken away foranalysis by an outsider. No specific actions were planned to follow on from this work, andongoing conflicts of interest between the people under survey and UWA, the commissioninginstitution, precluded any real empowerment: as such the appraisal was not trulyFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 82participatory. However, given the existing situation of mistrust, resentment, suspicion, and inOburama, outright hostility (including death threats against the rangers), the patience andhonesty inherent in participatory approaches seemed the only way to move forward andrestore some level of mutual trust and respect (Mason & Danso, 1995).5.3.2 Community meetingsThese were arranged in advance through local councillors and other community leaders andusually took place under a shade tree in the centre of the settlement. Discussion wasfacilitated by the Socio-economics Co-ordinator, who also introduced Frontier-Uganda andexplained the aims and methods of the survey programme. To avoid creating falseexpectations, care was also taken to explain what Frontier-Uganda could not do. Local peoplewere used as translators, and participation was sought from all sectors of the community,particularly women. The community was encouraged to ask questions of the survey team andCCW, and at the end of each meeting the CCW took a few minutes to explain and interpretthe new wildlife statute.Although the survey aims remained consistent, discussions were open-ended and communityled: topics covered included lifestyles and subsistence activities, including problemsassociated with these, general problems and development issues, the use of natural resourcesin and around the reserve, and attitudes towards and awareness of the reserve andconservation issues. Elders and long-term residents were asked to provide historical contextby outlining the history of the settlement and describing trends in natural resources, and mapsof local features and natural resources of importance were constructed. Using a variety oftechniques allowed triangulation to check the consistency of the information provided.5.3.3 Informal unstructured key informant interviewsSpecific individuals with special knowledge of particular fields, such as health practitionersor educators, were interviewed by the Socio-economics Co-ordinator. Discussions were openendedand respondent led, and focused on the respondent’s area of expertise.5.3.4 Informal semi-structured household interviewsThese were conducted under the guidance of the Socio-economics Co-ordinator, who trainedthe volunteer research assistants in small groups as the survey progressed. Unless therespondent felt comfortable using English, rangers from the local area were used astranslators. The rangers were briefed on participatory approaches, particularly on theimportance of rapport and mutual respect, but, armed and representing UWA, their presencemust have influenced peoples’ responses. The sampling strategy was opportunistic: becauseof their illegal status either in the reserve or in the refugee settlement, no reliable populationfigures exist, and the inaccessibility of the area and the fluidity of the situation made detailedreconnaissance work both impracticable and relatively pointless. Households wereinterviewed as they were come across, resulting in a bias in favour of those whose homeswere near roads or footpaths. Occasionally the survey team was specifically invited and takento peoples’ homes, particularly by those who wanted their opinions (complaints) recorded,possibly resulting in a slight overestimation of the prevalence of negative attitudes.Discussion was directed at the head of the household, although participation was sought fromall members, particularly women, and respondents were encouraged to ask questions of thesurvey team and rangers.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 83Discussions were open-ended and respondent led, and effort was taken not to ask leadingquestions or to prompt responses. The use of ‘tell me about your…’ as opposed to specificinterrogative questions allowed the respondent to raise issues of which, as an outsider, theinterviewer might not have been aware, and allowed the conversation to flow naturally. Achecklist of topics, which was refined as the survey progressed, was used to guide theinterviewer: these included lifestyles and subsistence activities, including problems associatedwith these, general problems and development issues, the use of natural resources in andaround the reserve, and attitudes towards and awareness of the reserve and conservationissues. However each interview was different, and not all topics were covered in everyinterview.5.3.5 Collection of ethnobotanical specimensVolunteer research assistants were trained in the collection and preparation of botanicalspecimens. Samples of plant species mentioned during community meetings or householdinterviews were collected with the help of local people and pressed, and the local name anddetails of traditional uses recorded. Preliminary field identifications were later confirmed byMs. Olivia Wanyana Maganyi at the Makerere University Herbarium.5.4 ResultsCommunity meetings were held at Kabagole, Karwenyi, Rushayumbe, Kazinga, Biguri,Oburama, and Kataraza, and were attended by between approximately 35 and 70 people, withan average of about 50. Lack of reliable population data precludes an estimate of the fractionof the population represented. Separate meeting were also held with a group of approximately25 pastoralists within the reserve, and a group of approximately 25 women at Biguri.Meetings usually lasted at least two hours, although as they were led by the community, andpeople were able to come and go as they pleased, respondent fatigue was minimal. Thetranslators varied in their styles: some tended to dominate and interpret rather than translate,reducing opportunities for the rest of the group to participate or have their opinions heard, butin no case was there a serious problem which could not be rectified. To a very large extent thecommunities controlled the agendas and decided what information to share: most meetingsneeded little facilitation other than the initial impetus, and the survey team became a part ofthe audience as elders and long-term residents relayed oral histories, or debate raged over acontroversial issue. Men contributed most, with women contributing from the edge only ontopics with which they were specifically involved. Perhaps because of the events of June andJuly, the communities were very willing to talk and welcoming of the survey team and theinterest they were taking, and the meetings were able to progress on a very open basis.Key informants interviewed included the medical assistant at the Kazinga clinic, a midwife, aTBA, a herbalist, and the headmaster and teachers at the primary school in Kazinga.Fifty-two household interviews were carried out, but lack of reliable population dataprecludes an estimate of the fraction