grafex ancuabe graphite project, phase 2, mozambique ancuabe 206amber260717/5. specialist... ·...

GRAFEX ANCUABE GRAPHITE PROJECT, PHASE 2, MOZAMBIQUE

TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE FAUNAL SURVEY

Prepared for:

GRAFEX, LIMITADA. 25 Setembro Avenue nº. 1383,

6º floor, Flat 613, Maputo Moçambique www.tritonmineralsltd.com.au

Prepared by:

COASTAL & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

MOZAMBIQUE LDA

Av. Francisco Orlando Magumbwe n.250 R/C Maputo Moçambique

With offices in Cape Town, East London, Johannesburg,

Grahamstown and Port Elizabeth (South Africa)

www.cesnet.co.za

http://www.tritonmineralsltd.com.au/

http://www.cesnet.co.za/

Coastal & iii

This Report should be cited as follows: CES, April 2017: Grafex Ancuabe Graphite Project: Terrestrial Vertebrate Faunal Survey, EOH Coastal and Environmental Services, Cape Town.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION This document contains intellectual property and proprietary information that is

protected by copyright in favour of Coastal & Environmental Services. The document may therefore not be reproduced, used or distributed to any third party without the

prior written consent of Coastal & Environmental Services. This document is prepared exclusively for submission to Grafex Ancuabe Graphite Project, and is subject to all

confidentiality, copyright and trade secrets, rules intellectual property law and practices of Mozambique.

Terrestrial Faunal Survey 2017

Coastal & Environmental Services Triton Ancuabe Graphite Mine iv

AUTHORS Bill Branch, Terrestrial Vertebrate Faunal Consultant

Bill Branch obtained B.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees at Southampton University, UK. He was employed for 31 years as the herpetologist at the Port Elizabeth Museum, and now retired holds the honorary post of Curator Emeritus. He has published over 300 scientific articles, as well as numerous popular articles and books. The latter include the Red Data Book for endangered South African reptiles and amphibians (1988), and co-editing its most recent upgrade – the Atlas and Red Data Book of the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (2014). He has also published guides to the reptiles of both Southern and Eastern Africa. He has chaired the IUCN SSC African Reptile Group. He was appointed as an Honorary Research Professor at the University of Witwatersrand (Johannesburg), and has recently been appointed as a Research Associate at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth. His research concentrates on the taxonomy, biogeography and conservation of African reptiles, and he has described over 40 new species of reptiles and amphibians, as well as many higher reptilian taxa (family to tribe). He has extensive field work experience, having worked in over 16 African countries, including Gabon, Ivory Coast, DRC, Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi, Madagascar, Namibia, Angola and Tanzania. His African bird list exceeds 1300 species. Amber Jackson, Senior Environmental Consultant Amber, Senior Environmental Consultant at CES, has an MPhil in Environmental Management from the University of Cape Town and has a background in both Social and Ecological work. Her undergraduate and honours degrees from the University of Witwartersrand focused on Zoology and ‘Ecology, Conservation and Environment’ with particular reference to landscape effects on Herpetofauna, while her masters focused on the environmental management of social and ecological systems with a dissertation in food security that investigated the complex food system of informal and formal distribution markets. She has been involved in managing the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for two large forestry plantation projects in Mozambique (Green Resources) and numerous wind farm applications in South Africa. During her time at CES she has co-ordinated specialist studies, put together the Impact Reports, prepared the Issues and Response trails and managed the compilation of the Social and Environmental Management Programmes and Monitoring Programmes. She has been involved in ecological studies in Mozambique and South Africa. Interests include, ecological studies dealing with indigenous fauna and flora, as well as land use and natural resource management. She is registered as a candidate Professional Natural Scientist in the field of Environmental Science through the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP).


Coastal & Environmental Services Triton Ancuabe Graphite Mine v

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Terms of Reference ........................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Assumptions and Limitations .......................................................................................... 3

2 LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDELINES ............................................................................. 4 2.1 Applicable Mozambican legislation ................................................................................. 4 2.2 International guidelines and policies applicable to this project .................................. 6 2.2.1 IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability (2012) ......... 6 2.2.2 IFC Performance Standard 6 ....................................................................................... 6

2.3 Conventions and Protocols .............................................................................................. 8 2.3.1 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Statutes and Regulations ....... 8 2.3.2 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) .................................................................... 8 2.3.3 African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources ................. 8

3 METHODS ................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Literature review ................................................................................................................ 9 3.2 Study site ............................................................................................................................ 9 3.3 Sampling techniques ......................................................................................................... 9 3.4 Species of Conservation Concern ................................................................................. 12

4 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 14 4.1 Faunal biodiversity and conservation status ............................................................... 14 4.2 Amphibians ....................................................................................................................... 15 4.2.1 Regional overview ..................................................................................................... 15 4.2.2 Recorded amphibians from the project area .............................................................. 16 4.2.3 Threatened and Endemic amphibians........................................................................ 19

4.3 Reptiles ............................................................................................................................. 19 4.3.1 Regional overview ..................................................................................................... 19 4.3.2 Recorded reptiles from the project area ..................................................................... 20 4.3.3 Threatened and Endemic reptiles .............................................................................. 25 4.3.4 Dangerous reptiles ..................................................................................................... 25

4.4 Birds .................................................................................................................................. 25 4.4.1 Regional overview ..................................................................................................... 25 4.4.2 Recorded birds .......................................................................................................... 26 4.4.3 Birds of SSC .............................................................................................................. 26

4.5 Mammals ........................................................................................................................... 29 4.5.1 Regional overview ..................................................................................................... 29 4.5.2 Recorded mammals ................................................................................................... 30 4.5.3 Mammals of SSC ....................................................................................................... 32

5 FAUNAL HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS ...................................................................................... 35 5.1 Vegetation habitats .......................................................................................................... 35 5.2 Abiotic habitats ................................................................................................................ 41

6 PROTECTED AREA NETWORK .............................................................................................. 44 6.1 Formally protected areas ................................................................................................ 45 6.1.1 Quirimbas National Park ............................................................................................ 45

6.2 Proposed additions to the formally protected area network ...................................... 47 6.2.1 Important Plant Areas or Key Biodiversity Areas ........................................................ 47 6.2.2 Trans-frontier conservation areas (TFCA) .................................................................. 48 6.2.3 Important Bird Areas .................................................................................................. 49

7 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ........................................................... 50 7.1 Impacts Resulting from Existing Land Use/No-Go Option ......................................... 50 7.1.1 Issue 7.1.1: Loss of Faunal Biodiversity ..................................................................... 50

Existing Impact 1: Unsustainable loss of fauna .............................................................................. 50 7.1.2 Issue 7.1.2: Habitat Loss, Fragmentation and Degradation ........................................ 51

Existing Impact: Habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation......................................................... 51 Impact 1: Unsustainable loss of fauna .......................................................................................... 52

7.2 IMPACTS RESULTING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE ..................................... 52 7.2.1 Issue 7.2.1: Loss of faunal diversity ........................................................................... 52


Coastal & Environmental Services Ancuabe Graphite Project vi

Impact 1: Loss of Amphibian Diversity ........................................................................................... 52 Impact 2: Loss of Reptile Diversity ................................................................................................. 53 Impact 3: Loss of Bird Diversity ..................................................................................................... 53 Impact 4: Loss of Mammal Diversity .............................................................................................. 54 Impact 5: Loss of Species of Conservation Concern ...................................................................... 54

7.2.2 Issue 7.2.2: Habitat Loss, Fragmentation and Degradation ........................................ 55 Impact 1: Faunal impact of habitat fragmentation and loss ............................................................. 55

7.2.3 Issue 7.2.3: Other Construction Impacts on Fauna .................................................... 56 Impact 1: Impacts of dust on Fauna ............................................................................................... 56 Impact 2: Effects on fauna of increased noise levels ...................................................................... 57 Impact 3: Effects on fauna of Chemical Pollution ........................................................................... 57 Impact 1: Loss of Amphibian Diversity ........................................................................................... 58

7.3 Impacts Resulting from the Operational Phase ........................................................... 58 7.3.1 Issue 7.3.1: Loss of Faunal Diversity ......................................................................... 59

Impact 1: Loss of faunal diversity ................................................................................................... 59 Impact 2: Loss of Species of Conservation Concern ...................................................................... 59 Impact 3: Introduction of Alien fauna .............................................................................................. 60

7.3.2 Issue 7.3.2: Habitat impacts ....................................................................................... 60 Impact 1: Impact of habitat fragmentation and loss on fauna .......................................................... 60 Impact 2: Effects on fauna of increased Dust Levels ...................................................................... 60 Impact 3: Effects on fauna of Noise Pollution ................................................................................. 61 Impact 4: Effects on fauna of Chemical Pollution ........................................................................... 61 Impact 5: Threats to Faunal Movements ........................................................................................ 62 Impact 1: Loss of faunal diversity ................................................................................................... 62 Impact 3: Introduction of alien fauna .............................................................................................. 63

7.4 Impacts resulting from the Decommissioning Phase ................................................. 63 7.4.1 Issue 7.4.1: Effects on Fauna .................................................................................... 64

Impact 1: Loss of faunal diversity ................................................................................................... 64 Impact 2: Loss of Species of Conservation Concern ...................................................................... 64 Impact 1: Loss of Faunal Diversity ................................................................................................. 65

7.5 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................................... 65 8 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................. 67 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 68

9.1 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 69 10 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................... 71


Coastal & Environmental Services Ancuabe Graphite Project vii

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: List of applicable legislation ......................................................................................................... 4 Table 2.2: The International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standards (January 2012)......................... 6 Table 3.1: Details of placement of camera traps in the project area ............................................................ 11 Table 4.1 Taxonomic groups and survey results for Mozambique. .............................................................. 15 Table 4.2 All possible and recorded bird SSC for the project region. ........................................................... 27 Table 4.3 Mammals present in the region and their use as a faunal resource ........................................... 32 Table 7.1 Impacts resulting from existing Land Use. .................................................................................. 52 Table 7.2 Impacts resulting from Construction Phase. ............................................................................... 58 Table 7.3 Impacts resulting from Operational Phase. ................................................................................. 62 Table 7.4 Impacts resulting from Decommissioning Phase. ....................................................................... 65

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Locality map of the proposed Grafex Ancuabe study area........................................................... 1 Figure 1-2: Grafex Ancuabe resource and infrastructure footprint within the EIA study area. ......................... 2 Figure 3-1: Top: layout of a pitfall trap array (left), Trapline 2 (right). Bottom: Trapline 1 (left), Trapline 3 (right)

.............................................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 3.2: Camera traps sites: Top D1, Bottom W3 .................................................................................. 12 Figure 4.1: Vertebrate species diversity in Mozambique (Schneider et al. 2005: 8-9). ................................. 14 Figure 4.2: Amphibian collections in Mozambique (Source: Poynton & Broadley 1991) ............................... 15 Figure 4.3: Reptiles captured on camera traps: Left - Rainbow Skink, Right – Giant Plated Lizard ............. 24 Figure 4.4: Map showing modelled distribution of bat species richness across Mozambique, showing the low

diversity in Cabo Delgado Province (Monadjem et al. 2010b). ................................................. 30 Figure 5.1: Habitat Map of the Project Area ................................................................................................ 36 Figure 5.2: Open Miombo woodland in dry season: Left - with grassy patches and stands of bamboo; Right -

with access road and wood extraction for housing .................................................................. 37 Figure 5.3 Open Miombo woodland in wet season with herbaceous and grassy understory. ....................... 38 Figure 5.4: Riparian woodland with creepers along sandy section of Muaguide River ................................. 39 Figure 5.5: Open miombo woodland with cleared machamba for crop cultivation, and timer retained for

charcoal production ................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 5.6: Open miombo woodland: Left - clearing for charcoal production; Right - cleared for artisanal miner

huts. ....................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 5.7: Mashamba cleared from miombo woodland and adjacent riverine forest (on skyline) along the

Mogido River. ......................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 5.8: Small, temporary wetland in drainage line. ............................................................................... 41 Figure 5.9: Small rock pool in the upper reaches of the Muaguide River .................................................... 42 Figure 5.10: Large dam with marginal vegetation and lilies on the adjacent GK site .................................... 42 Figure 5-11 Left - rock outcrop on main ore body; Right - rocky section on Muaguide River ........................ 43 Figure 6.1: Protected areas in relation to the project area .......................................................................... 44 Figure 6.2: Quirimbas National Park in relation to the Project area. ........................................................... 46 Figure 6.3: Location of the proposed total protection blocks in relation to the spatial distribution of density of

human settlements in the QNP (Figure 17.in GNDP, 2010). .................................................... 47 Figure 6.4: Proposed areas for biodiversity conservation in Cabo Delgado Province. The Quirimbas National

Park boundary is shown in blue See Pascal et al. (2013, Figure 25,) for details. ................... 48 Figure 6.5: Proposed Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor ................................................................................ 49


Coastal & Environmental Services Ancuabe Graphite Project viii

LIST OF PLATES Plate 4.1: Amphibians were recorded during the dry season survey (L-R: Dwarf Squeaker (Arthroleptis

xenodactyloides), Flat-backed Toad (Ameitophryne maculates), Greater Leaf-folding Frog (Afrixalus fornasinii), Tinker Reed Frog (Hyperolius tuberlinguis), Mozambique Rain Frog (Breviceps mossambicus), Mozambique Rocket Frog (Ptychadena mossambica), Snouted Reed Frog (Hyperolius microps ), and Marbled Shovel-snout (Hemisus marmoratus). ........................... 17

Plate 4.2: Amphibians recorded during the wet season survey (L-R: Common Squeaker (Arthroleptis stenodactylus), Snoring Leaf-folding Frog (Afrixalus crotalus), Broadley’s Tree Frog (Leptopelis broadleyi), Banded Rubber Frog (Phrynomantis bifasciatus), Lindner’s Dwaf Toad (Mertensophryne lindneri), Earless Dwarf Toad (Mertensophryne cf. anotis). ............................ 18

Plate 4.3: Reptiles recorded during the surveys (L-R: Spek’s Hinged Tortoise (Kinixys spekii), Serrated Hinged Terrapin (Pelusios sinuatus), Southern Marsh Terrapin (Pelomedusa subrufa, ventral and dorsal surfaces), Flat-headed Gecko (Hemidactylus platycephalus), Snake-eyed Skink (Panaspis sp. nov.) from Balema, Speckle-lipped Skink (Trachylepis maculilabris), Spotted Flat Lizard (Platysaurus cf. maculatus) ....................................................................................................... 21

Plate 4.4: Reptiles recorded during the surveys (L-R: Eastern yellow-bellied sand snake (Psammophis orientalis), Common Green Snake (Philothamnus hoplogaster, adult and hatchling), Puff Adder (Bitis arietans), Southern Burrowing Asp (Atractaspis bibronii), Snouted Night Adder (Causus defilippii), Southern African Python (Python natalensis). ............................................................ 23

Plate 4.5: Mammals recorded during the surveys. Top: Marsh Mongoose and Rock Dormouse. Middle: Red Bush Squirrel (Paraxerus palliates). Bottom: Serval and Yellow Baboon. ................................. 31

Plate 4.6: Top: Rodents caught in traps: Pouched Mouse (Saccostomus cf. campestris) and Spiny Mouse (Acomys sp.). Bottom: Freshly-killed Four-toed sengi (Petrodromus tetradactylus), and a trapped specimen being cooked by Tanzanian artisinal gold miners ........................................................ 33


Coastal & Environmental Services Triton Ancuabe Graphite Mine 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To be included after client review….



1 INTRODUCTION Grafex Limitada, a subsidiary of Triton Minerals Ltd., proposes to develop a graphite mine and processing plant with an estimated output of up to 100 ktpa of concentrate graphite in northern Mozambique. The proposed mining project is located in the District of Ancuabe in the Cabo Delgado Province. The project area is accessible by road from Pemba and Montepeuz along a tarred highway (Figure 1-1). The project area is accessible from the highway via a turnoff at the Sunate village, approximately 75 km west of Pemba. The Grafex Ancuabe Graphite project site spans three Exploration License areas (EL 5380, EL 5305 and EL 5336) which are collectively 63 535 ha. However, the DUAT applications for this project will cover a much smaller area of approximately 5 176ha. It is within this area that the minerals to be mined occur (Figure 1.2). The exact extent of the area to be mined is yet to be determined and will depend on the outcome of on-going resource surveys. Graphite is currently the main resource of interest.

Figure 1.1: Locality map of the proposed Grafex Ancuabe study area. The following infrastructure will be required as part of the development and will be assessed during the ESIA:

Site roads providing access from existing gravel access roads to the proposed mining camp, plant, office buildings, maintenance yards, water storage, tailings storage and other infrastructure;

Construction camp to accommodate approximately 500 persons on site;

Mining Camp to accommodate approximately 50 persons in single person housing facilities;

Small clinic for staff and contractors;


Coastal & Environmental Services Ancuabe Graphite Project 2

Site offices located adjacent to the plant. The exact dimensions and location will be determined as the project advances and more details are known;

Site services including fuel storage and fuelling station, potable water treatment facility, sewage treatment facility, mine explosive storage facility and plant laboratory;

A perimeter fence around the camp and security office, as well as key areas within the project will be established; and

An ore processing plant that includes a plant workshop and store, reagent and consumable storage, control rooms, change rooms and plant office, power station, switchyard and transformers and mobile plant.