on the total population sampled. Thirty-nine of thehouseholds interviewed were located within the reserve, where the CCW estimated there tobe approximately 120 households before the events of June and July, giving a samplingintensity for this group of approximately 33%. Interviews lasted about an hour, but, as theywere respondent led, fatigue was minimal. The rangers varied in their translation styles: someshowed real aptitude for the work, and were used preferentially. The head of the family oradult sons usually spoke for all, although in most cases others were free to contribute, andFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 84women were usually deferred to on topics with which they were specifically involved. Again,perhaps because of the events of June and July, people were very willing to talk andwelcoming of the survey team and the interest they were taking, although at this time of yearthe pastoralists were very busy because watering their cattle was so time-consuming.Following the interview the members of the survey team were often themselves questionedabout their lives, often for up to an hour.Where a fraction or percentage is given in the following sections, the number of interviews inwhich this topic was discussed (n) is also given. Where no fraction or percentage is given, theinformation was obtained through community meetings or other sources.5.4.1 PastoralismHalf (n=52) of the households interviewed were pastoralists, who kept cattle and did notcultivate any crops, and 12% were agro-pastoralists, who kept cattle, but also cultivated asmall amount of matooke (plantain bananas). The vast majority of these (91%, n=33) wereBanyankole Bahima, from Ankole (83%, n=12) or Mubende District (17%). One household(3%, n=31) was from Rwanda, and had decided not to return home in 1994, and one (3%)was from Luwero District, displaced as a result of the war, but the Bahima had come for thepasture and/or water of the Katonga River valley (63%, n=8), or because they had been‘squeezed out’ of Ankole (38%). Almost all (94%) of the pastoralists and agro-pastoralistsinterviewed lived within the reserve, and had been doing so for between four months and 25years, with an average period of residence of almost eight years (n=28). Almost half (47%,n=19) claimed to own the land on which they lived, although all of this was within thereserve. The rest acknowledged that they had just ‘settled’. Overall, 16% (n=32) of thepastoralists and agro-pastoralists interviewed expressed anxiety over land tenure issues: forthose interviewed before the events of June and July the figure is only 4% (n=28), whereasfor those interviewed afterwards, the figure is 100% (n=4).Households owned between five and 200 heads of cattle, with an average of 97 (n=5), as wellas varying assortments of goats, chickens, and dogs. Every household grazed their cattle inthe reserve (n=32). During the wet seasons they were watered at a variety of pointsthroughout the area, but as the dry season progressed, 71% (n=28) of households moved theircattle down to the Katonga River for water. Following the events of June and July, there wasconcern that walking the cattle down through the reserve to the river and back again each daywould cause them to lose condition, as they would have to spend all day on the move, andwould not have enough time to graze. There was also concern that there was not sufficientgrazing land outside the reserve to support the cattle, due to the presence of cultivators.Other than access to pasture and water, the problem most commonly cited (78%, n=46) bycattle keepers (pastoralists, agro-pastoralists, and cultivators who also keep a few cattle) is theprevalence of ticks and tsetse flies. As required by law, the cattle are sprayed withcommercially available acaricides in crushes throughout the reserve. The quantity of acaricideused varied, but was around 1l per 100 head of cattle per month. No protective equipment isused, and 14% (n=35) of those who sprayed complained of human health problems, includingfits, breathing difficulties, and irritation of the eyes. There were no dipping stationsfunctioning in the area, although this was not perceived to be a problem as most peoplepreferred using crushes. Several people called for resumption of the government tsetsecontrol programme, which had stopped many years before.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 85A small fraction (15%, n=46) of cattle keepers also complained of a cattle disease calledochimpumpur which could not be satisfactorily translated. Veterinary facilities in the regionare poor. The vet previously stationed at the refugee settlement has not been replaced, and thenearest one to the reserve is at Nkoma. He is expensive, and used by only 35% (n=31) ofcattle keepers, 65% of whom buy drugs to treat sick animals themselves, some (13%) inconjunction with traditional plant remedies.Thirty-five percent (n=40) of cattle keepers complained of hyena killing and damaging theirstock, and 30% of leopard, but half reported no such problems, even when directlyquestioned. Those who did suffer, lost an average of three animals per year (n=8). Solutionsincluded fencing cows in at night (25%, n=8), keeping dogs (25%), staying awake and scaringthe predators off (25%), or poisoning or spearing them (25%). However 25% of those whosuffered losses stated that there was no effective solution to the problem.Cattle keepers who discussed their condition of the cattle all (n=6) thought that they were toothin, especially the milk cows. Most (83%) thought this was because there were too manycattle using the area, although one (17%) thought this was due to poor health and inadequateveterinary care.The poor communications and lack of refrigeration facilities prevent people from marketingsurplus dairy products except very locally. The pastoralists and agro-pastoralists sell cattlerarely, and only when there is an urgent need for cash, such as when a family member is sick.The local cattle market is closed due the CBPP quarantine, but traders buy individual animalsand walk them out to lorries at Mpara. They visit the area regularly and only one household(7%, n=14) complained about poor prices or other problems.5.4.2 CultivationThirty-eight percent (n=52) of the households interviewed were cultivators, although 70%(n=20) of these also kept some cattle. The vast majority of these (88%, n=16) wereBanyankole Bairu from Ankole (91%, n=11). Two households (13%, n=16) were BatoroBairu. The Bairu from Ankole had come because they had been ‘squeezed out’ (90%, n=10),or for pasture and/or farming land (20%).The cultivators interviewed fell into two groups: those encroaching on the Kyaka I RefugeeSettlement near Kazinga, and those living around Oburama, either encroaching on the reserveor outside the reserve to the north. Those living around Kazinga were mostly relatively recentarrivals to the area, with two households arriving in the previous month. The average periodof residence was just two years (n=4), excluding one household which had been establishedthere since 1938. This household claimed to own their land: the more recent arrivalsacknowledged that they had just ‘settled’. Those living around Oburama were more settled,and had lived there between three and 16 years (n=14), with an average of 10 years, excludingone household inside the reserve which had been established there since 1950, and claimed toown their land. One other household (17%, n=6) within the reserve also claimed to own theirland, as did all of those outside the reserve (n=8). Overall, one quarter (n=20) of householdsexpressed anxiety over land tenure issues. For those interviewed after the events of June andJuly, the figure for those encroaching on the refugee settlement around Kazinga was 40%(n=5), and for those encroaching on the reserve around Oburama, 100% (n=3): two (67%) ofFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 86these households had had their homes and crops destroyed by rangers. This anxiety isdemonstrated by peoples’ reluctance to replant slow maturing crops such as coffee oreucalyptus, or make major repairs or improvements to their homes until a final decision ismade regarding their future.The principle staple food is matooke, which is grown by all of the cultivators (n=20). Otherstaple foods are cassava (70%), sweet potatoes (60%), maize (35%), sorghum (35%), millet(30%), yams (15%), and Irish potatoes (10%), with beans (70%), and peas (15%) as sauces.Fruits and vegetables include aubergines, avocados, cabbages, dodo (greens), ginger,jackfruits, mangoes, passion fruits, pawpaws, peppers, pineapples, pumpkins, onions, sweetbananas, and tomatoes. The main cash crops are groundnuts (55%), coffee (35%), andsugarcane (35%). Other cash crops are brewing bananas, macadamia nuts, oranges, simsim(sesame), silk worms, sisal, tobacco, and vanilla, which is promoted by a co-op.Access to markets where prices were good was a major concern, cited by half (n=20) of thehouseholds interviewed. The poor communications, particularly to and from the communitiesto the north of the reserve mean that supply tends to exceed demand, keeping prices low. Asthere are no storage facilities, a quick sale is required, and produce sometimes rots. Prices arebetter at Kabagole and Kataraza, as produce can be sent by rail to Kampala or Kasese, andmany households in the Oburama area take produce down to Kataraza by bicycle or headloading. Twice a year the community at Oburama organises for cash crops to be taken toKampala by vehicle.The problem most commonly cited (60%, n=20) by cultivators is crop raiding by bushpig.Twenty percent (n=10) of those suffering could see no solution to the problem, but otherssuggested staying awake at night with a fire and making noise (50%), keeping dogs (20%),planting more matooke, which is not affected (10%), or spearing them (10%). Raiding bybushpig was suggested by one agro-pastoralist household as a reason why they did not expendmore energy on cultivation, and by two pastoralist households as to why they did not botherto cultivate at all. Other crop raiding animals cited included porcupine, vervet monkey, andbirds, as well as duikers, reedbuck, and bushbuck. Property and matooke belonging topastoralists and agro-pastoralists was destroyed by elephant, causing the households to moveor abandon cultivation. However, cultivators did not suffer from elephant damage, as they didnot cultivate in the areas used by the elephants. They did however, suffer from damage bycattle.Half of the cultivators interviewed (n=20) complained of matooke weevils. Solutionssuggested included clearing and burning the affected area (33%, n=6), spraying the affectedplants (33%), and planting resistant or disease free plants (17%), although half of thosesuffering could see no solution, and many complained that agricultural chemicals were bothhard to acquire and very expensive.One third of households (n=9) used cow or goat dung as fertiliser, and one third practisedmulching. Forty-four percent practised no improvement at all, as the soil is still fertile.Erosion was not perceived to be a major problem, and only two households (10%) dugtrenches to prevent it, although there was some interest in advice on this from agriculturalextension workers. Apart from the recent introduction of silk worms and vanilla there is littleextension work in the area, although there is a demand for both advice and inputs such asagricultural chemicals, improved tools, and new crop varieties. There is also a demand for aFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 87maize mill in the area: the nearest one is at Kyegegwa, and for those without access tovehicles, taking maize there is a problem.All households (n=20) owned goats and chickens, and some also owned sheep, ducks,turkeys, and cats and dogs. Seventy percent also owned between three and 50 heads of cattle,with an average of 18 (n=11). Those belonging to households within the reserve were, bydefinition, grazed within the reserve, as were those belonging to four of the households (50%,n=8) outside the reserve, although not necessarily year round. Every household in theOburama area (n=9) watered their cattle at a permanent spring called Nyakafungo, whilethose households around Kazinga watered theirs at a variety of local sources. None of thecattle keeping cultivators (n=14) took their cattle down to the Katonga River to be wateredexcept in exceptional circumstances. Ticks and tsetse flies were a problem (see section 5.4.1),but the cost of spray was more of a problem for the cultivators than other cattle keepers.Although they shared costs with neighbours, 54%, (n=13) of them complained of the highcost of spray, as opposed to just 14% (n=22) of the other cattle keepers. Sixty percent (n=5)also complained about poor prices from traders.5.4.3 Communications and infrastructureCommunications and infrastructure in the area are poor, particularly north of the reserve. Theroads which run from Mpara to Karwenyi and the reserve, and to Kazinga and Biguri are verypoor, and not always passable in the wet season, and Rushayumbe and Oburama are notaccessible by vehicle at all. The poor communications are widely seen to negatively impacttrade and opportunities for income generation and development, and are of major concern.Production in the area exceeds consumption, but prices for produce are low, particularly inthe wet season, while those for manufactured goods are high, and thus wealth tends to flowoutwards. People were adamant that if communications were better, they could raise enoughmoney themselves to meet their own development needs.Overhead electricity transmission lines run along the railway to Kasese, but there is no stepdowntransformer at Kabagole or Kataraza, and hence no service. There is no telephone in thearea, and no post office or access to financial services or credit.The poor communications adversely affect health, as there is