A graphite beneficiation plant to produce high grade graphite concentrate for export in bags.

A tailings Storage Facility (TSF), waste rock dump, raw water dam and storm water management.

Figure 1-2: Grafex Ancuabe resource and infrastructure footprint within the EIA study area. Fuller details of the proposed operation, associated activities, and legal aspects are covered in the Environmental Pre-Assessment Report (2015).

1.1 Terms of Reference The specific objectives of the faunal assessment are to:

Identify and list all species of terrestrial vertebrates occurring in the study area, based on the literature, published specimens or site records, and likely occurrences.

Record species of fauna identified in the study area by: active searching, opportunistic sighting and trapping.

Characterise the amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species assemblages common to the characteristic habitats within the study area.



Provide a synopsis of the ecological relationships between the animal groups and the vegetation in conjunction with the specialists undertaking the flora survey.

Establish the ecological and conservation value of the habitats and animal communities within the study area.

Identify any new species or occurrences.

Assess the habitat preference of fauna and use these habitat preferences to assess the presence of faunal species.

Identify Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) with respect to endemicity and reference to the IUCN Red Data List.

Define and map faunal habitats that are sensitive and require conservation. These may need to be defined as No-Go or Restricted Development areas.

Provide a general description of the natural terrestrial vertebrate fauna of the area and adjacent areas, and to determine the presence and distribution of SCC, as well as determine the habitat associations of these species and the habitat availability. Describe the proposed project related land use impacts on faunal groups.

Ensure that the report complies with IFC PS6 and discuss how the report and project does and can comply with IFC PS6 in the report.

1.2 Assumptions and Limitations Study specific assumptions and limitations include:

1. Only two short faunal surveys were undertaken, and although undertaken in both the dry and wet seasons their duration can only identify the more common species in the region.

2. Many faunal groups have seasonal activity patterns and are often difficult to find and may also be difficult to identify unless collected for detailed analysis. Some of the species identified are known to contain cryptic diversity that require more detailed study. Their identity is thus provisional and may include un-described species that await description.

3. Mozambique has no national faunal SCC lists. The only document dealing with protected species in Mozambique (MICOA 2009), has been consulted, but the contained assessments are provisional and have not been assessed using modern IUCN Red List criteria. Therefore the conservation status of many Mozambique vertebrates must be informed by their status in adjacent countries, or on international lists (e.g. IUCN Red Data lists and CITES appendices).

Due to previous historical neglect, knowledge of the fauna in the region remains poor. In addition, details of faunal diversity, distribution and conservation status is not uniformly topical or comprehensive. Although birds (e.g. Sinclair & Ryan 2010, etc) and amphibians (Channing 2001, Poynton & Broadley 1985-1988, Schiotz 1999, etc) are relatively well-studied in the region, other vertebrate groups (particularly reptiles and mammals) lack modern syntheses for the region. Taxonomic knowledge of many inconspicuous or non-charismatic groups in northern Mozambique remains poor and new taxa are still frequently discovered; e.g. amphibians (Pickersgill 2007, Bittencourt-Silva et al. 2016), reptiles (Branch et al. 2005, Branch & Bayliss, 2009, Branch & Tolley 2010, Branch et al. 2014, Portik et al. 2014, Broadley & Measey 2017), and a number of un-described species from the northern coastal region of Cabo Delgardo Province await description (Mittencourt-Silva et al. 2016, Medina et al. 2015, Verburgt et al. 2017). Due to these limitations it has been necessary to adopt a precautionary approach when assessing faunal distributions, their taxonomic and conservation status, and the potential impacts of project actions. This is particularly relevant to specimens that may represent new species to science.



2 LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDELINES

2.1 Applicable Mozambican legislation A summary of the Mozambique legislation applicable to the ecological baseline survey for this project is provided below in Table 2-1 below. It should be noted that the list provided is not exhaustive, and has been restricted to documents that have direct relevance to the current study. Details and applicability of the most relevant are presented after the table. Table 2.1: List of applicable legislation

LEGISLATION DATE OF ENACTMENT

NATIONAL LEGISLATION

Constitution of the Republic of Mozambique 2004

ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK LAW, EIA, INSPECTIONS and AUDITS

Environment Act Law 20/1997 of October 1st (As amended

by the Decree 42/2008)

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation Decree 76/1998

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

Decree 45/2004 of September 29th (As

amended by Decree 42/2008 of

November 4th)

Addenda to the EIA Process Regulations no. 45/2004 Ministerial Diploma 198/2005 of

September 28th

General Directive for EIA Ministerial Diploma 129/2006 of July 19th

Amendments of sections 5, 15, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 28 of the

Regulations for the EIA Process Decree 45/2004

Decree 42/2008 of November 4th (As

amended by the Decree 42/2008)

Regulations for Environmental Inspections Ministerial Decree 11/2006 of June 15th

Environmental Audit Process Ministerial Decree 32/2003 of August 12th

Extracts from the Penal Code 16 September 1886

Norms of application of fines and other sanctions prescribed in

the Environmental legislation Ministerial Diploma 1/2006 of January 4th

Law on Crimes against the Environment Ministerial Diploma of 2006/7

WATER RESOURCES

Water Act Law 16/1991 of August 3rd

Water License and Concessions Regulations Decree 43/2007 of October 30th

Water Policy Decree 46/2007 of August 21th

BIODIVERSITY AND WILDLIFE, LAND

Wildlife and Forestry Act Law 10/1999 of July 7th

Wildlife and Forestry Regulations (Decree No. 11/2003 of March 25th)

National Strategy and Action Plan for the Conservation of

Biological Diversity

Adopted by the 18th Ordinary Session of

the Council of Ministers on July 22, 2003

Land Act Law19/97 of October 1st

Land Act Regulations

Decree 66/1998 December 8th (Amended

by Decree 1/2003 of February 18th)

Land Planning Act Law 19/2007 of July 18th

Regulation of the Land Planning Act Decree no. 23/2008

Pesticide Regulations Ministerial Diploma 153/2002 of 11

September



LEGISLATION DATE OF ENACTMENT

Control of Exotic Invasive Species Act Law 25/2008 of 01 July

Regulations on Environmental Quality and Effluents Emission

Standards

Decree 18/2004 of June 2nd (As amended

by Decree 67/2010)

Regulation on the Waste Management

(Decree No. 13/2006 of June 15th).

The Environment Act (Law No. 20/97 of 1 October as amended by the Decree 42/2008) states that all public and private activities with the potential to influence the environmental components must be preceded by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) with a view to obtaining an Environmental Licence (LA) issued by the authority responsible for environmental licensing of various activities the Ministry for Coordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA) through the National Directorate for Environmental Impact Assessment (DNAIA). Since this is a category A project, a full EIA is required. Environmental Audit and Environmental Inspection are regulated, respectively, by Decree No.

32/2003 of August 20 and No. 11/2006 of July 15. The Regulation on Environmental Audit

Process (Decree No. 32/2003 of August 20) indicates that any public or private activity can be

subjected to public environmental audits (held by MICOA) or private (internal). The audited entity

shall provide to the auditors full access to the sites to be audited, as well as all information requested.

Meanwhile, the Regulation on Environmental Inspections (Decree No. 11/2006 of July 15) governs

the legal mechanisms for inspection of public and private activities, which directly or indirectly are

likely to cause negative environmental impacts. This law aims to regulate the activity of supervision,

control and surveillance of compliance with environmental protection at national level.

The Forestry and Wildlife Law (Law no. 10/99) of July 7 and the respective Regulations (No.

11/2003 of March 25) defines protected areas as the territorial areas representing the national

natural heritage, the conservation of biodiversity and fragile ecosystems or animal or plant species

and protected areas classified as national parks, national reserves. This includes areas of historical

and cultural value. The demarcation of buffer zones is mandatorily registered in the National Land

Cadastre.

The Regulations on Environmental Quality and Effluents Emission Standards (Decree 18/2004

of 2 June) establishes environmental quality and emission effluents standards in order to ensure

effective control and monitoring of the quality of the environment in terms of the provisions of Article

10 of the 1997 Framework Environmental Law. This Regulation aims to control and maintain

admissible concentration levels of pollutants being released into the environment. Article 3 states

that the provisions of this Standard are applicable to all public and private activities that may directly

or indirectly influence the environment. Jurisdictional responsibility for enforcing the Standard lies

with MICOA (Article 4).

The National Strategy and Action Plan for the Conservation of Biological Diversity for

Mozambique formulated by MICOA was passed by the Council of Ministers in August 2003. The

overall goal of the National Strategy and Action Plan is summarised by the following statement:

“The conservation of biological diversity and the maintenance of the ecological systems and

processes taking into account the need for sustainable development and a fair and equitable

distribution of the benefits arising from the use of biological diversity.”



2.2 International guidelines and policies applicable to this project

2.2.1 IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability (2012) The IFC is a member of the World Bank Group, and one of the largest development institutions that focuses exclusively on the private sector in developing countries (IFC, 2012)1. The IFC was established in 1956 and works in developing countries to create job opportunities, generate tax revenue, improve corporate governance and, perhaps the most important of all, ensuring that projects contribute to the upliftment of its countries’ local communities. In respect of the latter, it is also the IFC’s vision for people to be presented with the opportunity to escape poverty and improve their lives. The IFC published its Performance Standards (PS) on Environmental and Social Sustainability in April 2006, and published comprehensive Guidance Notes in April 2007. The PSs were revised in 2012 (cf. IFC, 2012). The IFC's PSs are exclusively tailored for managing projects and general project requirements for IFC support. In addition to these standards, the IFC also published supporting Guidance Notes on each standard, which provides guidance to clients and the IFC staff in order for projects to effectively meet the PS. These performance standards (see Table 2-1) have become the international benchmark for ESHIA’s and are used to measure the environmental performance and management of large international projects. Table 2.2: The International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standards (January 2012)

Performance Standard 1: Social & Environmental Assessment and Management Systems Performance Standard 2: Labour and Working Conditions Performance Standard 3: Pollution Prevention and Abatement Performance Standard 4: Community Health, Safety and Security Performance Standard 5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation & Sustainable Natural Resource Management Performance Standard 7: Indigenous Peoples Performance Standard 8: Cultural Heritage

2.2.2 IFC Performance Standard 6 The IFC Performance Standard 6 and the accompanying guidance notes are used by CES to guide biodiversity assessments in modified, natural and critical habitats. The aim of this PS is to protect and conserve biodiversity, maintain ecosystem services and promote the sustainable management and use of natural resources through the adoption of practices that integrate conservation needs and development authorities (IFC, 2012b). Biodiversity assessments should include the following:

Direct and indirect project-related impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services that include consideration of threats such as habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation, invasive alien species, overexploitation, hydrological changes, nutrient loading, and pollution.

1 IFC. 2012. About IFC. [Online]. Available:

http://www1.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/115482804a0255db96fbffd1a5d13d27/PS_English_2012_Full-Document.pdf?MOD=AJPERES [2012, October 26].

http://www1.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/115482804a0255db96fbffd1a5d13d27/PS_English_2012_Full-Document.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

http://www1.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/115482804a0255db96fbffd1a5d13d27/PS_English_2012_Full-Document.pdf?MOD=AJPERES



Baseline studies should include a literature review, stakeholder engagement and consultation, in-field surveys and other relevant assessments.

For sites with potentially significant impacts on natural and critical habitats and

ecosystem services, the baseline should include in-field surveys over multiple seasons. In-field surveys/assessments should be recent and data should be acquired for the actual site of the project’s facilities, including related and associated facilities, and the project’s area of influence.

Existing spatial data and landscape mapping should be included in the analysis, especially for areas located in natural and critical habitats.

An accurate account of threats, including regional level threats that are relevant to the project area and its area of influence should be provided and any pre-existing threats and the extent to which the project might exacerbate them must be described.

Specifically, PS 6 applies to the following habitats observed in the study area: 1. Modified habitats2 that may contain significant biodiversity value as determined in this

assessment; 2. Natural habitats3 which should not be significantly converted or degraded by project

activities, but if no viable alternative is provided, can be mitigated by:

Avoiding impacts on biodiversity through protection of set-asides,

Implementing biological corridors

Restoring habitats during operations

Implementing biodiversity offsets 3. Critical Habitats4 are areas considered as high biodiversity areas which should remain in

a natural state, failing which, should comply with conditions set out in Section 17 of PS6 and a Biodiversity Action Plan, aimed at achieving net gains of biodiversity values for the habitat, is implemented

Although the project area occurs in modified and natural habitats three factors need to be taken into account when considering the above: 1. The project area is located in Eastern Miombo Woodland which is fairly extensive and is

classified as “Vulnerable” by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/at0725, Accessed: 27 February 2015)

2. Natural habitats, such as rivers, may be indirectly (i.e. beyond the project area) affected by the mining activities and associated infrastructure. As such, set-aside areas and habitat restoration may need to be considered as biodiversity offsets.

3. No critical habitats associated with high biodiversity were identified at the project area, only modified and natural habitats.

2 Modified habitats are areas that contain a large proportion of plant and/or animal species of non-native origin and/or where human activity

has modified an areas primary ecological function and species composition (IFC, 2012b). 3 Natural habitats are composed of viable assemblages of plant and/or animal species of largely native origin and/or where human activity

has not essentially modified an areas primary ecological function and species composition (IFC, 2012b). 4 Critical habitats are areas with high biodiversity value including i) habitat of significant importance to Critically Endangered and/or

Endangered species ii) habitat of significant importance to endemic and/or restricted-range species and iii) habitat supporting globally significant concentrations of migratory species and/or congregatory species; iv) highly threatened and/or unique ecosystems; and/or v) areas associated with key evolutionary processes (IFC, 2012b)

http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/at0725



2.3 Conventions and Protocols 2.3.1 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Statutes and

Regulations The objective of the IUCN is to “influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.” (IUCN, Accessed: 27/02/2015) In order to achieve this objective the IUCN implements programmes, administered by the World Conservation Congress, in the form of a number of activities such as:

Research on species and ecosystem function to ensure sustainable, equitable and ecological utilisation of natural resources;

Determine biological diversity, identify threats and priority conservation areas;

Develop sound practices for the conservation and sustainable use of species and ecosystems; and

Develop tools for effective rehabilitation, mitigation or offsets. The IUCN data base and principals are used for determining species of special concern of high conservation value in the project area. 2.3.2 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) The objectives of the CBD are to address issues of conservation, sustainable use and fair/equitable sharing of the benefits of natural resources. The CBD encourage the use of the “Ecosystem approach” which is based on the application of scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organisation including process, functions and interactions between organisms and the environment (Convention on Biological Diversity, Accessed: 27/02/2015). The levels are extended to refer to any functional ecological unit at any scale. The CBD emphasizes that adaptive management is necessary for complex and dynamic ecosystems. Impact responses of ecosystems are non-linear and often delayed, resulting in unpredictable reactive events. Management must be adaptive in order to respond to these events by incorporating a “lessons-learnt” approach and frequent considerations of “cause-and-effect”. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to which Mozambique is a signatory, recognises the CBD and its objectives. The objectives and principles outlined in the CBD should be used to assess impacts and develop management and monitoring plans. 2.3.3 African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Mozambique is a signatory on the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources which was revised in 2003. The objectives of this Convention are to enhance environmental protection, to foster the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources and to harmonize and coordinate policies in these fields with a view to achieving ecologically rational, economically sound and socially acceptable development policies and programmes. Specific to this report is Article VIII which relates to vegetation cover and requires the Parties to take all necessary measures for protection, conservation, sustainable use and rehabilitation of vegetation cover.



3 METHODS

3.1 Literature review The known diversity of the terrestrial fauna in the project area was determined by a literature review. Species known from the region, or from adjacent regions that may occur within the study area, were also included. Literature sources included:

Amphibians – Channing (2001), Ruas (2002), Pickersgill (2007), Portik et al. (2013), Poynton & Broadley (1985-1991), Schiotz (1999), Frost (2012), Verburgt (2013), Farooq & Conradie (2015), Farooq et al. (2015), Ohler & Fretey (2016), etc.

Reptiles – Broadley (2000), Branch (1998), Branch et al. (2005a,b), Branch & Bayliss (2009), Branch & Jackson (2016), Branch & Ryan (2001), Branch & Tolley (2010), Broadley & Measey (2016), Kinder et al. (2015), Perzold et al. (2014), Spawls & Branch (1995), Verburgt (2013), Verburgt et al. (2017), etc.

Birds – Sinclair & Ryan (2010), IUCN (2012) and Lepage (2013).

Mammals – Kingdon (2004), IUCN (2012).

3.2 Study site The study site comprised the Greater Ancuabe Study Area (Fig. 1.1.). Two faunal survey in the project area were conducted, one during the dry season (19-24 July 2015) and another in the wet season (28 January – 8 February 2017).

3.3 Sampling techniques The pre-survey literature review was used to direct searches, particularly for the presence of Species of Special Concern (SSC, see below). Field methods for compiling the species lists involved the following: Avifauna: Bird surveys involved visual encounters, at times conducive to maximum bird activity (e.g. early morning and dusk), in diverse habitats to ensure coverage of habitat specialists. Visual encounters were supplemented with observations of regurgitated pellets, nests, feathers and birds in flight. Bird vocalisations were compared with existing bird call data bases; e.g. Roberts Vll Multimedia (2017). Medium to large sized mammals: “Scats, tracks and traces” observations for terrestrial vertebrates using observations along paths and when walking through the site. Records from opportunistic sightings were also utilised. To determine local knowledge of the current presence or previous presence of mammals in the project area, and the possible utilization of these faunal resources, interviews using visual aids were undertaken with mine workers, and artisanal miners. Amphibians, reptiles and small mammals: Visual Encounter Survey method was used for amphibians and reptiles in various habitats (Figure 3.3). Visual Encounter Surveys included active searching during the day and night. Smalls nets were used to collect frogs and tadpoles, and refuge examination (e.g. lifting rocks and logs, peeling away bark, scraping through leaf litter) for reptiles and terrestrial amphibians (Heyer et al 1994, McDiarmid et al 2011). Breeding sites were visited and frog choruses recorded and identified by comparison with frogs calls for southern African species (Du Preez & Carruthers 2009, and updates).



An interview was undertaken with local people at Ncode Village to supplement field observations and to record dependence of the community on faunal resources. The interview was facilitated by Lina Boque (EOH CES). The group were shown pictures of mammals illustrated in Kingdon (1999) and a poster of mammals and asked the following series of general questions relating to mammals within the region and people’s attitudes towards them:

Was the species still known in the region?

If considered very rare, when was it last seen?

Was it historically present (before the onset of the civil war)?

If present was it hunted or used for any other purpose?

If hunted, how commonly was it caught?

Was it used for medicinal reasons? Drift fence Trap arrays A series of drift fences (Y-shaped or linear, Fig. 2.1) with associated buckets and funnel traps were installed during the wet season surveys. The arrays included 25L buckets, funnel traps and a drift fence 30cm high of black plastic sheet placed vertically onto wooden stakes, with the bottom covered with soil and leaf litter to direct specimens along the drift fence towards the traps. Pitfall traps comprised plastic buckets sunk with their rims flush to the ground level and positioned so that the fence ran centrally across the mouth of each trap. Funnel traps were made from fine wire mesh and were double-ended. All traps were inspected and emptied daily, with specimens released at the site after identification.

Figure 3-1: Top: layout of a pitfall trap array (left), Trapline 2 (right). Bottom: Trapline 1 (left), Trapline 3 (right)



Trapline 1 - Main ore body (12°58’30”S, 40°06’05”E, 213m asl). Y-shaped array, 10m arms with 4 bucket traps and 6 funnel traps (2 either side of each arm). Installed in open miombo woodland with bamboo with rank grass (1-2m) on gravely soil at the base of a rock outcrop. Installed 1-6 March.

Trapline 2 - Closed canopy transitional miombo-riverine forest by stream with mashamba (12°58’57”S, 40°04’04”E, 224m asl). Linear array (30m) with 3 bucket traps and 6 funnel traps (2 either side of fence). Installed 1-6 March. Trapline 3 - Mining trench (5m wide) in rocky soil and surrounded by sparse open miombo woodland on outcrop ridge (12°58’42”S, 40°04’52”E, 232m asl), Two Linear arrays (10m) across diagonally across trench, each with 4 funnel traps (2 either side of fence). Installed 1-6 March.2.1). Sherman small Mammal traps At each trap array site, 9-10 Sherman live traps were installed to capture small mammals. The traps were placed approximately 10m apart were at each site and baited with a peanut butter and oat mixture. The traps were checked twice a day and individuals caught were released after identification at the capture point. These lines were placed within the same habitats the drift fence trap arrays. Camera Traps Camera traps were used to capture images of nocturnal and large fauna which would not be captured in the above mentioned sampling techniques and would shy away from human activity. Non-baited camera traps were positioned with clear areas in front of them (field of view) in areas where animals may be moving. They were set to capture general images every 5 minutes, and also to take a series of 3 images if the camera sensor was triggered by movement within the field of view. Table 3.1: Details of placement of camera traps in the project area

Site Latitude Longitude Habitat

D1 -13.1696 38.8048 Short Closed Miombo and bedrock

W1 12°58'55.57"S 40°04'02.47"E Riverine forest with machamba clearings

W2 12°58'40.50"S 40°06'27.30"E Short riverine bush with long grass

W3 12°58'29.60"S 40°06'04.29"E Open bedrock on top of Rock outcrop

W4 12°58'30.95"S 40°06'03.06"E Dry open miombo at base of rock outcrop

W5 12°58'40.44"S 40°07'01.38"E Semi-cleared miombo at drill site

W6 12°58'39.23"S 40°04'57.86"E Semi-cleared miombo at drill site

W6a 12°58'40.96"S 40°06'40.52"E Small stream in thick grass in drainage line



Figure 3.2: Camera traps sites: Top D1, Bottom W3

3.4 Species of Conservation Concern There is no Red Data Book (RDB) for threatened faunal species of Mozambique. The only document dealing with protected species in Mozambique (DNFFB, 2002), has been consulted. Reference is also made to relevant RDBs for adjacent South Africa (e.g. amphibians, Minter et al. 2004; reptiles Bates et al. 2013; birds, Harrison et al. 1997; mammals, Freidman & Daly 2004) for species common to both countries, and to species included in other international lists (e.g., 2016 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals).



Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) in terms of the project area are defined as:

Threatened species:

Species included in other international lists (e.g., 2016 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals). Definitions include:

Critically Endangered (CR) - A taxon is Critically Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Critically Endangered (see Section V), and it is therefore considered to be facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.

Endangered (EN) - A taxon is Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Endangered (see Section V), and it is therefore considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild.

Vulnerable (VU) - A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Vulnerable, and it is therefore considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild.

Near Threatened (NT) - A taxon is Near Threatened when it has been evaluated against the criteria but does not qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable now, but is close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future.

Mozambique Protected species: Species protected under the Forestry and Wildlife

Law (Law No. 10/99) and Regulations of the Forestry and Wildlife Law (Decree No.12/2002), and listed in MIOCA (2009) Sensitive species: Species not falling in the categories above but listed in:

Appendix I or II of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES5).

Appendix I lists species that are the most endangered among CITES-listed animals and plants

Appendix II lists species that are not necessarily now threatened with extinction but that may become so unless trade is closely controlled.

Endemic species: Species endemic to Cabo Delgado or Niassa Province, or Mozambique.



4 RESULTS The following results combine the literature review and survey findings.

4.1 Faunal biodiversity and conservation status This section surveys the known vertebrate terrestrial fauna of Northeastern Mozambique, employing literature and survey data where possible. The region of interest includes the provinces of Niassa and Cabo Delgado. The dominant vegetation on the coastal plain is evergreen lowland forest, merging with deciduous woodland, with scattered grassland and wetlands throughout (Parker 2001). The plateau is mostly composed of Brachystegia woodland (Miombo woodland), while small patches of evergreen montane forest are associated with higher rainfall in mountain areas (Parker 2001). Available literature on the fauna of the region is scarce, and has not been formally reviewed for any major group. This a consequence of both the long inaccessibility of the area, as well the country’s 16 year civil war that made surveys and scientific inquiry difficult. This is reflected in a summary of the vertebrate species diversity of Mozambique (Schneider et al. 2005), where the mapping of species diversity in the country (Figure 3.1) highlights the knowledge gap existing for the northern part of the country.

Figure 4.1: Vertebrate species diversity in Mozambique (Schneider et al. 2005: 8-9). Yellow dot illustrates the approximate location of the project site



There has been no subsequent review of vertebrate faunal diversity for the country, and the counts for the various faunal groups listed by Schneider et al. (2005) are summarized in Table3.1. More detailed summaries for the various terrestrial vertebrate groups are given in the following sections. Table 4.1 Taxonomic groups and survey results for Mozambique.

Source: Schneider et al. (2005: 8)

4.2 Amphibians 4.2.1 Regional overview In a review of the amphibian fauna of southeast Africa (including Mozambique north of the Zambezi River) Poynton & Broadley (1991) mapped the distribution of known collections (Figure 3.2), and again revealed how poorly collected was the extreme north of the country. This has been somewhat ameliorated by subsequent surveys (e.g. Branch 2004, Portik et al. 2013, Verbrugt 2013, etc.), but large areas of the north remain poorly known.

Figure 4.2: Amphibian collections in Mozambique (Source: Poynton & Broadley 1991).



In a recent report on amphibians of the Ruvuma region, Ohler & Fretey (2014) include a checklist of the amphibians of Mozambique, recording 79 species, with 30 and 27 reported for Cabo Delgado and Niassa provinces, respectively. However, the checklist should be considered provisional as it includes a number of duplications, oversights and inaccuracies. A total of five species of Mertensophryne are listed, although the records of M. anotis (Farooq et al. 2015) and M. micranotis (Rasplus et al. 2009) are probably the same taxa, of which one, or even both, may be new species. The striped stream frog (Strongylopus fasciatus) is included, but this species is restricted to South Africa, and is based on specimens from Gorongosa Mountain, now referred to the species S. rhodesianus. A number of amphibians are wrongly recorded for the provinces of Cabo Delgado and Niassa. The dwarf toad, Poyntonophrynus beiranus, is listed for Niassa Province, even though there are no records (probably confused with Nampula Province). The diversity of dwarf toads of the genus Mertensophryne in northern Mozambique is complicated by misidentification and the presence of cryptic species. Poynton & Broadley (1991) list only M. lindneri (as Bufo lindneri); Ohler & Fretey (2014) list M. loveridgei and M. micranotis (based on Rasplus et al. 2010); and Farooq & Conradie (2016) list M. cf anotis. The latter authors note that their M. cf anotis sample (from Taratibu, Quirimbas National Park, 12.816 S, 39.695 E, alt. 331m) was genetically closest (although still with significant genetic divergence) to Zimbabwian M. anotis. Although not conspecific with Tanzanian M. loveridgei, M. micranotis or M. lindneri, the taxon was not compared with Mozambique M. lindneri. The genetic relationships of Mozambique populations of Mertensophryne lindneri (type locality Dar es Salem) to those from Tanzania, or with Tanzanian M. loveridgei, have not been assessed. Conservatively dwarf toads from northern Mozambique are here treated as M. cf anotis and M. lindneri. Mozambique records for the Mongrel frog (Nothophryne broadleyi) were also overlooked by Ohler & Fretey (2014). It was considered endemic to Mt Mulanje, southern Malawi, until reported from Mt M’paluwé near Nampula (Blake 1965). Recently it has been described from various localities in Mozambique (Conradie et al. 2016a), and subsequent genetic analysis shows that these populations represent a cryptic radiation of at least four new species, all endemic to northern Mozambique (Bittencourt-Silva et al. 2016). The ancestral form of this radiation was recorded from Taratibu, Quirimbas National Park (Farooq et al. 2015). There is no evidence of significant direct utilization of amphibians in the region, either for international trade or for food consumption. Amphibian threats are thus indirect, of which the most significant is habitat loss due to existing agricultural practises. This may be exacerbated by future industrial developments in the region, of which the proposed mine forms part. Increasing habitat fragmentation from land clearance or degradation resulting from agriculture or industry, can lead to secondary impacts, including road mortalities and exposure to predators as amphibians move to and from wetland breeding sites. Frogs specifically, are considered excellent bio-indicator species as they are sensitive changes in environmental conditions and can therefore be used as key indicators of the overall health of a given ecosystem. They are also highly desirable to humans, as amphibians generate bioturbation and control problem insect species through their diet (Valencia-Aguilar, Cortés-Gómez & Ruiz-Agudelo 2013). Threats to the native amphibians of Mozambique are believed to be mainly through habitat destruction (indirect), and are expected to increase with the continuance of industrial development, agriculture and mining. 4.2.2 Recorded amphibians from the project area The updated checklist of amphibians for Cabo Delgado and Niassa provinces comprises 48 species, with the better sampled Cabo Delgado Province containing nearly twice (43) as many species as Nissa Province (23) (see above, and Appendix 1). The latter contains only two species not found further east, i.e. Hyperolius substriatus and Amietia delalndeii. It is probable that the amphibian fauna of Niassa Province will increase with fuller sampling, although it is unlikely to exceed that of the coastal region. At least two recently discovered amphibians are endemic to Cabo Delgado Province, Notophryne sp. (Bitterncourt--Silva et al. 2016) and Hyperolius sp. (Ohler & Fretey 2014). Others, e.g. Mertensophryne sp. (see above), may also prove to be endemic.



Plate 4.1: Amphibians were recorded during the dry season survey (L-R: Dwarf Squeaker (Arthroleptis xenodactyloides), Flat-backed Toad (Ameitophryne maculates), Greater Leaf-folding Frog (Afrixalus fornasinii), Tinker Reed Frog (Hyperolius tuberlinguis), Mozambique Rain Frog (Breviceps mossambicus), Mozambique Rocket Frog (Ptychadena mossambica), Snouted Reed Frog (Hyperolius microps ), and Marbled Shovel-snout (Hemisus marmoratus).



Plate 4.2: Amphibians recorded during the wet season survey (L-R: Common Squeaker (Arthroleptis stenodactylus), Snoring Leaf-folding Frog (Afrixalus crotalus), Broadley’s Tree Frog (Leptopelis broadleyi), Banded Rubber Frog (Phrynomantis bifasciatus), Lindner’s Dwaf Toad (Mertensophryne lindneri), Earless Dwarf Toad (Mertensophryne cf. anotis).

Of the possible 49 species of amphibians known to occur in, 25 species were recorded during the surveys. Most diversity was understandably recorded during the wet season (20 species) when frogs were breeding. However, 17 species were also recorded during the dry season. A further 19 species occur in the provinces, but only a few are likely to be discovered in the project area. Two species were recorded for the first time from Cabo Delgado Province: i.e. the Red Toad (Schismaderma carens) from Pemba, and the Rubber-banded Frog (Phrynomantis bifasciatus) from the project area. Two rare dwarf toads (M. lindneri and M. cf. anotis) were also recorded for the project area. They are probably the same species as those identified as M. loveridgei and M. micranotis by Howell (in Rasplus et al. 2010). The specimens of M. cf. anotis appear similar to and are probably conspecific with material under the same name collected by Farooq et al. (2015) from Taratibu, Quirimbas National Park (12.816°S, 39.695°E, alt. 331m), approximately 40km NW of the project area.



The trap arrays caught only 3 amphibians, including: Trap array 2 - Arthroleptis stenodactylus, Mertensophryne cf anotis, and Hemisus marmoratus; Trap array 3 - Arthroleptis stenodactylus. Most amphibians were identified during surveys of wetland breeding aggregations. 4.2.3 Threatened and Endemic amphibians Currently no amphibians that are endemic or are of conservation concern are considered to occur in the project area. However, a possible new species of reed frog (Hyperolius sp.) has been identified in the Pemba region, Cabo Delgado Province (W. Conradie pers. comm.). It is the first endemic amphibian for the province, and is currently known from coastal pan habitat within 30kms of the coast. As this habitat does not occur in the Ancuabe region it is considered unlikely to occur on the project area. Recognition of new species of Nothophryne in Mozambique (Bittencourt-Silva et al 2016), particularly the basal new species from Taratibu, Quirimbas National Park, has implications for their conservation. The putative species are so far only known from a single mountain block each. Furthermore their specific habitat requirements (breeding in rock pools and seepages from Inselbergs) means that they are likely to be susceptible to changes in habitat quality. The destruction of riverine forest during slash-and-burn agriculture in Mozambique (Temudo and Silva, 2012) and mining impacts upon inselbergs (Porembski and Barthlott, 2000) means that these species may face serious threats to their conservation. Bittencourt-Silva et al (2016) recommend targeted surveys and studies to confirm their precise distributions and habitat requirements. No local amphibians are included on CITES appendices of species whose international movement is controlled.