effectively no way to evacuateemergency cases, which often result in death. Services are thinly spread: the nearest hospitalis in Mubende, and the government clinic at Kazinga serves the entire area, although peoplefrom Oburama also use the one at Nkoma, and the one at Kabagole provides immunisationservices. Costs are considered to be high, and services poor, with the clinic at Kazingafrequently running out of drugs.Over two thirds (69%, n=29) of households interviewed rely on traditional plant remedies astheir first strategy for dealing with sickness and disease, as these can be collected for free, orpurchased relatively cheaply from herbalists. Some also self medicate with drugs purchasedin dispensaries, although these are not staffed by qualified pharmacists. The health problemsmost frequently mentioned in household interviews were malaria (95%, n=19), stomach achesand diarrhoeal diseases (74%), and coughs (42%). Health workers also mentioned accidentsand complications of pregnancy as major problems, particularly because of the difficulty ingetting to hospital. Diseases of childhood were also a problem, despite monthly opportunitiesfor immunisation, and there had been a major measles outbreak earlier in 1996.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 88Health education and extension services are minimal, in part because of the inaccessibility ofthe area. Very few people boil or treat their drinking water, and sanitation is poor, with only afew pit latrines in the trading centres.Educational services are also thinly spread: the nearest secondary school is at Kyegegwa, andthe primary school at Kazinga is the only one in the area which goes all the way to P7. Manychildren walk long distances to school, and are often unable to attend in the wet seasons, asroads and footpaths become impassable. Traditional education is still highly valued by manypastoralists, leading to low attendance rates and absenteeism of boys in the dry seasons asthey help with watering the cattle. The current curriculum does not support such studentswell, and they and their families are looked upon as backward by educators. The governmentschool is more highly thought of than the private schools because the staff there are properlyqualified, but it is difficult for schools to recruit and keep qualified staff, due to theremoteness of the area. There are no adult education facilities, although there wasconsiderable interest in the idea.5.4.4 Use of natural resources5.4.4.1 LandLand is the reserve’s most important resource for the people of the area: most of them (90%,n=51) have come there since 1980, half (47%) since 1990, specifically in search of it, andpeople are still coming. It is used for building homesteads, cultivation, and pasture. Lowawareness of conservation issues (see section 5.4.5) mean that people do not see conservationas a form of land use, but rather as a waste of land, of which there is a shortage, and of whichthey have need. In the past, a few people have been misled into paying for land within thereserve by unscrupulous and dishonest officials, who have now disappeared. If it were legal,others are still prepared to pay, although most have come to the area specifically because theydo not have the resources to buy land elsewhere. However, if they were unable to continuegrazing their cattle in the reserve for free, there was considerable interest from pastoralists inthe idea of paying for grazing permits.5.4.4.2 WaterCommunities along the Katonga River (Kabagole and Kataraza) take water from the riveralthough this is of very poor quality due to the heavy use by cattle. People in Kabagole whocan afford it pay to use a privately owned bore hole, the water from which is of a much higherquality. At Rushayumbe there is a pool which only dries up in exceptional circumstances,when people must travel through the reserve to the Katonga River. At Kazinga there is a borehole at the clinic which was installed by the UNHCR for the Rwandan refugees, but the waterfrom it is salty and it is now poorly maintained and frequently out of service. When it isworking, professional water deliverers bring water by bicycle to those who can afford it.When it is not working, people use locally available surface water, but may have to travel tothe Katonga River towards the end of the dry season, a daily round trip of several hours.Oburama is served by a permanent spring (Nyakafungo), which is also used by pastoralists inthe area. Other pastoralists living within the reserve use locally available surface water, andmove towards the Katonga River in the dry seasons.People try to water cattle away from sources of drinking water, except at the Katonga Riveritself. Communities along the Katonga River water their cattle there year round, but in theFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 89north in the wet seasons cattle are watered close to the home at specially constructed mudtroughs to which surface water is raised by hand. Until the events of June and July, most(71%, n=28) households moved their cattle down to the Katonga River, where they stayed,during the dry seasons. The pastoralists were keen that the importance of this resource tothem was appreciated, and adamant that alternative sources of dry season water were needednorth of the reserve if they were to be denied access to the Katonga River. They were able tosuggest several sites suitable for dams or valley tanks, although some of these were within thereserve.5.4.4.3 PastureThe reserve’s pasture provides the basis for the livelihoods of the pastoralists, and is anessential resource for them, particularly the dry season pasture of the seasonal swamp. Cattlekeepers (n=20) cited ekijubwe (Brachiaria sp., 65%) and emburara (Themeda triandra, 40%)as being particularly palatable grass species found within the reserve, while omuteete(Cymbopogon afronardus, 65%) was cited as being unpalatable, except when very young.5.4.4.4 FuelwoodAll of the households interviewed used wood for cooking, and most (94%, n=17) collecteddeadwood for this, although a small fraction (18%) cut livewood and let it dry. Onehousehold interviewed (6%) used eucalyptus. Households used between half and two bundlesper day, with an average of almost one bundle per day (n=10, a bundle is approximately 40cmin diameter, the amount a woman can carry). This took women and children between one andfive hours per day to collect, with an average of almost three hours per day (n=5). Despitethis, availability of fuelwood was not seen as a problem by most (77%, n=13) households,although about a third of these (30%, n=10) did predict a shortage in the future. Of those whoperceived either a current or future problem, two thirds (n=6) were planting eucalyptus.Preferred fuelwood species are listed in Table 5.1.Table 5.1 Species preferred for use as fuelwood in and around the Katonga WildlifeReserveVernacular name Specific name Comments(Runyankole)Orugando Acacia hockii burns very hotly with much light, makes good charcoal(78%)Omurama Combretum molle burns very hotly, long-lasting, makes good charcoal(29%)Omutete Allophylus africanus long-lasting(17%)Omukoma Grewia mollis burns very hotly(12%)Omuninya Acacia sieberiana burns very cleanly(10%)Charcoal is only used for commercial purposes, i.e., restaurants in trading centres, and is byand large not produced locally.