4.3 Reptiles 4.3.1 Regional overview As with amphibians, the reptile fauna of Mozambique remain largely unexplored. There has never been a formal checklist of the country’s reptiles, and the only available synopses are often generated from online databases and may include duplication and old taxonomic names. The National Report on Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Mozambique (MICOA, 2009) lists only 167 reptile species. This is likely an underestimation of the actual diversity, due to under-sampling in many of the remote areas of Mozambique; especially in the northern provinces of Cabo Delgado and Nissa. The Reptile Database (Uetz et al. 2017) is the most accurate and regularly-updated public database for global reptile diversity. A search (18 April 2017) lists 234 reptile species for the country, including very recently described species, e.g. Zygaspis maraisi (Broadley & Measey 2016). However, nearly 20 species are old historical records under species that are no longer considered to occur in the country, e.g. Cordylus cordylus and Bradypodion pumilum. Removal of these records indicates that about 210 species occur in the country. This contrasts, for example, with Schneider et al. (2005) which lists only 84 reptile species. Due to its length Mozambique passes through 16° of latitude and thus many different habitats. As a consequence many reptiles do not occur in the northern semi-tropical habitats, and the reptile fauna of Cabo Delgado and Niassa provinces contains only a proportion of the 210 species found in the country. Branch (2004) considered that 128 reptile species occurred in northern Mozambique (57 lizards, 63 snakes, and 8 chelonians). Branch et al. (2005a, b) recorded 56 species from the Niassa Game Reserve, including numerous new records for northern Mozambique – Cycloderma frenatum, Melanoseps cf. loveridgei, Lygodactylus angularis, Chirindia swynnertoni, Lygodactylus chobiensis, Pachydactylus punctatus, Elasmodactylus tetensis, Latastia johnstoni, Pachydactylus punctatus, Agama kirkii, and Matobosaurus vallidus, as well as the new girdled lizard Cordylus meculae.



Broadley & Farooq (2014) recorded the first Mozambique specimen of the vine snake Thelotornis usambaricus from Vamizi Island in the Quirimbas Islands, and also noted other reptiles collected during a survey of the island (Farooq 2011), including the snakes Psammophis orientalis, Boaedon capensis and Philothamnus punctatus, and lizards Lygodactylus luteopicturatus, L. grotei, Hemidactylus mabouia, H. platycephalus, Cryptoblepharus africanus, Panaspis wahlbergii and Cordylus tropidosternum. Various surveys associated with studies on the coastal forest of northern Mozambique have included a number of herpetological observations. In a summary of the biodiversity of the Quirimbas National Park (GRNB 2010) 23 species of reptiles were identified, but only 10 on the basis of direct observation. The others were reported by local people. Local knowledge of snakes is always problematic, as rural people recognize only a handful of snake types, with a heavy emphasis on those considered dangerous. Reptile identification requires detailed knowledge and experience, and many harmless and venomous species are group together based on superficial similarity. This is probably reflected in the statement “Black mamba (Dendroaspis polylepis) are common and were recorded in grasslands close to the Muagamula River from the Ningaia region to Napala”. Black Mamba are in fact rarely common, and none were actually observed in all surveys by experienced herpetologists in the region (e.g. Branch 2005, Farooq et al. 2013, Verburgt 2013). Moreover, mambas are rarely found in grassland, preferring open woodlands and rock outcrops, and it is probable that local people were confusing the large Olive Grass Snake (Psammophis mossambicus) with Black Mamba. In addition, among other species recorded in the QNP, the taxonomy is either outdated (e.g. Mabuya quinquetaeniata margaritifer = Trachylepis margaritifer), or the identified species is very unlikely to occur in the region; e.g. Nucras caesicaudata is known only from the lower Limpopo valley, and its presence in the QNP would require a range extension over 900km north (Branch 1998). It is more likely confused with other blue-tailed species, e.g. Trachylepis margaritifer or Holaspis laevis. More detailed surveys (2008-2009) of coastal dry forests around Nhia do Rovuma, adjacent to QNP, reported at least 40 reptile species, including three chelonians, one crocodile, 22 lizards and 14 snakes, as well as a number of problematic specimens (Ineich, in Pascal 2011). Important discoveries included: the leaf chameleon Rieppeleon brachyurus, additional coastal records of the giant chameleon Trioceros melleri, and the worm lizard Chirindia swynnertoni. In another thorough survey of northern coastal Cabo Delgado, Verburgt (2013) recorded 36 reptile species, including such novelties as the new worm lizard Zygaspis maraisi (Broaldey & Measey 2016) and an undescribed burrowing skink (Scolecoseps nov. sp. Verburgt et al. 2017). Compilation of the varied reports on reptile surveys from the provinces of Cabo Delgado and Nissa suggests that 90-100 species may occur in the region. However, a significant number of these are associated with coastal sandy habitats and are therefore unlikely to occur in the inland miombo woodland and rock outcrops of the project area. Only 60-70 reptiles species are likely in the latter. 4.3.2 Recorded reptiles from the project area Of the possible 60-70 reptile species, 29 species were recorded from the project area during the surveys (Appendix 2). A further 3 easily-recognised species were also reported to be found in the region by the mine staff, including the spitting cobra (Naja mossambica), Gaboon Viper (Bitis gabonica), and Southern African Python (Python natalensis). There was little difference in reptile diversity encountered during the wet and dry seasons (22 and 23, respectively; reported species excluded). This is somewhat paradoxical, as snakes are more active during the warm summer rain period. However, it is much easier to find and capture snakes during the dry season due to the reduced ground vegetation cover. Most species were visually observed, and the trap arrays were relatively unsuccessful in capturing reptiles and caught only: Trap array 3 - flat lizard Platysaurus cf. maculatus; Trap array 1 - Philothamnus hoplogaster. One camera trap (W3) overlooking a bedrock exposure successfully captured images of three rupicolous lizards (Plate 4.3) Giant Plated Lizard (Matobosaurus vallidus), Spotted Flat Lizard (Platysaurus cf maculates), and the Rainbow Skink (Trachylepis margaritifer).



Plate 4.3: Reptiles recorded during the surveys (L-R: Spek’s Hinged Tortoise (Kinixys spekii), Serrated Hinged Terrapin (Pelusios sinuatus), Southern Marsh Terrapin (Pelomedusa subrufa, ventral and dorsal surfaces), Flat-headed Gecko (Hemidactylus platycephalus), Snake-eyed Skink (Panaspis



sp. nov.) from Balema, Speckle-lipped Skink (Trachylepis maculilabris), Spotted Flat Lizard (Platysaurus cf. maculatus)



Plate 4.4: Reptiles recorded during the surveys (L-R: Eastern yellow-bellied sand snake (Psammophis orientalis), Common Green Snake (Philothamnus hoplogaster, adult and hatchling), Puff Adder (Bitis arietans), Southern Burrowing Asp (Atractaspis bibronii), Snouted Night Adder (Causus defilippii), Southern African Python (Python natalensis).

Commented [LP1]: Is he the last 2 photos?



Figure 4.3: Reptiles captured on camera traps: Left - Rainbow Skink, Right – Giant Plated Lizard The taxonomic status of a number of species encountered is problematic or undergoing revision. Small snaked-eyed skinks (Panaspis sp., Plate 4.3) were collected during both surveys. Tissue samples from similar skinks from Balema (were incorporated into a molecular phylogeny of the genus (Medinia et al. 2016). It revealed that they represent an undescribed new species, different from the skinks from Nhia do Rovuma (Ineich, in Pascal 2011), which represents another new species. Both new species are endemic to northern Cabo Delgado Province, and their conservation status needs to be assessed. Both may have very limited distributions and may be threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation of miombo woodland by human settlement and mining activities and the development of infrastructure In a molecular phylogeny of flat lizards of the genus Platysaurus, samples from Cabo Delgado Province (including the project area), usually referred to the Spotted Flat Lizard (P. maculatus), were shown to be significantly divergent from southern populations of P. maculatus (type locality: Mitucué Mountain, Niassa Province, Mozambique; 14.7289°S, 36.6419°E). They represent a new species that is currently being described (Whiting et al. in prep.). Flat lizards are obligate rock crack-living species, restricted in the project area to bedrock emerging in river courses, and particularly on the numerous rock outcrops (Plate 4.4), many of which are to be targeted during the mining operation. They are not present on the slopes of the large inselbergs, but may be present on jumbled rock on the lower slopes of the inselbergs. The identity of chelonians collected in the project area present varying levels of uncertainty. Marsh terrapins (Pelomedusa) have recently been revised with the description of six new species and the identification of other putative taxonomic novelties (Petzold et al. 2014). The specimen from the project area has a mainly dark plastron with light centre, and is more likely to be P. subrufa, rather that the recently described P. kobe from northern Tanzania, but this needs to be confirmed by genetic studies. It would be the most northernly record for Mozambique, and the first for Cabo Delgado Province. Hinged tortoises (Kinixys sp) were relatively common in the project area. Morphologically they conform to K. spekii, but this would be an eastern range extension into Cabo Delgado Province, from which K. zombensis is recorded (Verburgt 2013, Ineich, in Pascal 2011). Confirmation of the taxonomic status requires further genetic study (Kinder et al. 2015). Interviews with local hunters and farmers indicated that snakes were still relatively common in the region. The Puff Adder (Bitis arietans) was considered to be the most common venomous snake in the region, although snakebite was reported to be low. The large Southern African Python (Python natalensis) was also reported to occur.



4.3.3 Threatened and Endemic reptiles Endemicity in Mozambique reptiles was previously considered low, and mostly associated with isolated populations on the various offshore islands of the Bazaruto Archipelago (Broadley, 1992). However, numerous endemic species have been described from isolated montane habitats in central and northern Mozambique (Branch et al. 2005, Branch & Bayliss 2009, Branch & Tolley 2010, Branch et al. 2014, Portik et al. 2013a), indicating that other taxonomic novelties await discovery and description. New species are also not restricted to montane forest fragments or rocky areas. High genetic diversity among small leaf litter-living snake-eyed skinks (Panaspis sp.) has been demonstrated, with putative new and endemic species identified in both Niassa and Cabo Delgado provinces (Medina et al. 2015). Speciation of fossorial reptiles in association with coastal sandy habitats is frequent, and includes two new species endemic to Cabo Delgado Province (Zygaspis maraisi Broadley & Measey 2016, Scolecoseps sp. Verburgt et al. 2017). The Flat Lizard (Platysaurus cf. maculatus), common on rock outcrops of the ore bodies and in rocky regions along the drainage lines, is known to be un-described species awaiting description (Whiting et al. in prep). 4.3.4 Dangerous reptiles From the interview data obtained and from encountering potentially dangerous reptiles during the surveys, it is clear that there is a potential health and safety risk associated with Project staff and contractors interacting with reptiles in the field. At least 13 venomous snakes could possibly be encountered in the project area, with the presence of five being confirmed (Burrowing Asp, Atractaspis bibronii; Boomslang, Dispholidus typus; Mozambique Twig Snake, Thelotornis mossambicanus; Forest Cobra, Naja melanoleuca; Snouted Night Adder, Causus defilippii; and Puffadder, Bitis arietans. At least three other species are reported to occur, or are very likely to occur; i.e. Mozambique Spitting Cobra, Naja mossambica; Black Mamba, Dendroaspis polylepis; and Gaboon Adder, Bitis gabonica. The National Census of Wildlife (Agreco, 2008) notes that crocodiles in Mozambique account for more human deaths than that from all mammals combined (elephants, lions, etc). In fact, for deaths where the responsible animal was reported (204), crocodiles accounted for 134 (66 percent) of these deaths. Similarly, for injuries that did not result in death (82), crocodiles were responsible for 36 (44 percent). Only three individual crocodiles were encountered during the surveys, all associated with dams. However, crocodiles can undertake long excursions overland and readily populate new water bodies. They represent a potential safety risk associated with the project’s proposed water dam(s).

4.4 Birds 4.4.1 Regional overview There is more literature on the avifauna of Mozambique than for other terrestrial vertebrates, but there still remains a lack of data for Northern Mozambique. Ryan et al. (1999) found 130 species in central Mozambique, and Schneider et al. (2005) reported 280 for the country for which locality data was available. Parker (1999), following a thorough, yearlong survey of the avifauna of the southern provinces, reported roughly 680 species throughout the country, of which roughly 530 species breed in Mozambique (Parker 2001). However, many of the species listed by Parker (1999) are habitat specific and sensitive to disturbance, not being able to tolerate degraded habitats; either migrating or suffering fatalities. According to Parker, Mozambique has two distinct avifaunal regions; south and north of the Zambezi River (Parker 2001). Birds within the northern region show greater affinities with the East African avifauna, whereas south of the Zambezi the avifauna corresponds to that of Southern Africa (Parker 2001). Only one species is known to be endemic to Mozambique, namely Apalis lynesi, found exclusively on Mt. Namuli (Parker 2001).



Another estimate of the bird species by Lepage (2013) record roughly 730 species while Birdlife (2017) records 671 species. For the northern provinces, Niassa and Cabo Delgado, the avifauna of a number of regions have recently been published. A total of 447 species were listed for the Quirimbas National Park (GRNB 2010), but little supporting data was included. A detailed bird survey in the Nhica do Rovuma region (Pascal 2012) recorded 92 species, including four species endemic to the Dry Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa (Eastern Green Tinkerbird, Pogoniulus simplex; East Coast Nicator, Nicator gularis; Fischer’s Greenbul, Phyllastrephus fischeri; and a new population of the East Coast Akalat (Sheppardia gunningi, globally Near-Threatened). One hundred and forty-six species were observed in the Ruvuma delta, including many seabirds and coastal waders. Nine individuals of the globally Endangered Madagascar Pond Heron (Ardeola idea) were recorded, as well as eight of the 25 birds considered range-restricted to the East African Coast biome (Borghesio et al. 2009). 4.4.2 Recorded birds In total 148 birds were identified during the surveys, with 88 recorded in the wet season, 100 in the dry season, and 40 in both the wet and dry season. Appendix 3 provides a complete list of potential and recorded bird species for the project area, but is incomplete and many rare, secretive and migratory birds may have gone undetected. However, the surveys are believed to reflect a representative sampling of the avifauna of the project area. The most common species occurred in Miombo woodlands, with some species adapting to farmbush habitats. Certain guilds of birds were absent or very rare in the project area, including communal reedbed-nesting passerines (certain weavers, bishops, etc), game birds (francolin and spurfowl, etc), and large birds such as storks, plovers, hornbills, etc. Although small raptors, e.g. Lizard Buzzard, African Harrier Hawks, etc., were present, larger avian predators such as eagles, were almost absent, probably reflecting the loss of their main prey items (e.g. small mammals and game birds). The long history of subsistence hunting and habitat burning in the region is probably responsible for these losses. The absence of significant water bodies precludes many water birds, but these can be expected to rapidly colonize any storm water dams associated with project developments. The most widespread and common alien bird is the House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) which is now distributed almost worldwide. Breeding populations were noted in Montepuez but not in the project area. The most recent and active bird invasives in Africa are the Indian Myna (Acridotheres tristis) and Asian House Crow (Corvus splendens), which are actively expanding their ranges. Both are considered pests, but neither were recorded in the region during the field survey. The African Pied Crow (Corvus albus), an indigenous savannah species, is expanding its range into dense woodlands in association with villages and farmlands around which it scavenges. It is a powerful predator on small vertebrates (including bird eggs and fledglings, small snakes, tortoises, etc). 4.4.3 Birds of SSC A number of SSC birds were encountered during the surveys, but none are in Red List Threatened categories (Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable), although two are considered Near Threatened: i.e. Bateleur (Terathopius ecaudatus) and Pallid Harrier (Circus macrourus). These and 16 other birds are listed on CITES Apprendix 2, which governs their international trade, and which cannot be collected or exported from Mozambique without permission. All are raptors, with the exception of the Purple-crested Turaco. Table 4.2 lists the numerous other SSC birds that may occur as vagrants or were not observed during the surveys of the project area. No birds endemic to Mozambique occur in the area. No wetlands of importance for ingigenous of migratory birds occur in the project area.



Current threats to the avifauna of Mozambique are mainly habitat degradation, through human population encroachment and the associated subsistence agriculture practiced in the region. Charcoal production, fuelwood and logging, as well as mining operations place additional pressure on the vegetation and habitats contained within the region, contributing to the decline of avifaunal richness. Habitat sensitive species may migrate away from disturbance, whilst most birds and their eggs are considered edible. Birds are intensively hunted, not only by adults who mainly target large birds (guineafowl, francolins), but also by children who use catapults and small traps to capture smaller species. Table 4.2 All possible and recorded bird SSC for the project region.

Species Common Name Category CITES Possible Recorded

Balearica regulorum Grey Crowned-crane EN Il Y

Necrosyrtes monachus Hooded Vulture EN Il Y

Gyps africanus White-backed Vulture EN Il Y

Bugeranus carunculatus Wattled Crane VU Il Y

Torgos tracheliotos Lappet-faced Vulture VU Il Y

Trigonoceps occipitalis White-headed Vulture VU Il Y

Sagittarius serpentarius Secretarybird VU Il Y

Bucorvus leadbeateri Southern Ground-hornbill VU Y

Terathopius ecaudatus Bateleur NT Il Y

Circus macrourus Pallid Harrier NT Il Y

Polemaetus bellicosus Martial Eagle NT Il Y

Stephanoaetus coronatus African Crowned Eagle NT Il Y

Falco vespertinus Red-footed Falcon NT Il Y

Falco concolor Sooty Falcon NT Il Y

Coracias garrulus European Roller NT Y

Gallinago media Great Snipe NT Y

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon LC I Y

Tauraco porphyreolophus Purple-crested Turaco LC Il Y

Tyto alba Barn Owl LC Il Y

Tyto capensis African Grass-owl LC Il Y

Otus leucotis White-faced Scops-owl LC Il Y

Bubo africanus Spotted Eagle-owl LC Il Y

Otus senegalensis African Scops-owl LC Il Y

Bubo lacteus Giant Eagle-owl LC Il Y

Scotopelia peli Pel's Fishing-owl LC Il Y

Strix woodfordii African Wood-owl LC Il Y

Glaucidium perlatum Pearl-spotted Owlet LC Il Y

Glaucidium capense African Barred Owlet LC Il Y

Asio capensis Marsh Owl LC Il Y

Eupodotis melanogaster Black-bellied Bustard LC Il Y

Pandion haliaetus Osprey LC Il Y

Aviceda cuculoides African Cuckoo-hawk LC Il Y

Pernis apivorus European Honey-buzzard LC Il Y

Macheiramphus alcinus Bat Hawk LC Il Y

Buteo augur Augur Buzzard LC Il Y

Elanus caeruleus Black-shouldered Kite LC Il Y



Species Common Name Category CITES Possible Recorded

Buteo buteo Common Buzzard LC Il

Haliaeetus vocifer African Fish-eagle LC Il Y

Milvus migrans Black Kite LC Il Y

Milvus aegyptus Yellow-billed Kite LC Il Y

Circaetus cinereus Brown Snake-eagle LC Il Y

Circus aeruginosus Western Marsh-harrier LC Il Y

Circaetus pectoralis Black-chested Snake-eagle

LC Il Y Y

Circus ranivorus African Marsh-harrier LC Il Y

Circaetus cinerascens Banded Snake-eagle LC Il Y

Polyboroides typus African Harrier-hawk LC Il Y

Kaupifalco monogrammicus

Lizard Buzzard LC Il Y

Melierax metabates Dark Chanting-goshawk LC Il Y

Melierax gabar Gabar Goshawk LC Il Y

Accipiter tachiro African Goshawk LC Il Y

Accipiter badius Shikra LC Il Y

Accipiter minullus Little Sparrowhawk LC Il Y

Accipiter ovampensis Ovambo Sparrowhawk LC Il Y

Accipiter melanoleucus Black Sparrowhawk LC Il Y

Aquila pomarina Lesser Spotted Eagle LC Il Y

Aquila rapax Tawny Eagle LC Il Y

Aquila wahlbergi Wahlberg's Eagle LC Il Y

Aquila nipalensis Steppe Eagle LC Il Y

Hieraaetus spilogaster African Hawk-eagle LC Il Y

Hieraaetus pennatus Booted Eagle LC Il Y

Hieraaetus ayresii Ayres's Hawk-eagle LC Il Y

Lophaetus occipitalis Long-crested Eagle LC Il Y

Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel LC Il Y

Falco rupicolus Rock Kestrel LC Il Y Y

Falco dickinsoni Dickinson's Kestrel LC Il Y

Falco amurensis Amur Falcon LC Il Y

Falco subbuteo Eurasian Hobby LC Il Y

Falco cuvierii African Hobby LC Il Y

Falco biarmicus Lanner Falcon LC Il Y

Falco eleonorae Eleonora's Falcon LC Il Y

Ciconia nigra Black Stork LC Il Y

TOTALS 61 18



4.5 Mammals 4.5.1 Regional overview The mammal fauna of Mozambique was last reviewed by Smithers & Tello (1976) when 221 species were documented. Schneider et al (2005) record 271 mammal species in Mozambique of which 105 (38.7%) were considered threatened and 21 (7.7%) endemic. African mammal endemism is relatively high (roughly 40%), and the relatively low endemisim in Mozambique is considered due to the mammals being mostly transitional between East African and Cape faunas. Although no detailed mammal surveys have been undertaken in the project area, at least 46 species of mammals occur in the QNP (Bento, 2003; Schneider, 2004; Araman, 2007). According to DNTF (2009) the QNP is one of the five areas of the country with the highest diversity of medium-large mammals still remaining, with only both rhinoceros species absent of the “Big Five”. The great diversity of mammal species in the QNP is attributed to factors such as the prevalence of large patches of pristine habitats, low human population density and the influence of the Niassa Reserve, which is the conservation area with the highest diversity and abundance of large mammals in the country. Araman & Mahommed (2006, in GRNB 2010) estimated the population size and index of abundance of a number of large mammals in the QNP. The common species (for which population estimates were presented, and in decreasing order) were: Savannah Baboon, Bushpig, Steenbok, Kudu, Suni, Warthog, Elephant and Common Duiker, for which declining populations were recorded for Warthog and Bushpig. Other species were recorded as declining, although no population estimates were presented as numbers observed were too low for accuracy. They included: Red Duiker, Samango Monkey, Waterbuck, Scrub Hare, Oribi, Buffalo, Hippopotamus, Lion, Leopard, Wild Dog, Cheetah and Honey Badger. Elephant were considered abundant and widespread in the park, and used a wide variety of habitats from closed woodlands to grasslands, but always close to perennial sources of water. They were reported to be “…particularly common ..…. in the regions of Tororo, Muagamula, Namacula, Arimba and Pulo in the south of block B, (and) in block A in the proximities of Ngura/Miegane”, and the QNP was estimated to have a populations of over 1000 elephants (GRNB 2010). Sable antelope distribution was restricted to the south-east of block A in patches of open woodlands in the proximities of Mera and Mitepo mountains in the north of Montepuez River in Meluco. Among the large carnivores:

“Wild dog were very rare, occurring in open woodlands, particularly in the Muagamula plains. Side-stripped jackals were abundant and widely distributed in the park, in open-closed woodlands. Spotted hyenas were common and found in open woodlands across the park. Cheetah was hardly seen, with a distribution restricted to open woodlands of the Muagamula plains. Lion used a wide range of habitats and were common and widespread in the park (DNTF, 2009), but with concentrations in Bilibiza, Tipamoco, Nancaramo, Muagamula and buffer zone in the north-west of the park. Leopard is also a common species, using openclosed woodlands across the park.” (GRNB 2010)

Coal (2011), during field work to collect sengis in Quirimba National park, reported an incidental rodent catch, including Mastomys sp., Acomys sp., Gerbilliscus (formerly Tatera) leucogaster; and Lemniscomys rosalia. The preliminary results of a survey of the coastal forests of Cabo Delgardo (Anon 2009), noted a number of rodents, including the ubiquitous species Mastomys natalensis, but also noted that the black rat, Rattus rattus, was also common. Species of Gerbilliscus and Dendromus were also collected, but their species identity remained undetermined. Verheyen et al. (2011) showed the Spiny Mouse (A. spinosissimus complex) represented a suite of new species, with typical A. spinosissimus restricted to south of the Zambezi River. Spiny mice in the area north of the Zambesi River, including Cabo Delgado, were probably a new species. The bat fauna of Mozambique has until recently been poorly documented. The most recent synopsis is 35 years old (Smithers & Tello 1976), in which only a single site (Ilha de Mozambique) had been surveyed north of the Zambezi River. Prior to 2000, a total of 56 bat species were known to occur in Mozambique, and 28 (50%) of these were known from two or fewer sites (Smithers & Tello, 1976),



and at least three of these 56 species were based on misidentifications. To rectify this, Monadjem et al. (2010b) conducted a series of bat inventories across the country (2005 and 2009), including the first detailed surveys in northern Mozambique. They collected 50 species, including seven species new for the country, and increased the country total to 67 species. Subsequently, Taylor et al. (2012) described two new species, both endemic to Mozambique, bringing the country list (as of 2012) to 69 species, with 40 species recorded north of the Zambezi River. Monadjem et al. (2010b) modelled the distribution of bats across the country and recorded 38 bat species for northern Mozambique. Much of this diversity was restricted to montane isolates in the west, and the eastern coastal region of northern Mozambique had the lowest bat species diversity in the country. Due to the cryptic nature and migratory movements, the conservation status of bats is generally poorly known. Of the 69 bats recorded from Mozambique (Monadjem et al. 2010b, Taylor et al. 2012), most were considered of Least Concern (54, 78.3%), six were Data Defficient (8.7%), six were Near Threatened (8.7%) and only three (4.3%) were considered Vulnerable (Lissonycteris goliath and Myonycteris relicta, Pteropodidae; Cloeotis percivali, Hipposideridae). None of these were recorded from the study site, and one of these (Myonycteris relicta) has only been recorded once for the country. Many of the bat species which occur in the project area are wide-spread species of savannah and woodland. Many are associated with rivers and other water resources, and require either caves or buildings, or in some cases riparian forest, where they can roost during the day. While no large bat roosts in caves were observed or reported to occur in the study area, tall trees for fruit-eating bats do occur along the rivers systems in the region and can be expected to be used, at least seasonally.

Figure 4.4: Map showing modelled distribution of bat species richness across Mozambique, showing the low diversity in Cabo Delgado Province (Monadjem et al. 2010b). 4.5.2 Recorded mammals



Due to the brief faunal survey no detailed investigation of the mammal fauna could be undertaken. Of the possible 145 mammal species which may occur in the study area, including numerous large mammals, many now locally extinct, 23 were recorded during the surveys. A further 20 species were reported to still occur in the region, although some were acknowledged to now be very rare (see Appendix 4). The camera traps revealed the presence of a number of small mammals, including Rock Dormouse (Graphiurus platyops), Smith’s Bush Squirrel (Paraxerus cepapi), Marsh Mongoose (Atilax paludinosus), Yellow Baboon (Papio cynocephalus), and Serval (Leptailurus serval). Few mammals were collected in Sherman live trap arrays. In total 29 baited traps were placed at three sites for six days (174 trap nights), but resulted in only three captures (1.7% success): a juvenile Pouched Mouse (Saccostomus cf. campestris), an adult Spiny Mouse (Acomys sp.), and a subadult invasive Balck Rat (Rattus rattus).

Plate 4.5: Mammals recorded during the surveys. Top: Marsh Mongoose and Rock Dormouse. Middle: Red Bush Squirrel (Paraxerus palliates). Bottom: Serval and Yellow Baboon.



Fourteen other mammals were directly observed or their presence was indirect confirmed (e.g. as mole rat mounds, porcupine quills, spoor, etc). They included: Vervet Monkey, White-collared Monkey, Yellow Baboon, Scrub Hare, Silvery Mole Rat, Cape Porcupine, Striped Bush Squirrel, Greater Cane Rat (collected by local hunter), Side-striped Jackel, Slended, White-tailed and Banded mongoose, Rock Hyrax and Bushbuck. The characteristic tracks of sengi were encountered in Miombo and riverine forest, and two adult Four-tied Elephant Shrew were snared for food by artisinal Tanzanian miners working in the Mogido River in the northern part of the survey area (Fig. 4.4). The results of an interview with local people are summarised in Table 6.2. Hunting was common yet only a few medium-sized animals were collected and all meat was eaten or sold. A number of medium-sized to large mammals recorded by Smithers & Tello (1976) were considered locally extinct by villagers, they included Lion, Cheetah and African Wild Dog. A few mammals were known by villagers to occur, but are rarely seen due to hunting efforts. They include: Bushpig, Hyena, and Waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus). The pangolin was the only known mammal captured for the trade of exotic wildlife. In addition, dead specimens are collected for their scales which were previously used in local rituals, but which are now more likely to be stored and sold to Asian dealers. Table 4.3 Mammals present in the region and their use as a faunal resource

4.5.3 Mammals of SSC Six mammals in the project region are considered threatened (IUCN, 2016) and 13 species are protected by Law (Rep. de Moçambique, 2002). The latter (marked with * in Apprendix 4) do not necessarily represent internationally threatened species, but species considered of special concern in Mozambique. Threatened mammals include: Chequered Giant Sengi (Rhynchocyon cirnei), Near Threatened; Ground Pangolin (Smutsia temminickii), Vulnerable; African Wild Dog (Lycaon pictus), Endangered; Vulnerable; African Lion (Panthera leo), Vulnerable; Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), Vulnerable; African Elephant (Loxodonta africana), Vulnerable; and Common Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibious), Vulnerable.

SPECIES SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMENTS

Pangolin Smutsia temmincki All are killed and scales collected, even from dead specimens. Used as charms or sold to dealers.

Fruit Bats Eidolon, etc. Seasonal occurance, but not common and not eaten.

Scrub Hare Lepus saxatilis Present and hunted with dogs.

Porcupine Hystrix africaeaustralis Present, relatively common, and snared or dug out of burrows to eat.

Rats and mice Present in the agricultural fields and eaten, caught with traps and hunted with dogs in the dry season after fires.

Silvery mole rat Heliophobius argenteocinereus

Present and eaten. Teeth are used for medicinal use- ground up and placed in cuts.

Samango Monkey Not eaten; mainly along rivers; may be problem in crops

Vervet Monkey Cercopithecus pygerythrus Not eaten; mainly along rivers; may be problem in crops; hunted with dogs.

Yellow Baboon Papio cynocephalus Not eaten; may be problem in crops; hunted with dogs.

Mozambique Dwarf Galago

Paragalago granti Present, collected by chopping down tree and extracted from hole and eaten.

Caracal & African Wild Cat

Felis caracal & F. sylvestris Present, only a problem when infected with rabies.

Spotted Hyena Hyaena hyaena Common and problem; attacks livestock.

Leopard Panthera pardus Present, but rarely attacks livestock

Wild dog Lycaon pictus Previously present but no longer present.

Elephant Loxodonta africana Common previously, now rare and secretive. May damage crops.

Suni & Common Duiker

Neotragus moschatus & Sylvicapra grimmia

Still relatively common and hunted with dogs and snares.

Warthog & Bushpig Phacochoerus africanus & Potamochoerus larvatus

Still present but rarely caught. Hunted for food with dogs, snares and guns; and sold in village; not eaten by muslims but may be killed to sell.



Although all are present in the QNP, no suitable habitat for Hippopotamus occurs in the project area, and wild dog, lion and cheetah are historically extirpated in the region, and will occur only as vagrants from the QNP or further afield (e.g. Niassa Game Reserve). Suitable habitat for giant sengi and pangolin still occur in the project area, and they may still occur, albeit in low numbers. The most conspicuous of the threatened species in the project area is the African Elephant, with a single individual passing through the project area a few weeks prior to the wet season survey. Although an important population of elephants is found in the QNP (GRNB 2010), the large human population within the region has caused substantial animal-human conflict and large numbers of elephant have been killed (Gosling 2014). If the QNP is unable to serve as a meaningful sanctuary for these large pachyderms, their retreat into regions of low human density will increasingly occur.

Plate 4.6: Top: Rodents caught in traps: Pouched Mouse (Saccostomus cf. campestris) and Spiny Mouse (Acomys sp.). Bottom: Freshly-killed Four-toed sengi (Petrodromus tetradactylus), and a trapped specimen being cooked by Tanzanian artisinal gold miners

Sengis (Macroscelididae and previously called elephant shrews) are members of an ancient group of mammals (Afrotheria) that evolved in Africa over 100 million years ago and includes seven distinct, but phylogenetically related groups (elephants, sea cows, hyraxes, sengis, the aardvark, tenerecs, and golden -moles). Coal (2011) recorded both the four-toed sengi (Petrodromus tetradactylus) and the Chequered Giant Sengi (Rhynchocyon cirnei) from the Mareja Community Reserve in the Quirimbas National Park. Sengis are thought of as EDGE (Evolutionarily Distinct & Globally Endangered) species (http://www.edgeofexistence.org), in addition to their evolutionary distinctness, three of the four known species of giant sengis are of conservation concern (http://www.iucnredlist.org; Coals 2011). Giant sengis throughout the east coast of Africa are threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation (Nicoll & Rathbun 1990), and the Chequered Giant Sengi is listed as Near Threatened. It occurs from Quilimane to southern Tanzania. It is diurnal and prefers closed-canopy riverine forest with leaf litter cover. Stairs' White-collared Monkey (Cercopithecus m. erythrarchus) is forest-restricted and forms part of the arboreal guenon complex that ranges from central and eastern to southern Africa in different evergreen forest types including coastal forests. The complex is highly polytypic and sometimes divided into two species - C. mitis and C. albigularis. It is closely related to the Samango Monkey of

http://www.iucnredlist.org/



South Africa, which listed as Regionally Vulnerable in the Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa. However, the Mozambique coastal populations are not currently considered threatened, although they are found in increasingly small coastal forest isolates. Major threats to mammal biodiversity in the region is subsistence hunting and habitat destruction, as well as the impacts of uncontrolled burning, slash and burn agriculture, livestock overgrazing and uncontrolled settlements. With regards to larger mammals, many of the threatened species in Mozambique are either hunted for subsistence, are susceptible to habitat loss, or are key factors in human/wildlife conflict, and over 70% of elephant in the QNP were killed by hunters (Gosling 2014). Subsistence use and habitat degradation are key factors affecting the population dynamics of Red-Data small mammals in the region.