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 905.4.4.5 Construction materialsA two room mud house requires approximately 50 poles, 10 bundles of reeds, and 150bundles of thatching grass, plus mud and binding fibres. Half of the households interviewed(n=8) had difficulty in finding good poles. Of these, half (n=4) thought that it was gettingmore difficult, and had planted eucalyptus. Preferred pole species are listed in Table 5.2.Table 5.2 Species preferred for use as poles in and around the Katonga Wildlife ReserveVernacular name Specific name Comments(Runyankole)Omukoma Grewia mollis strong, flexible, long-lasting(47%)Omusambia Markhamia lutea long-lasting, termite resistant(36%)Omutete Allophylus africanus flexible(24%)Omurama Combretum molle strong, long-lasting, termite resistant(22%)Omusese Rhus natalensis flexible(18%)Omuzo Teclea nobilis strong, long-lasting(16%)Omukokwa Dombeya sp. flexible(11%)A few people (13%) also use eucalyptus which they either grow themselves, or buy. ‘Reeds’are woven horizontally through the poles, and ekibingo (Pennisetum purpureum) iscommonly used for this purpose. Houses are most commonly (64%) thatched with omuteete,and the bark of omukokwa is used for binding.Pastoralists’ homes tended to be entirely thatched, while those of cultivators tended to bemade of mud with thatched roofs. Pastoralists’ houses lasted an average of five years (n=8),while those of cultivators lasted almost 10 years (n=12). Termites were a problem for 15%(n=52) of households.Various species were used for fencing: the most popular was orugando (50%, n=6). Muko(Erythinia abyssinica) is used as live fence, and granaries are made with omukoma andomusambia.5.4.4.6 Utensils and handicraftsPlants are widely used for a variety of everyday items, mostly for domestic use, although thewomen of Biguri have organised themselves into a group and make baskets, mats andbeehives for sale. The poor communications limit their market currently, but they plan to selltheir products in Kampala. The species used in commonly made utensils and handicrafts arelisted in Table 5.3.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 91Table 5.3 Species used for utensils and handicrafts in and around the Katonga WildlifeReserveVernacular name Specific name Use(Runyankole)Omusisa Albizia coriaria milk gourdsOrufunjo Cyperus papyrus woven lids for milk gourdsOrufunjo Cyperus papyrus hatsOmuzo Teclea nobilis staffs and cattle switchesOmusese Rhus natalensis toothbrush twigs5.4.4.7 Medicinal plantsTraditional plant remedies were popular (69%, n=29), but very diverse. The most consistentlycited medicinal plant was ombirizi (Vernonia amygdalina) (77%, n=26) which was used totreat malaria and fevers. The medicinal plants collected for self treatment were almost allcommon, and there were no reports any becoming rare, although there was evidence that large(1-2m 2 ) patches of omusisa bark, which is used to treat coughs, had been removed from treesnear busy footpaths. The TBA and the herbalist interviewed were both reluctant to revealspecific trade secrets, although they talked at length in general terms. Both collected severalsackfuls per week of plants and plant parts from the reserve, all for local sale. They both alsomade regular trips to forested areas, which they viewed as better sources of medicinal plantsthan the reserve, and claimed to use over 100 different species each.5.4.4.8 Wild collected foodsWild collected foods were not an important component of peoples’ diet. One third ofhouseholds interviewed (n=12) collected various types of dodo, although these often grew oncultivated land. Seventeen percent of households interviewed collected mushrooms in the wetseasons, but 42% did not collect any food items.5.4.4.9 HoneyHoney, which is highly valued, was collected by half of the households interviewed (n=12),although not often. One household interviewed (8%) kept bees: this was unusual, althoughseveral others were interested, but required technical assistance.5.4.4.10 FishThe Banyankole traditionally do not eat fish and they were not caught by any of thehouseholds interviewed (n=13). Around Kabagole some non Banyankole people catch catfishwith hooks and lines or traps for personal consumption, but the people of Kataraza do not.5.4.4.11 Wild animalsThe Banyankole traditionally do not hunt, and no household interviewed (n=13) would admitto hunting wild animals or birds, either inside or outside the reserve. This result was no doubtinfluenced somewhat by the fact that almost all interviews were carried out in the presence ofreserve staff, but many people were quite disinterested in or even opposed to the idea ofconsuming wild animals or birds. The people of Kabagole, Karwenyi, and Biguri organisecommunal bushpig hunts, and the meat of the animals is consumed, but the main aim is tocontrol vermin. Poaching is still a problem in the reserve however, and poachers are regularlyapprehended by the LEW and rangers, although these are not usually local people. Poachingis carried out with nets and spears, particularly for sitatunga in the permanent swamp of theKatonga River. No snares were found during the entire survey. There was evidence to suggestthat in the past ill-disciplined and underpaid rangers had been responsible for some poaching.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 925.4.4.12 Traditional management practicesIn the past the reserve was used only for pasture in the dry seasons, but this practice hasbroken down as the wet season pasture to the north has been encroached upon by cultivators.However, three quarters of cattle keepers (n=12) still burn the grass during the dry seasons topromote palatable regrowth and kill off ticks and other parasites. Sixty-nine percent ofhouseholds interviewed (n=16) indicated that they thought that there had been an increase inthe abundance of omuteete, which they attributed to overgrazing. Three households (6%,n=52) manually remove it from pasture areas: others clear it only for cultivation, althoughsome indicated that if the land was theirs, they would clear it from pasture also. Threequarters (n=8) of households interviewed managed wild trees through coppicing, pollardingor lopping, most commonly omusambia (33%, n=6), but also omurama, omusisa, orugando,omuninya, and muko. Eucalyptus was planted by 40% of cultivators (n=20), and another 10%plan to do so in the future, although obtaining seedlings was difficult and expensive.Eucalyptus were coppiced, and the products sold to neighbours to generate income.5.4.5 Attitudes towards the reserveAttitudes towards the reserve and its staff were shaped dramatically by the events of June andJuly. While many of the encroachers knew that they had settled illegally, they felt that theshort warning they had received, and the lack of any help in relocating had put them in a verydifficult position. Many of the cultivators of Oburama genuinely believed that they were notencroaching on the reserve when they had settled before the redemarcation of the boundary in1993, and were understandably angry about the destruction of their property, particularly theirgranaries, which they feared would cause food security problems. However they wereprepared to talk and listen, and most eventually accepted that both rangers and wardens hadbeen acting under orders, and were not personally responsible for the events which had takenplace.People complained that access to reserve staff, who are all based in the south-east of thereserve, was poor. They called for the establishment of outposts at key points in the reserveand wanted clear guidelines on procedures for making complaints and regular (monthly)meetings with the CCW, both to discuss problems and to learn more about the reserve andconservation issues. There was a great deal of interest in the new wildlife statute and itsimplications for them, and they specifically hoped that reserve staff would be able to helpwith vermin and problem animal control.There are numerous footpaths traversing the reserve, with the most important being the onefrom Kazinga down to Kabagole across the Kakula swamp, and the one from Oburama downto Kataraza and people expressed great concern that they would not be able to use these.Allegations were made that specific rangers had in the past been involved in holding uppeople travelling through the reserve, although this was not perceived to be a systematicproblem. There were also concerns that dangerous animals, such as elephant and buffalo,would increase in number and come out of the reserve, as they had in the past, and thatmzungus would reintroduce lion, with very negative consequences.Fifty-six percent (n=9) of households interviewed were unclear about the location of thereserve’s boundaries, and awareness of the reserve’s purpose and conservation issuesgenerally was very low. Forty percent (n=15) of those interviewed had absolutely no ideawhat the reserve was for. Another 47% stated that it was ‘for game’, mostly in the sense of aFrontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 93repository in which the game should be stored so as not to interfere with people and theirlives: when asked why the game should be kept at all, almost all were baffled. Only twohouseholds (13%) thought that the reserve was for the government to make money, butneither knew how this worked, or imagined any of that money returning to them. Only at thecommunity meetings at Karwenyi and Biguri did enlightened leaders inform the assembledgroup that the reserve could generate foreign exchange through tourism, and was also toconserve animals so that they would continue to exist in the future, although they were unableto explain quite why one would wish for future generations to suffer the effects of bushpigand hyena.Direct and indirect benefits to local people from the presence of the reserve were minimal.Cattle keepers felt that the presence of the reserve served to deter cultivators, and, so long asthey could use the pasture and water ‘protected’ within it, 73% (n=11) thought that this wasan important benefit. Half of the households interviewed (n=12), all of which were outsidethe reserve, thought that a potential benefit to them of the presence of the reserve would be ifit were to succeed in ‘keeping’ all of ‘its’ wild animals within its boundaries, such that theywere no longer troubled by them, although this was not happening at the time. Apart from theunderlying land issue, it is the wild animals themselves, either as crop raiders or livestockpredators, which are the biggest problem.5.5 Discussion5.5.1 Pastoralism and conservationPastoralists have evolved survival strategies based on moving their herds in time and space tofind the pasture and water they need to maximise productivity in uncertain environments.They live off the intermediate products of their herds, milk and blood, rather than the terminalproducts, and seek to maintain large herds with specific age and sex ratios to maximise theoff-take of these and insure them against uncertainty. Pasture is usually communally ownedand managed, and historically, most pastoralists have lived in harmony with theirenvironments (Niamir, 1990; Scoones, 1995). Pastoralism as a subsistence pattern is notintrinsically in conflict with wildlife conservation, particularly if there is not a tradition ofhunting, as with the Bahima, and indeed much of the wildlife remaining in Africa outsideprotected areas is in pastoral lands. Traditional management practices serve to maintaingrazing lands at maximum overall productivity, but habitat conversion or destruction isminimal, and lands held by pastoralists are protected from cultivation and the resultinghabitat loss (Niamir, 1990).However population growth, the breakdown of traditional societies, and insecurity of tenurehave meant that traditional pasture management practices have been widely abandoned inrecent times, leading to misuse of resources. Most traditional management practices are basedon a clear understanding of rights of access to common property resources by members of aspecific group (Niamir, 1990). Communal use has many advantages over individual use insubsistence economies (Runge, 1981), but requires societal institutions with rule making andenforcing capabilities (Lawry, 1990). It also requires security of tenure: where tenure is notsecure, and access is open to all, lack of commitment and investment by users leads tooveruse and degradation of the resource (Ciriacy-Wantrup & Bishop, 1975, after Hardin,1968).Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 94Around the reserve there is currently not a real community of pastoralists, but rather acollection of individual households who have come together in recent times, but have noformal relationships with each other or with the resources they use. Fearing eviction bygovernment authorities or loss of access to pasture through encroachment by cultivators, eachhousehold seeks to maximise its own wealth in the short term, at the expense of others andthe long term prospects for prosperity if necessary, and is reluctant to make any substantialinvestment in the land.Following the repatriation of the Rwandan refugees in 1994, cattle densities in the reserve arelow by sustainable livestock production standards for the region (see section 2.5.1), andovergrazing is no longer a major problem, although its effects are still obvious. However thepresence of cattle and their owners, even at low densities, has negative implications forconservation. Their presence leads to disturbance, harassment of predators, uncontrolledharvesting