5 FAUNAL HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS The distributions of many animal species are linked to vegetation communities, within which they may require various abiotic components, such as rock outcrops for basking and shelter, wetlands for breeding and feeding, etc. Many animal distributions are thus best understood in terms of their habitat linkages, and vegetation community maps can therefore serve as a proxy for the distribution of these animals. The availability and nature of surface water is fundamental for the of many species and its availability will affect their occurrence, distribution and seasonal movements.

5.1 Vegetation habitats The study area was previously dominated by various forms of Miombo woodland (see Vegetation Specialist Report (CES *****). Much of this has now been cleared or degraded by resource extraction, and/or changes in water and fire regimes. The main vegetation habitats are mapped in Figure 5.1, and include:

Miombo Woodland

Riparian Woodland

Agricultural lands

Commented [JG2]: Include later



Figure 5.1: Habitat Map of the Project Area



Miombo woodland The dominant habitat in the broader region comprises Miombo woodland. This takes various forms depending upon the underlying soils and rainfall, and may form open woodland with a conspicuous grassy understory, or mature, tall, almost closed-canopy woodland with a more herbaceous understory and leaf litter. The long history of slash-and-burn agriculture in the region, as well as the increasing prevalence of selective timber harvest in charcoal-production, means that few areas have pristine woodland showing natural progression. This is also compounded by the reduction of large herbivores due to hunting pressure and human encroachment. Many areas have been previously cleared for agriculture, and are degraded due to historical and on-going land use, as well as particularly regular burning in the dry season. The existing fauna still reflects that common in miombo woodlands, but with the loss or even local extinction of much of the large mammal herbivores and their associated predators. The habitat mosaic of woodland and open habitats that natural grazing with large herbivores, particularly elephant, generates has to some extent been maintained the long history of human subsistence farming allowing savannah and grassland species tolerant of the open habitats to survive in the region. Birds, due to their high mobility, form the main component of open habitat generalists that have occupy secondary woodland habitats in various stages of succession previously generated by large herbivores, but now (often excessively) by humans.

Figure 5.2: Open Miombo woodland in dry season: Left - with grassy patches and stands of bamboo; Right - with access road and wood extraction for housing



Figure 5.3 Open Miombo woodland in wet season with herbaceous and grassy understory.

Species dependent upon woodland habitats, particularly large mammal browsers such as African Elephant (Loxodonta africana), Greater Kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), Impala (Aepyceros melampus), Sable (Hippotragus niger), and Roan (Hippotragus equinus) are now either locally extinct or very rare vagrants, due in part to hunting, but also habitat loss. Savannah amphibians, such as the toads Sclerophrys gutturalis and S. pusilla, will become more common, and a transition from woodland/forest snakes to savannah relatives can be expected, with the black mamba (Dendroaspis polylepis) replacing the green mamba (D. angusticeps), and the spitting cobra (Naja mossambica) replacing the forest cobra (N. melanoleuca). Riparian Woodland Water associated with the major drainage lines, particularly along the rivers and larger tributaries, stimulate a tall riparian habitat. These areas are characterised by permanent, semi-permanent or seasonally inundated drainage lines and rivers, giving way to associated swampy wetlands (dambos) and riparian vegetation (forest/reeds). These wet areas show excellent grazing potential for small and larger hooved animals and may also provide excellent refugia and/or corridors for other mammal species. Where the drainage lines lead into permanent rivers and associated closed forests, the overall mammal sensitivity of this habitat type is considered to be high (Figure 5.4). Riparian zones and wetlands constitute features of conservation concern as they are process areas that are essential for ecosystem functioning, and provide niché habitats for a variety of plants and animals. The vegetation of the riparian zones provide potential habitat for a unique bird composition not likely to be encountered in other habitats. The ephemeral nature of many of the rivers in the project area means that birds of open river and bankside habitats (include Three-banded Plover (Charadrius tricollaris), African Pied Wagtail (Motacilla aguimp), Pied Kingfisher (Ceryle rudis), Giant Kingfisher (Megaceryle maximus), Malachite Kingfisher (Alcedo cristata), African Fish-eagle (Haliaeetus vocifer), Reed Cormorant (Phalacrocorax africanus) and various members of the Ardeidae (herons & egrets) will be present only when suitable habitats are present for at least part of the year. Reed beds and rank grasslands are the preferred habitat for a number of specialised species such as the Lesser Swamp Warbler (Acrocephalus gracilirostris), whilst also providing important nesting and roosting habitat for certain dryland foraging species (e.g. weavers, bishops, swallows).



Figure 5.4: Riparian woodland with creepers along sandy section of Muaguide River The presence of amphibians in the river/drainage lines also forms a major food resource for many reptilian, bird and mammalian predators. Due to moisture in the drainage lines plant growth is usually dense, often with large trees present. Vegetation types associated with rivers/drainage lines (e.g. riverine forest and riverine vegetation) are often restricted and scarce, giving the habitat a high conservation value. Fauna of conservation concern likely to occur in these habitats include the Southern rock python (Python natalensis) and various raptors and owls. Farmland/ Mshambas (cleared miombo woodlands) Some parts of the region, particularly along major transport linkages, comprise extensive tracts of cleared miombo woodland currently used for rural agriculture on a rotational cycle. This habitat is characterised by patches of secondary miombo woodland, fallow clearings covered by grasses, and cultivated lands mainly of cassava and maze, and with banana groves along drainage lines. There is also extensive clearing of miombo woodland timber for charcoal production, and transport for sale to adjacent villages and towns (including Pemba). The extraction and export of charcoal is facilitated by logging and mining tracks which allow bicycle and vehicle access to pristine woodlands. Mashambas may retain a surprisingly high faunal diversity, particularly common commensal birds, such as Cape Turtle Dove, Village Weaver, Yellow-eyed Canary and Black-eyed Bulbul, as well open savannah species such as Lilac-breasted Roller, Long-tailed Paradise Wydah, Blue Waxbill and Southern Red Bishop. Temporary pools form after heavy summer rains in low-lying spots and attract numerous frogs and toads, which in turn support small cryptic snake predators. Grassy cover increases due to high insolation leading to an influx of small seed-eating birds and rodents. Secretive small herbivores, e.g. suni and common duiker, may also be attracted by the grass flush, but their numbers can be quickly reduced/extirpated by hunting pressures. Such hunting is particularly directed against mammals, e.g. baboon, monkeys, ruminants and elephants, which damage crops.



Figure 5.5: Open miombo woodland with cleared machamba for crop cultivation, and timer retained for charcoal production

Figure 5.6: Open miombo woodland: Left - clearing for charcoal production; Right - cleared for artisanal miner huts.

Figure 5.7: Mashamba cleared from miombo woodland and adjacent riverine forest (on skyline) along the Mogido River.



5.2 Abiotic habitats Wetlands, river pools and dams Due to the hilly topography there are no large wetlands in the direct project area, although seasonal wetlands are generated in lowland areas in association with heavy summer rain (Figure 5-8). These were the main sites for amphibian breeding as up to 10 species were recorded at such sites during the wet season survey, including reed frogs (Hyperolius tuberlinguis, H. microps, etc), Leaf-folding frogs (Afrixalus fornasinii, etc.), Ridged frogs (Ptychadena anchietae, P. mossambica, etc.), and the African Bullfrog (Pyxicephalus edulis). At such times the influx into ephemeral wetlands of amphibians and aquatic invertebrates attracts a suite of predators, including herons, egrets, frog-eating snakes, etc.

Figure 5.8: Small, temporary wetland in drainage line. Depending on the severity of the dry season, the larger streams and rivers of the region contain numerous temporary pools (Figure 5.9) which provide suitable breeding sites and refugia for fish, amphibians, terrapins, birds (e.g. kingfishers), and aquatic mammals (e.g. Cape Clawless Otter) when the main river dried up. Most large pools are associated with rocky areas where water turbulence from running water scours out pools in the sandy substrate. These pools may also trap valuable minerals and gemstones, and therefore increasingly affected by migrant artisanal gold and ruby miners. This results in numerous impacts, including riverbed excavations, utilization of surrounding natural resources for housing and subsistence (Plate 5.8), and water pollution, particularly from mercury utilized in extracting gold. Artisanal mining therefore effects the ecological functioning of these pools, particularly their role as dry season refugia for various aquatic species. As some of the only bodies of permanent water in the region, the large river pools are especially important for fish, aquatic amphibians (Xenopus muelleri), and frogs with long tadpole maturation (e.g. the river frog Amietia delandii).



There are no artificial impoundments in the project area, although a series of dams occur adjacent to the southwest of the site, the largest being one of several dams on the adjacent GK property (Figure 5.10). These permanent water bodies, the most extensive in the region, contain numerous crocodiles (to 3m), as well as other aquatic reptiles, frogs and water birds (e.g. African Jacana, African Fish Eagle, Green-backed and Grey Heron, etc) not usually encountered in the project area. The additional biodiversity utilizing these dams will allow colonization of the proposed storm water dam(s) associated with the proposed project infrastructure.

Figure 5.9: Small rock pool in the upper reaches of the Muaguide River

Figure 5.10: Large dam with marginal vegetation and lilies on the adjacent GK site



Rock outcrops Although no large granite inselbergs emerge in the project area, they do occur within 5km of the southwestern boundary and the inselbergs of Taratibu, Quirimbas National Park (12.816°S, 39.695°E) occur only 25km northwest of the project area. The region is characterised by granitic outcrops, ridges and areas of bedrock and small outcrops. These form important habitat for many reptiles, e.g. Spotted Flat Lizard (Platysaurus maculatus) and Giant Plated Lizard (Matobosaurus validus), and also some mammals (e.g. rock hyrax and rock dormouse). They are also exposed in drainage lines, allowing the development of deep pools that hold water in the dry season and therefore serve as refugia for fish, terrapins and aquatic frogs (e.g. Xenopus muelleri), as well as sources of drinking water during the dry season.

Figure 5-11 Left - rock outcrop on main ore body; Right - rocky section on Muaguide River



6 PROTECTED AREA NETWORK The formal protected area network in northern Mozambique is relatively extensive (Fig. 6.1). However, continuing problems of declining infrastructure and protection have led to ineffective wildlife protection in many isolated parts of the country (Gosling 2014). Despite these problems, the components of the network comprise areas that should not be impacted by project developments, and which may inform and support impact mitigation. There have been extensive programmes to uplift and revitalize the protected area network and protect biodiversity in the country (see recent reviews: AGRECO 2008, USAid 2008). Supplementing formally protected areas, other areas may be listed by international agencies and NGOs to highlight their biodiversity or conservation significance, e.g. Important Bird Areas (Birdlife 2017).

Figure 6.1: Protected areas in relation to the project area



6.1 Formally protected areas Existing legislation makes provision for the creation of protected areas under six categories: National Park, Game Reserve, Partial Reserve, Faunal Reserve, Hunting and Photographic Safari Area and Forest Reserve. The closest protected area is the Quirimbas National Park that occurs 85 km north-east of the project site. The closest Game Reserve is the Niassa Reserve which is one of the largest protected Miombo forest ecosystems in the world, with a surface of 42,200 km². The Niassa Reserve is the largest conservation area of Mozambique and it contains by far the greatest concentration of wildlife in the country (USAid 2008). 6.1.1 Quirimbas National Park

Created in 2002, the Quirimbas National Park (QNP) is located within Cabo Delgado Province, and comprises of parts of six central districts of the province, namely: Meluco, Ancuabe, Macomia, Ibo, Pemba-Metuge and Quissanga. QNP covers an area of approximately 7506 km2, of which about 80% (5984 km2) occurs on the mainland. The western boundary of the park is bounded by the rivers: Montepuez Nacojo, Nenete, Messala and Muagide. It occurs in very close proximity to the northern section of the project area. Over 35 000 people currently live within the boundaries of the QNP, leading to considerale human-animal conflict. Medim and large mammals are concentrated in the interior of the Meluco, Quissanga, Macomia and Ancuabe districts of the QNP, where three blocks (Figure 6.3 - A-C) were identified as potential zones for total protection due to a low density of human population, and therefore the low incidence of threats to species and/or their habitats (GDNB 2010). Block B lies within close proximity to the northern edge of the proposed project.

Commented [JG3]: Amber is currently dealing with this. May be worthwhile asking her for more detail,

Commented [LP4R3]: We have provided a boundary map, and also made comments on this. It’s likely that Amber may need to update this section. And on another note the fonts in this section seem to have gone awry.



Figure 6.2: Quirimbas National Park in relation to the Project area. Burgess et al. (2003) note that although an important population of elephants is found within the QNP, “..the overall biological value of the area remains unknown” due to the lack of detailed checklists of the other faunal groups. This has been partially addressed with more detailed studies on biodiversity within the QNP (GDNB 2010). The large human population within the park causes numerous problems of animal-human conflict, and the conservation of the large mammal populations has been noted to be of immediate concern, with large numbers of elephant being killed (Gosling 2014). Without more effective policing the ability of the QNP to serve its mandate in the protection of biodiversity is doubtful.



Figure 6.3: Location of the proposed total protection blocks in relation to the spatial distribution of density of human settlements in the QNP (Figure 17.in GNDP, 2010).

6.2 Proposed additions to the formally protected area network 6.2.1 Important Plant Areas or Key Biodiversity Areas A network of areas across NE Cabo Delgado for the conservation of plant and animal diversity was proposed by Timberlake et al (2010). Numerous Important Plant Areas or Key Biodiversity Areas were proposed (Figure 6.4) and await consideration as to their practical management and acceptance of societal committement by provincial/national authoritities. It was proposed (Timberlake et al 2010) that the Instituto de Investigação Agrária de Moçambique (IIAM), Maputo, take the initiative to identify potential conservation areas and carry out all necessary investigation and research. The mandate to do this was given in June 2009 by the Minister of Science and Technology in Mozambique. As yet these proposals have not been incorprated into formal structures or legislation. Moreover, the identified sites all fall to the north or east of the QNP, and none directly affect the proposed project. They do, however, enhance perspective and content of the state of conservation in the region, and growing awareness of the sensitivity of many regions in a national and provincial context for Mozambique.



Figure 6.4: Proposed areas for biodiversity conservation in Cabo Delgado Province. The Quirimbas National Park boundary is shown in blue See Pascal et al. (2013, Figure 25,) for details. 6.2.2 Trans-frontier conservation areas (TFCA) The Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor (Baldus & Hahn 2009) is designed to conserve the Selous - Niassa Miombo woodland ecosystem, one of the largest trans-boundary natural dry forest ecoregions in Africa. With an area of about 154,000 km2 it extends across southern Tanzania into neighbouring northern Mozambique (Figure 6.5) and includes major parts of the Rufi ji and Ruvuma River basins, the latter the largest of East Africa. Two core conservation areas, the Selous Game Reserve of Tanzania and the Niassa Game Reserve of Mozambique, are important for its functioning. A Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) approach is envisaged, in which the local communities are integrated in to the development of the corridor and trans-boundary natural resources management.



Figure 6.5: Proposed Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor

The Mnazi Bay - Quirimbas Transfrontier Conservation area In the southeast boarder of Tanzania and extending to the border of Mozambique, the Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park (MBREMP) has an area of 650km2; Quirimbas National Park, stretches 110km along the northeast coast of Mozambique, and is constituted of the 11 southern most islands of the Quirimbas islands covering an area of 7,500km2. It extends roughly from Palma in Cabo Delgado Province to Mtwara in southern Tanzania. The main aim is to protect the rich coastal and marine biodiversity (including coral reefs and mangroves) of the Rovuma mouth and associated islands in the face of increasing levels of oil and gas exploration, and the desire to protect and allow large mammal populations (elephant, lion, etc) to move between the two countries. It been suggested that it could be integrated with the proposed Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor, but details are still vague and it remains in Category C – a conceptual TFCA without an official mandate from the participating countries, but one that has been proposed by some SADC Member States as a potential TFCA (SADC TFCA 2013). 6.2.3 Important Bird Areas The Important Bird Area (IBA) project of Birdlife International has been developed to identify important areas for bird conservation. Four categories of internationally agreed, objective ornithological criteria are used to assess the suitability of IBAs, including: Globally threatened species, Restricted-range species, Biome-restricted Assemblages, and Globally important congregations. Currently there are 15 IBAs in Mozambique, covering approximately 13,890 km2 (Parker 2001). One site is fully protected, 5 are partly protected and the remaining 9 are unprotected. Borghesio et al. (2009) noted neighbouring countries with comparable sizes and habitats to Mozambique have substantially higher numbers of IBAs (e.g. Tanzania: 76; South Africa: 101; Zambia: 31; Fishpool & Evans 2001). The Quirimbas National Park (Quirimbas Archipelago) is the only one of the 15 Mozambique IBAs designated by BirdLife International (2017) that occurs in Cabo Delgado Province. The nearest others include: Mt Namuli (Zambezia), Natia (Nampula), and Njesi Plateau (Niassa).