of resources, transmission of disease to wildlife from cattle and dogs, litter, andthe release of pesticide into the environment, and is not conducive to tourism.The problems of pastoral encroachment on the reserve are extensions of those of Lake MburoNational Park and the Ankole Ranching Scheme, which, in turn, are part of a bigger nationalreview of land and resource tenure legislation. Assuming that the government is going to takeresponsibility for finding permanent homes for the pastoralists currently using the reserve, afinal decision will have to wait until the conclusion of this review. However, there is evidencethat subsistence pastoralism as the Bahima know it is, to a large extent, a thing of the past.Fraser Stewart (1992) argues that there is insufficient land in western Uganda to sustainablysupport the current number of pastoralists, particularly as overgrazing has already reduced theproductivity of the pasture. Conversion from extensive pastoralism to an intensive modernlivestock industry will not entirely resolve the problem either, as there will still not be enoughland, and he concludes that over the coming years, many pastoralists will have to take uplivelihoods which do not involve cattle husbandry at all, which will not be at all easy orstraightforward. In the meantime, while these national issues are resolved, a policy of ‘nochange’ is effectively in place. Encroached upon PAs continue to suffer, perhaps irreparably,while the pastoralists continue to live in an environment of uncertainty and fear andopportunities for community conservation and development are not taken advantage of.5.5.2 Cultivation and conservationCultivation is much more difficult to integrate with conservation and PA management thanpastoralism, as the land itself is completely converted, sometimes irreversibly. Compromisesare hard to reach, and the easiest solution is often to separate the two, by removing either thecultivators (eviction) or the cultivated land (excision) from the PA. In the current uncertainsituation the reserve staff are struggling to conserve wildlife, while the cultivators arestruggling to subsist, and again, opportunities for progress slip away.The average land holding per household in Uganda is just 1.4ha (NEIC, 1994), and thus,although there are more of them, on a national scale cultivators are not as immediatelyaffected by shortages of land as pastoralists. However, the cultivators encroaching on thereserve and the refugee settlement have all experienced land shortages in their home areasand are as insecure as the pastoralists. Security of tenure is considered fundamental to theimplementation of sustainable agriculture, as people must be confident that the fruits of theirlabour and investments will accrue to them and their households (NEAP, 1993; NEIC, 1994),but around the reserve cultivators too fear eviction at any moment, and each household seeksonly to maximise its own wealth in the short term.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 955.5.3 Development and conservationThe provision of social and infrastructural services plays a vital role in supporting acceleratedand sustainable social, political, and economic development (NEIC, 1994). However,encroachers do not officially exist, and therefore are not provided with government servicesand opportunities for sustainable development. Resolution of the land issue will empowerlegal communities and permit them to demand investment and improved services from theirelected representatives.Currently there is no tourism in the reserve, and until such time as revenues become animportant reality, the role of the reserve and its staff in local development will be restricted toissues specifically relating to wildlife, such as advice on fencing to protect livestock andcrops and vermin and problem animal control, and the facilitation of visits from extensionworkers and technical experts to promote small scale environmentally sensitive communitydevelopment projects.5.5.4 Use of natural resourcesThe people of the area rely very heavily on its natural resources in their day to day lives, butthe resource base seems strong and not overly exploited, particularly because the poorcommunications in the area have protected the resources from commercial exploitation. Closemonitoring would be necessary, but possibilities exist for a range of sustainable utilisationprogrammes to be introduced to legal communities. Such schemes should lead to improvedrelations between reserve staff and the communities involved, and encourage thecommunities to value the resources and protect them from uncontrolled exploitation byoutsiders.About 90% of the population of Uganda depends on fuelwood for its energy needs, andcurrently consumption exceeds production, resulting in a net loss of standing biomass (NEIC,1994). Around the reserve however, the recent increase in cover by woody plants, coupledwith the poor communications which preclude commercial harvesting of wood or charcoalproduction, means that there is still sufficient deadwood available for domestic use. Legalcommunities could be permitted to collect deadwood under specific guidelines, andparticipants in the scheme encouraged and facilitated to invest in woodlots.Seventy-four percent of homes in Uganda are made of poles and mud, and 52% have thatchedroofs (NEIC, 1994). Around the reserve almost all of the cultivators’ homes are made ofpoles, mud, and thatch, while those of the pastoralists tend to be entirely thatched. Legalcommunities could certainly be allowed to harvest thatching grass from the reserve,particularly the undesirable omuteete. The extraction of poles however should be carefullycontrolled as this involves the removal of livewood. Again, communities should beencouraged and facilitated to invest in woodlots.The majority (70-80%) of people in Africa consult Traditional Medical Practitioners (TMPs)for healthcare, and increased commercial exploitation is leading to scarcity of some medicinalplants (Cunningham, 1993). Medicinal plants are one of the few resources to be extractedfrom the reserve on a commercial basis, although they are consumed locally rather thanexported. Traditional tenure arrangements may still function, and may be a more effectivemeans of conserving the resource than state control, which is effectively a situation of openaccess.