7 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS The faunal studies undertaken allow assessment of the existing impacts and those that can be predicted to occur due to the proposed mining project at various relevant spatial and temporal scales. The individual impacts can be grouped together as a series of key environmental issues, under which individual impacts can be grouped. Some of these Issues and Impacts affect the region at the moment and existing land use, and likely to continue in the absence of mining (the ‘No Go’ option). The various Issues and Impacts may also differ in severity and have more significance and need for mitigation at various stages of the project’s life, i.e. during the Construction, Operational and Decommissioning phases. These stages are considered separately below.

7.1 Impacts Resulting from Existing Land Use/No-Go Option In order to place in context the potential impacts of the mining activities and associated infrastructure proposed by Grafex, the existing impacts associated with current land use and their effects on the fauna and ecological processes in the region need to be described. The main issues identified from the existing land use impacts are discussed below. Only impact ratings without mitigation are shown, as these impacts cannot be mitigated by the client. 7.1.1 Issue 7.1.1: Loss of Faunal Biodiversity Historically, the miombo woodlands of Mozambique supported a large diversity of animals as noted by early travellers (Smithers & Tello, 1976). A long list of small (e.g. bushbuck, duiker) and large ungulates (e.g. zebra, kudu, sable), mega-herbivores (such as elephant, black rhinoceros and hippopotamus), and predators (e.g. lion, hyena, wild dog) were found in the region. However, the density of animals prior to human settlement is unknown, and is compounded by seasonal fluctuations associated with the need for animals to move in search of food/water. The unsustainable extraction of faunal resources, previously for local consumption, is now exaggerated as bushmeat, ivory, and the selective capture of animals for ritual or folk medicine have all become commercialized, and has put tremendous extra pressure on the surviving large mammal fauna.

Existing Impact 1: Unsustainable loss of fauna

The main faunal impact come from problem animal control, either from attacks on crops (e.g. Vervet monkey, Baboon, Bushpidg, etc) or predation on livestock and chickens. Although side-striped jackal (Canis adustus) and leopard (Panthera pardus) are present, they occur in low numbers and are reported not to be serious predators on livestock. Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) are uncommon, but are the major cause of predation. The use of poisoned carcasses by farmers to kill "problem" animals was considered rare, but this may occur when deemed necessary. Some large birds-of-prey, like the martial eagle (Polemaetus bellicosus), and Bataleur (Terathopius ecaudatus) were perceived to prey on domestic livestock and poultry, and therefore may be deliberately targeted. Due to the long history of subsistence hunting and habitat burning certain guilds of birds were also absent or very rare in the project area, including game birds (francolin, spurfowl, etc), storks, plovers and ibis, etc. The harvesting of large trees for timber, and the use of old trees in charcoal production, reduce the available nest holes for large breeding birds, e.g. hornbills, raptors, etc., as well as for medium-sized mammals, e.g. bush babies and squirrels.



While many of the larger mammals were extirpated in historical times, small herbivores such as Bushbuck, Suni and Common Duiker, Bush Pig, Scrub Hare, Porcupine and Cane Rat are all hunted, either by specialist hunters with snares or weapons, or opportunistically by young men and dog packs. The bushmeat forms a small, but significant addition to the diet of rural communities, and excess meat is sold in alongside roads or in nearby markets thus increasing the unsustainable resource extraction. Despite the loss of these large, conspicuous mammals and birds, the smaller majority, such as reptiles, amphibians and small mammals, are still well represented in the region. The presence of species of concern is limited to those with nutritional, commercial and medicinal value to local communities. Unsustainable use of these resources has led to some species occurring on the IUCN Red List of threatened species.

Overall Significance

Existing land use impacts on faunal loss in the project area results in a HIGH negative impact in the long-term in the Study Area. The environmental significance of this impact is HIGH.

7.1.2 Issue 7.1.2: Habitat Loss, Fragmentation and Degradation

The study area is located within a mosaic of cleared, degraded and fragmented miombo woodland. Fauna diversity remains high, however, except for large mammals and the larger birds. Present land use is primarily focused on agriculture, with livestock grazing incidental and restricted to fallow and recently cleared land. Cultivation is also practiced along the major river courses, which have richer, better watered soils. Removal of natural vegetation for cultivation destroys the natural habitat of many animals. Where vegetation has been removed for cultivation, old fields take several years for the vegetation and thus faunal habitats to be restored. They may fail to revert to natural vegetation for several decades, long past the life spans of most faunal groups.

Existing Impact: Habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation

Access to dense forest and woodland areas has been ongoing in association with population growth, particularly after the cessation of hostilities of the civil war. In addition, people’s aspirations increase with access and communication with the developed world. To meet this expectation of personal development and material wellbeing, local communities are driven to turn subsistence farming into commercial ventures, supplying increased yields to urban centres. This has already been facilitated by the development of tracks into the miombo woodland for timber extraction and exploratory mine drilling associated with the current development. Such actions have already increased access for local communities to undertake charcoal production and extraction, as well as expansion of slash-and-burn clearance for the development of crop fields. Overall Significance Habitat loss through existing land use impacts in the project area has resulted in a High negative impact in the long-term Regionally, but is currently of moderate negative impact in the Study Area. The environmental significance of this impact is HIGH as it is likely to increase with a burgeoning human population dependent upon subsistence farming.



Table 7.1 Impacts resulting from existing Land Use.

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Overall

Significance Temporal

Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

IMPACTS FROM EXISTING LAND USE

Issue 1: Loss of Faunal diversity

Impact 1: Unsustainable loss of fauna

Without Mitigation

Long term Regional Very Severe Occurring HIGH

Issue 2: Habitat Loss, Fragmentation and degradation

Impact 1: Habitat Loss, Fragmentation and degradation

Without Mitigation

Medium term Regional Very Severe Occurring HIGH

7.2 IMPACTS RESULTING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE Various activities are associated with the construction phase of the mining project. This section presents the issues that may impact terrestrial faunal systems arising from the construction and preparation of the mine, including its associated infrastructure such as accommodation (which is reduced during normal mining operations), the haul road and the associated infrastructure. 7.2.1 Issue 7.2.1: Loss of faunal diversity All faunal groups will suffer a general loss of biodiversity due to varied impacts, such as increased mortality from vehicle movements, loss and fragmentation of suitable habitat due to the footprint of project structures, and various forms of pollution associated with traffic and development. This will be greatest for small, slow-moving species, e.g. amphibians, tortoises and snakes and terrestrial species will suffer higher mortalities than arboreal or burrowing species. Volant species (birds and bats) will suffer less mortality, except where important breeding or roosting sites are lost. For all groups there will be increased mortality. The main impacts affecting biodiversity include:

Long-term displacement of faunal groups leading to loss of diversity due to a loss of essential habitat, especially woodland habitat.

Definite and permanent loss of daily movement corridors fauna dependent on closed-canopy vegetation or specialised (restricted) habitat along the drainage lines and rivers.

Indirect, long-term impacts associated with increased anthropogenic encroachment and the non-sustainable use of natural resources (e.g., uncontrolled logging, charcoal extraction, and hunting).

Impact 1: Loss of Amphibian Diversity

Amphibians are a specious group of terrestrial vertebrates in the concession area. Due to habitat loss and mortalities directly associated with specific project actions, a loss of amphibian diversity will probably occur. Amphibian mortalities will occur during all phases (construction and operational) but will be most significant in association with habitat loss, particularly of wetlands. Applying a precautionary approach, 49 species of amphibians are known in Cabo Delgado Province, of which 25 species were recorded in the project area, and upto 10 others are likely. The most sensitive habitats for amphibians are the riparian zone and associated wetlands, either onsite or downstream from mining activities. The construction of the proposed storm water impoundments increases the presence of permanent water in the project area,



facilitating aquatic frogs (e.g. Xenopus muelleri), and frogs with extended tadpole development (e.g. Amietia delandii).

Mitigation measures

Avoid clearing or damaging wetlands, and limit river and stream crossings as far as possible. Associated infrastructure, particularly transport linkages, should avoid these areas. Including a buffer distance of 30 m.

Wetlands must be protected and/or rehabilitated if damaged.

Maintenance of water quality and flow dynamics. Significance statement Impacts associated with construction of the proposed mine development in the project area will probably result in a moderate negative impact in the medium-term in the Study Area on amphibian diversity. The environmental significance of this impact is MODERATE.

Impact 2: Loss of Reptile Diversity

The Project Area probably contains a greater diversity of reptiles than discovered during the survey. Reptile populations, particularly snakes, are difficult to study. Increased human numbers associated with the development of the project will lead to increased mortality of snakes directly from road mortalities and human attitudes, as well as the loss of other reptiles from habitat loss and fragmentation. Applying a precautionary approach 60-70 reptile species may occur in the region, and 29 species were recorded from the project area. The most sensitive habitats for reptiles are the rocky outcrops and wetlands, either on site or downstream from mining activities. Mitigation measures

Avoid clearing or damaging pristine habitats during the location and contruction of infrastructure.

Protect abiotic habitats, such as rock outcrops not identified for mining, which serve as refugia for rock-living reptiles displaced during mining.

Curtail unnecessary night driving on roads.

Prohibit exploitation of sensitive reptiles, e.g. chameleons and tortoises for traditional medicine and the pet trade.

Educate mine staff to identify venomous snakes, and of the necessary first aid treatment, and unlikely nature of fatalities. Encourage the protection of all snakes.

Have trained personnel for snake removal and handling. Significance statement Impacts associated with construction of the proposed mine development in the project area will probably result in a moderate negative impact in the medium-term in the Study Area on reptile diversity. The environmental significance of this impact is MODERATE.

Impact 3: Loss of Bird Diversity

Birds are by far the most speciose vertebrate component in the region. Birds play important and diverse roles in ecosystem functioning (e.g. seed dispersal and trophic transfer) and maintenance of bird diversity is important to maintain viable habitats. Although a few birds are commensal, and can rapidly and successfully adapt to disturbed environments, the majority of birds are sensitive to disturbance and either migrate away from, or suffer greater mortality within, degraded habitats. However, because of their high mobility, birds are capable of rapidly re-colonising rehabilitated habitats, provided suitable microhabitats are available. Applying a precautionary approach, a total of nearly 300 birds may be expected to occur in general region of the study site, of which 148 were recorded.



The most sensitive habitats for birds are mature miombo woodland, the riparian zone and associated wetlands. The construction of the proposed storm water impoundments increases the presence of permanent water in the project area, generating suitable habitat for waterfowl and wading birds, and thus increasing bird diversity in the project area. Mitigation measures

Avoid clearing or damaging pristine habitats.

Maintain habitat connectivity, particularly to protected areas, via habitat corridors.

Undertake habitat clearance during winter when birds are not breeding. Significance statement Impacts associated with construction of the proposed mine development in the project area will probably result in a moderate negative impact in the medium-term in the Study Area on bird diversity. The environmental significance of this impact is MODERATE.

Impact 4: Loss of Mammal Diversity

The long history of human settlement, associated with subsistence and later commercial farming, has greatly reduced the presence of large mammals in the region. The maintenance of the small mammal diversity depends on the maintenance of habitat corridors and diversity. Despite the largely undisturbed nature of the habitat, the study area appears to have very limited mammalian activity due to a series of exisiting impacts. These include vegetation clearing and logging, subsistence hunting, the effect of feral dogs and cats, and illegal hunting associated with ivory hunting, the bushmeat trade, and also targeted animals for traditional medicine. These impacts on mammals will be intensified by activities associated with the mine, particularly accidental road kills, disturbance from mining activities, and increased hunting associated with increased human numbers in the region. Applying a precautionary approach, a total of 50+ mammals may occur in the region of the study site, although a significant proportion of these will be small mammals, particularly bats, whose use of the area may be seasonal. The most sensitive habitats for mammals are mature miombo woodland and riparian forest. Mitigation measures

Avoid clearing or damaging pristine habitats outside the required area of disturbance.

Maintain habitat connectivity, particularly to intact habitats, via habitat corridors.

Protect abiotic habitats, such as rock outcrops, which shelter many small mammals, particularly bat roosts.

Significance statement Impacts associated with construction of the proposed mine development in the project area will probably result in additional negative impact in the medium-term in the Study Area on mammal diversity. The environmental significance of this impact is currently MODERATE and will increase without mitigation to HIGH.

Impact 5: Loss of Species of Conservation Concern

One, possibly two, new amphibian SSC occur in the region (Mertensophryne cf anotis and Notophryne sp, respectively), along with two new reptile species (Panaspis sp. and Platysaurus sp.) endemic to Cabo Delgado Province, and a further 10 reptiles listed on CITES appendices. Many large birds (particularly owls and raptors) and large mammal species are either of conservation concern, or are on lists controlling their international trade (CITES). Among birds that may occur within the study area, 16 are threatened (5 Endangered, 3 Vulnerable and 8



Near-threatened). Based on its geographical position, the study area is expected to provide habitat for bird species that are prominent in miombo woodlands, although there are no regional endemic species for this habitat in the region. Specifically, the riparian woodland, rock outcrops and intact miombo woodland were identified as important bird habitats, as these facilitate bird dispersal and provide specialised habitat for habitat-restricted species. Parker (2005a) noted an increased utilization of birds for food and for the cage-bird trade that can be expected to increase with increasing access to Asian markets. A five IUCN Red Listed mammals are recorded or may occur in the region, including African Wild Dog (Endangered), Pangolin, Elephant, Hippopotomus, and Lion (Vulnerable), as well as two Near-threatened species (Chequered Giant Sengi and Leopard). All of the SSC in the project area have been either record in adjacent protected areas, e.g. QNO and Niassa GR, or are likely to occur there. Mitigation measures



Protect abiotic habitats, such as rock outcrops, which shelter many small faunal species, including reptiles and bats.

The design of project structures and transport linkages should avoid where possible sensitive habitat corridors, e.g. drainage lines and wetlands.

Road designs should incorporate, where possible, underpasses and culverts that allow the movement of animals.

Where possible the road traffic should be limited after dark, as much of the surviving fauna is nocturnal, e.g. bats, most snakes, small rodents, amphibians, etc.

Vehicle speed should be limited to the lowest possible, and should not exceed 50km/h.

Drivers should be educated regarding their role in impacting on animals and the need to minimize collisions with animals at all times.

Significance statement Impacts associated with construction of the proposed mine development in the project area will probably result in additional negative impacts in the medium-term in the Study Area on Species of Special Concern. The environmental significance of this impact will remain MODERATE. 7.2.2 Issue 7.2.2: Habitat Loss, Fragmentation and Degradation

Impact 1: Faunal impact of habitat fragmentation and loss

Various components of the development will cause biodiversity loss directly or indirectly through fragmentation of viable habitats for the various faunal groups. This is usually a loss of vegetation (plant communities) that supply food or shelter, but may include abiotic features such as the loss of access to water bodies for feeding and breeding, caves or rock outcrop. Impacts to sensitive habitats are highly probable and will be local and negative in nature, and occur over the long-term. The significance of these impacts may vary from low to high depending upon the local importance of the habitat and the particular fauna that it harbours. Rocky outcrops in particular are rare in the project area, and are specifically targeted for destruction during mining. The proposed transport linkages and associated infrastructure will all cause additional habitat loss and fragmentation, over and above the mining area, particularly the size and width of the proposed Haul road (for which exact details are not finalized). The greatest impact on habitat loss and fragmentation will be associated with the waste and tailings areas, as well as the mine site, dwellings and the proposed water impoundment(s).



Mitigation measures The negative impact of habitat loss associated with the development of the mine cannot be fully mitigated. But the following can assist in reducing the severity of the impact:

All specific project actions associated with construction, access roads, borrow pits and cut-and-fill construction must avoid sensitive habitats as far as is practicable.

Natural drainage should be maintained and the silt loads into rivers, streams and wetlands must stay within normal limits.



Protect rock outcrops that are not bring currently mined to allow them to serve as shelter for rupicolous species, including reptiles and bats.

Large rock waste should be stored in waste dumps separate from crushed rock. Rock jumble piles will serve as refugia for small, rock associated vertebrates.


Significance statement Impacts associated with construction of the proposed mine development in the project area will probably result in a additional negative impact on the fauna in the medium term in the Study Area due to habitat loss and fragmentation. With mitigation the environmental significance of this impact can be maintained as MODERATE. 7.2.3 Issue 7.2.3: Other Construction Impacts on Fauna A variety of impacts are likely to result from the construction of the various components of the mine. Among the most significant and widespread impact results from increased transport in the region. Roads are known to alter physical characteristics of the environment and through these impacts roads affect ecosystems, biological communities and species in numerous and different ways. Impact 1: Impacts of dust on Fauna

Increased dust levels are common during construction especially from vegetation clearance and increased vehicular traffic. Short-term increased dust levels will accompany all land preparation associated with construction of mine infrastructure. Mitigation measures

The impact will be most effectively mitigated by hard paving the haul road. If the haul road is unpaved, it should be watered down during high wind and dry weather conditions.

Road speeds in sensitive regions e.g. near wetlands, across drainage lines, and during extreme dry climatic conditions, should be limited to curtail dust production.


Any material to be transported should be done by covered trucks or containers to avoid contamination to the surrounding area.