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 965.5.5 Attitudes towards the reserveAlthough relations will be strained until the land issue is finally resolved, there seems to begenuine interest in opening effective two-way channels of communication between thecommunities living in and around the reserve and reserve staff. The CCW should be able tobe more effective now that law enforcement responsibilities have been taken away from him.5.6 ConclusionsPeople living in and around the reserve are constrained in their development efforts bypoverty and lack of technical knowledge, but particularly by uncertainty over the future andinsecurity of land and resource tenure. At the same time, opportunities for conservation arerestricted as the authority of reserve staff is undermined and the reserve is encroached bypeople with little understanding or appreciation of conservation issues.The immediate requirements of local people for access to natural resources within the reserve,particularly permanent water and dry season pasture, but also land for settlement andcultivation, preclude an easy or early solution to these problems. At the very least, a solutionwill have to include consideration of the future of the land within the refugee settlement tothe north, but ideally would be set in the context of national land and resource tenure reform.Unfortunately, while national policies are being decided, the communities and the reserveremain in a situation of uncertainty. A temporary solution whereby access is not denied, butsome control is maintained by the reserve staff may help to limit negative impacts, but mayalso serve to legitimise the presence of the encroachers. The knowledge that such a solution isonly temporary will not enable communities to plan for a sustainable future.The new wildlife statute allows for much more participation of legal local communities in themanagement of the reserve, and provides some exciting opportunities for them to benefitfrom its existence for the first time. However, unless support is given to the CCW to motivateand facilitate him, the new legislation will make little difference on the ground. In the pastthere has been little communication between reserve staff and local people other than throughlaw enforcement activities, but the communities are anxious to communicate their concernsand be educated, and this opportunity should not be wasted.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 975.7 References citedAllan, C.L. 1995. Katonga Game Reserve: biological survey. Frontier-Uganda GameReserves Project Report No. 3. The Society for Environmental Exploration, London &MTWA, Kampala.Chambers, R. 1992. Rural appraisal: rapid, relaxed, and participatory. Institute ofDevelopment Studies Discussion Paper No. 311. Institute of Development Studies,Brighton.Ciriacy-Wantrup & Bishop, R. 1975. Common property as a concept in natural resourcespolicy. Nat. Res. J. 15:713-715.Cunningham, A.B. 1993. African medicinal plants: setting priorities at the interface betweenconservation and primary healthcare. People and Plants Working Paper No. 1.UNESCO, Paris.Fraser Stewart, J.W. 1992. Integrating local rural communities with Protected Areamanagement in Uganda. MTWA, Kampala & FAO, Rome.Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of commons. Science 162:1234-1248.Kayabwe, SK. 1994. A rapid assessment of pastoral grazing areas of Mpara and RwebisengoSub-Counties in Kabarole and Bundibugyo Districts. Makerere University Institute ofSocial Research, Kampala.Lawry, S.W. 1990. Tenure policy towards common property natural resources in sub-SaharanAfrica. Nat. Res. J. 30:403-22.Makombe, K. (Ed.) 1994. Sharing the land: wildlife, people and development in Africa.IUCN Regional Office for Southern Africa in association with IUCN Sustainable Useof Wildlife Programme, Harare.Mason, J.J., & Danso, E.Y. 1995. PRA for people and parks: the case of Mole National Park,Ghana. International Institute for the Environment and Development SustainableAgriculture Programme PLA Notes No. 22 pp. 76-79. International Institute forEnvironment and Development, London.NEAP. 1993. National environment management policy framework. National EnvironmentAction Plan Secretariat, Ministry of Natural Resources, Kampala.NEIC. 1994. State of the environment report for Uganda 1994. National EnvironmentInformation Centre, Kampala.Niamir, M. 1990. Herders’ decision-making in natural resources management in arid andsemi-arid Africa. Forests, Trees, and People Community Forestry Note No. 4. FAOForestry Department, Rome.Nzita, R. & Mbaga, N. 1995. Peoples and cultures of Uganda. Fountain, Kampala.Pangeti, G.N. 1992. Community participation in rural development and natural resourcesconservation. In: T. Matiza & H.N. Chabwela (Eds.), Wetlands conservationconference for southern Africa. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Runge, C.F. 1981. Common property externalities: isolation, assurance, and resourcedepletion in a traditional grazing context. Am. J. Agri. Ec. 62:595-606.Scoones, I. 1995. Policies for pastoralists: new directions for pastoral developments in Africa.In: T. Binns (Ed.), People and environment in Africa. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9

Katonga Wildlife Reserve 986.0 CONCLUSIONSThe reserve has not been great conservation success to date, and its flora and fauna havesuffered a great deal since it was gazetted in 1964. Undesirable species such as Cymbopogonafronardus and Dichrostachys cinerea have flourished under conditions of heavy grazing bycattle, and there has been considerable encroachment by woody plants, reducing thesuitability of the habitat for some fauna. Large mammals have declined massively in number,some, such as lion, topi, and eland, have been eradicated completely, and much of the smallfauna that remains is adapted to disturbance. Grazing, cultivation and poaching continue:reserve staff lack resources and are not supported from Kampala, and can do little to improvethe situation in the short term. At the same time, relations with communities in and aroundthe reserve are poor, especially following the events of June and July 1996. Local people areconstrained in their efforts to develop by uncertainty and insecurity of land and resourcetenure, and suffer from crop raiding and livestock predation by wildlife, as well as what theyperceive as harassment from reserve staff. They perceive no benefits from the presence of thereserve, and are unlikely to do so in the near future - natural resources which could form thebasis of a sustainable use programme are already being used, and there is currently notenough revenue to meet basic operational costs, let alone share.However, the reserve is still of considerable potential and actual conservation value, and isworth maintaining as a conservation area. Of the eight taxa of small fauna sampled, 12% ofthe country’s diversity was recorded from the reserve, and it is unlikely that the survey wasexhaustive. The vegetation is less disturbed than in the surrounding areas, much of whichhave undergone conversion to agriculture, and it still has small but potentially viablepopulations of several species of large mammal. It is also home to several species ofinternational and national conservation importance, such as elephant, hippopotamus, buffalo,sitatunga, porcupine, and shrews, albeit in (very) small numbers, as well as typicallyTanzanian savannah species such as zebra and dwarf mongoose, which are not widelydistributed in Uganda.Frontier-Uganda Wildlife Protected Areas Project September 1997Baseline Surveys Programme Report No. 9