Significance statement The impact of increased dust associated with the construction of the proposed mine development in the project area will definitely result in a moderate negative impact in the medium-term in the Study Area on the fauna. The environmental significance will be almost impossible to mitigate and thus the impact will remain MODERATE.



Impact 2: Effects on fauna of increased noise levels

Mining construction and associated vehicle traffic will create noise pollution that can depress local populations of sensitive faunal groups. Animals differ in the degree to which they tolerate such disturbance, and can be expected to have potentially negative and positive impacts on various faunal groups. Large breeding birds do not usually tolerate continuous disturbance. Increased noise and motor vibrations in wetlands may also impact amphibian breeding choruses, but these impacts will be localised and many amphibian species are surprisingly tolerant of vehicle noise. Noise pollution will occur during all phases (construction, operational, and de-commissioning/closure). Little mitigation is possible. Mitigation measures

Mitigation of this impact is difficult, but noise reduction measures should be implemented in all sensitive areas (e.g. adjacent to wetlands) at sensitive times (e.g. at night).

Construction activities after dark should be restricted to mitigate disturbance. Significance statement Impacts associated with increased noise levels during the construction of the proposed mine development in the project area will definitely result in a moderate negative impact in the medium-term in the Study Area on the fauna. The environmental significance of this impact is MODERATE. Impact 3: Effects on fauna of Chemical Pollution

Many faunal groups are sensitive to pollutants. Lead concentrations are higher in small terrestrial mammals collected alongside roads than in bats caught in the same areas. Frog diversity in ponds affected by pollution from road run-off is depressed, and the accumulation of herbicides and their residues in adjacent wetlands can lead to developmental abnormalities in tadpoles and metamorphosing froglets as well as masculinization of female frogs. Pollution may result from periodic accidents, or from a slow, ongoing contamination. Operation of the mine particularly in relation to the use of inflammable liquids such as diesel will probably result in periodic accidents. Heavy vehicle traffic is also associated with increased local pollution resulting from exhaust fumes, oil spillage and accumulation of rubber compounds from tyre wear. These pollutants can cause localised impacts. Sensitive wetlands or patches of threatened vegetation may need protection from road surface water run-off containing such pollutants and the application of herbicides to control plant growth alongside roads and around buildings should be monitored. Mitigation measures

Storage facilities for chemicals, particularly diesel, should not be situated in regions subject to flooding.

Storage facilities for chemicals should be bunded so that in the event of spillage their contents run immediately into large catchments for decontamination.

The use of insecticides and herbicides should be closely monitored and dosages and application detailed in the EMP.

Significance statement Chemical pollution resulting from impacts associated with construction of the proposed mine development in the project area will probably result in a moderate negative impact in the medium-term in the Study Area on the fauna. The environmental significance of this impact is MODERATE.



Table 7.2 Impacts resulting from Construction Phase.

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Overall


Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

IMPACTS FRON CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Issue 1: Loss of Faunal diversity

Impact 1: Loss of Amphibian Diversity

Without Mitigation

Medium term Regional Severe May occur MODERATE

With Mitigation

Short term Localised Slight May occur LOW

Impact 2: Loss of Reptile Diversity

Without Mitigation


With Mitigation


Impact 3: Loss of Bird Diversity

Without Mitigation


With Mitigation


Impact 4: Loss of Mammal Diversity

Without Mitigation

Medium term Regional Very Severe May occur HIGH

With Mitigation

Short term Localised Severe May occur MODERATE

Impact 5: Loss of Species Special Consern

Without Mitigation


With Mitigation


Issue 2: Habitat Loss, Fragmentation and Degredation

Impact 1: Faunal impact of habitat fragmentation and loss

Without Mitigation


With Mitigation


Issue 3: Other Impacts on Fauna

Impact 1: Effects of Dust on Fauna

Without Mitigation


With Mitigation


Impact 2: Effects on Fauna of increased Noise levels

Without Mitigation


With Mitigation


Impact 3: Effects on Fauna of Chemical Pollution

Without Mitigation


With Mitigation


7.3 Impacts Resulting from the Operational Phase



This section presents the issues arising from the construction of the mine, including its associated infrastructure. These issues will directly and indirectly affect the natural environment of the project area, as discussed below. This section presents the issues that may impact terrestrial faunal systems arising from the operation of the mine, the haul road and the mineral concentration plant and associated infrastructure. 7.3.1 Issue 7.3.1: Loss of Faunal Diversity Impact 1: Loss of faunal diversity

Impacts of the proposed developments on the surviving fauna will vary for the different groups. Amphibian diversity may be impacted by possible small scale, localized changes in water flow dynamics in the region of the mine path, particularly where it crosses drainage lines and wetlands. However, most frogs in the region are widespread and have rapid colonizing abilities. The reptile fauna comprises some species relatively tolerant of agricultural development. Birds are by far the most speciose vertebrate component in the region, but many species are tolerant of low to medium disturbance. The remaining mammal diversity in the region consists of small mammals. With the exception of introduced rodents and bats, most mammals in the region are poor colonizers and require protected habitats to maintain viable population levels. Due to disturbance resulting from habitat loss there will also be an increase in animal mortality as animals move away from the region. Mitigation measures

Mitigation of the impact entails protection and where necessary, rehabilitation of adjacent habitats as an environmental off-set, particularly wetland and riparian habitats.

Avoid clearing or damaging wetlands, and limit river and stream crossings as far as possible. Associated infrastructure, particularly transport linkages, should avoid these areas. Including a buffer distance of 30 m.

Maintenance of water quality and flow dynamics.

Protect abiotic habitats, such as rock outcrops, which shelter many reptile and mammal species.

Curtail unnecessary night driving on roads

Prohibit exploitation of bushmeat trade and sensitive species e.g. chameleons and birds.

Educate mine staff about the necessity of faunal groups such as crocodiles and snakes.

Significance statement Impacts associated with the operation of the proposed mine development in the project area will definitely result in a moderate negative impact in the medium-term in the Study Area on faunal biodiversity. The environmental significance of this impact is MODERATE. Impact 2: Loss of Species of Conservation Concern

Species of Special Concern are usually less adaptable to disturbance, and habitat loss and fragmentation, and will thus be impacted by the ongoing disturbance and activity associated with the daily mining activities (fuller details are given Issue 7.2, Impact 5). Significance statement



Impacts associated with the operation of the proposed mine development in the project area will definitely result in a moderate negative impact in the medium-term in the Study Area on Species of Special Concern. The environmental significance of this impact will remain MODERATE. Impact 3: Introduction of Alien fauna

Developments such as mines and their associated roads create suitable corridors for the introduction of alien species. Introduced urban rodent pests such as the house mouse (Mus musculus), house rat (Rattus rattus) and the Norwegian rat (Rattus norvegicus) are likely to occur in populated areas such as mining villages. These species generally tend to survive alongside human habitation, and don’t spread in natural areas. The most widespread and common alien bird is the House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) which is now distributed almost worldwide and was recorded on site. Mitigation measures

The deliberate introduction of alien species should be prohibited, unless a full environmental assessment is undertaken and control methods for escapees detailed.

Eradication programs of problem animals should be undertaken in consultation with conservation authorities.

Significance statement Impacts associated with the operation of the proposed mine development in the project area will probably result in a moderate negative impact in the medium-term in the Study Area from the introduction of alien species. The environmental significance of this impact is LOW. 7.3.2 Issue 7.3.2: Habitat impacts Impact 1: Impact of habitat fragmentation and loss on fauna

Habitat fragmentation can have diverse consequences for ecosystems and their fauna and flora. Habitat loss is rarely uniform and usually occurs piecemeal, leaving a mosaic of habitat fragments that may serve as refugia for the surviving fauna. Intervening unsuitable habitat, however, creates artificial barriers to normal migration and prevents or inhibits genetic interchange between the isolated populations. Tolerance of habitat fragmentation depends on numerous factors and will thus affect different faunal groups differently. Mitigation measures Where possible the planning of the mine path, roads and the location of buildings should ensure minimal fragmentation of sensitive habitats. Road designs should incorporate, where possible, underpasses and culverts that allow the movement of animals. This is of particular importance along drainage lines, which form natural corridors for faunal movements. Significance statement Impacts associated with the operation of the proposed mine development in the project area will definitely result in habitat fragmentation and habitat loss resulting in a moderate negative impact in the medium-term in the Study Area on the fauna. The environmental significance of this impact is MODERATE. Impact 2: Effects on fauna of increased Dust Levels

Increased dust levels are common after veld clearance activities, and from vehicular traffic,



even on paved surfaces. Dust settling on adjacent vegetation can block plant photosynthesis, respiration and transpiration, in addition to causing physical injuries of plants. Its presence may also make plants unpalatable, thus acting as a possible deterrent to grazing. Dust from road surfaces can also transport chemical pollutants to adjacent regions, thus affecting riparian ecosystems via impacts on water quality. Mitigation measures

The haul road should be hard paved or constructed from limestone and watered down to inhibit dust production.

Road speeds in sensitive regions e.g. near wetlands, across drainage lines, and during extreme dry climatic conditions, should be limited to curtail dust generation.

Speed limits on unpaved roads should be reduced, and in areas of high dust production road surfaces should be dampened.

All products that are to be transported should be done by covered trucks or containers to avoid contamination to the surrounding area.

Significance statement Impacts associated with the operation of the proposed mine development in the project area will definitely result in increased dust levels resulting in a moderate negative impact in the medium-term in the Study Area on the fauna. The environmental significance of this impact is MODERATE. Impact 3: Effects on fauna of Noise Pollution

Mining activities, associated housing developments and greater vehicle traffic will increase noise levels in the study area. This will reduce the abundance of sensitive bird species. Increased noise and motor vibrations in the vicinity of wetlands will also impact amphibian breeding choruses, but these will be localised and many amphibian species are surprisingly tolerant of urban noise. Mitigation measures

Mitigation of this impact is difficult and unlikely to be effected, but could involve noise reduction measures in sensitive areas (e.g. adjacent to wetlands) at sensitive times (e.g. at night).

Significance statement Impacts associated with the operation of the proposed mine development in the project area will definitely result in increased noise levels resulting in a moderate negative impact in the medium-term in the Study Area on the fauna. The environmental significance of this impact is MODERATE. Impact 4: Effects on fauna of Chemical Pollution

For fuller detail of Chemical Pollution impacts and mitigation see Issue 7.2.3, Impact 9. Significance statement Impacts associated with the operation of the proposed mine development in the project area will definitely result in chemical pollution resulting in a moderate negative impact in the medium-term in the Study Area on the fauna. The environmental significance of this impact is MODERATE.



Impact 5: Threats to Faunal Movements

Linear developments, such as haul roads and above-surface pipelines, disrupt the movement of species within their normal home ranges or the seasonal movements of migratory species. Habitat fragmentation may require species to make long movements between patches of suitable habitat in search of mates, breeding sites or food. At such times they may suffer increased mortality, either directly by road vehicles, or from their natural predators due to increased exposure. Reptiles and amphibians do not undertake long distance migrations, but both groups may undertake short seasonal movements. Many snakes undertake movements between winter hibernation sites and their summer foraging areas. Amphibians are known to experience the highest levels of mortalities associated with the presence of roads among vertebrates. This is mainly attributed to en masse seasonal migrations to and from their breeding sites. Some amphibians, particularly toads, are explosive breeders, and move en masse to the breeding ponds. At such times they may suffer heavy casualties whilst crossing roads. Impacts on animal movements will be significant for all faunal groups. For amphibians this impact will be greatest where the road runs adjacent to wetlands suitable for breeding. It is an impact of high probability that will be negative due to increased mortality. It will be localised and occur over the long-term. Mitigation measures

Mitigation depends firstly on ongoing assessment of the significance of animal road mortalities, levels of which should be monitored during the construction and operational phases.


Road designs should incorporate, where possible, underpasses and culverts that allow the movement of animals. This is of particular importance along drainage lines, which form natural corridors for faunal movements.

Where possible the road traffic should be limited after dark, as much of the surviving fauna is nocturnal, e.g. bats, most snakes, small rodents, amphibians, etc. In addition to this dipped headlights to reduce light pollution into adjacent habitat are required, and lower speeds must be enforced. These recommendations will help reduce night driving impacts, although the most effective option would be to prohibit driving at night.


Drivers should be educated regarding their role in impacting on animals and the need to minimize collisions with animals at all times.

Significance statement Impacts associated with the operation of the proposed mine development in the project area will definitely result in threats to animal movements resulting in a moderate negative impact in the medium-term in the Study Area on the fauna. The environmental significance of this impact is MODERATE. Table 7.3 Impacts resulting from Operational Phase.

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Overall


Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

IMPACTS FRON OPERATIONAL PHASE

Issue 1: Loss of Faunal Diversity

Impact 1: Loss of faunal diversity



Without Mitigation


With Mitigation


Impact 2: Loss of Species Special Consern

Without Mitigation


With Mitigation


Impact 3: Introduction of alien fauna

Without Mitigation

Medium term Regional Slight May occur LOW

With Mitigation


Issue 2: Habitat Impacts

Impact 1: Impact of habitat fragmentation and loss on fauna

Without Mitigation


With Mitigation


Impact 2: Effects of Dust on Fauna

Without Mitigation


With Mitigation


Impact 3: Effects on Fauna of increased Noise levels

Without Mitigation


With Mitigation


Impact 4: Effects on Fauna of Chemical Pollution

Without Mitigation


With Mitigation


Impact 5: Threats to faunal movements

Without Mitigation


With Mitigation


7.4 Impacts resulting from the Decommissioning Phase Decommissioning entails demolition of buildings and removal of infrastructure. Areas disturbed by the project are to be rehabilitated to a stable, pollution free, landform with an indigenous self-sustaining vegetation cover. Progressive rehabilitation should commence immediately that areas become available for rehabilitation purposes. Decommissioning should be carried out in compliance with the relevant national legislation at the time. When particular infrastructure is no longer required for the development, it should be decommissioned and rehabilitated at the time, and should not be left until project decommissioning. The decommissioning and closure phase of the project will result in the following environmental impacts that will effect the fauna.

A. Physical environmental disturbance as a result of the removal of project infrastructure.



B. Release of hazardous materials or wastes into the environment. C. Release of untreated effluents into the environment. D. Ecological impacts associated with a poorly rehabilitated site.

Discussion with local communities and conservation authorities should be undertaken before de-commissioning is initiated in order to ensure and safeguard the future land use options envisaged. If the land use option chosen is for agriculture and the continued presence of existing housing infrastructure and transport linkages, this will affect the impacts duration from short to longterm and thus its severity. 7.4.1 Issue 7.4.1: Effects on Fauna Impact 1: Loss of faunal diversity

Decommissioning will involve various actions that will impact the surviving fauna in different ways. Amphibian diversity may be impacted in the short-term by localized changes in water flow dynamics in the region resulting from action A (above), particularly the removal of water impoundment(s) in river courses returning the rivers to their previously ephemeral condition. They will also be impacted by any change in water quality arising from actions B and C. The reptile fauna, particularly any crocodiles or water terrapins that have colonized impoundments, will also be affected by these same actions. Rupicolous lizards and small mammals (particularly bats using rock cracks as roost sites) will be permanently impacted as the mined rock outcrops cannot be rehabilitated. Birds are easily able to repopulate rehabilitated habits, although waterfowl and waders may again become absent in the region with the loss of impoundments. Mammal diversity in the region may repopulate rehabilitated areas if suitable migration corridors with protected areas (i.e. QNP) are maintained and are effective. Due to disturbance resulting from decommissioning activities prior to full rehabilitation, particularly temporary habitat loss, will lead to an increase in animal mortality as animals move away from the disturbance. Mitigation measures

Mitigation of the impact entails protection of migration corridors, particularly to the QNP in the north that will allow faunal migration routes to repopulate rehabilitated habitats.

Maintenance of water quality and flow dynamics should be maintained, and removal of any impoundments must be undertaken during the dry season. The release of water should be modulated to avoid downstream effects.

Significance statement Impacts associated with de-commissioning of the proposed mine development in the project area will definitely result in a moderate negative impact in the short-term in the Study Area on faunal biodiversity. The environmental significance of this impact is MODERATE. It will be HIGH if land use options other than complete rehabilitation are undertaken. Impact 2: Loss of Species of Conservation Concern

Species of Special Concern are usually less adaptable to disturbance, and habitat loss and fragmentation, and will thus be further impacted by the disturbance and activity associated with decommissioning activities. Two new species endemic to Cabo Delgado occur in the region, the amphibian Notophryne sp and the lizard Platysaurus sp., and are rupicolous and will therefore be affected permanently impacted in the project area by the loss of mined rock outcrops that cannot be rehabilitated. The large bird (particularly owls and raptors) and mammal species of conservation concern (see fuller details in Issue 7.2, Impact 5), occur in adjacent protected areas, e.g. QNO and Niassa GR, or are likely to occur there. The repopulation of rehabilitated habitats in the project



area will depend on the existence of viable migration corridors from adjacent protected areas. Mitigation measures

Avoid clearing or damaging pristine habitats not affected by direct mining activity.

Maintain habitat connectivity, particularly to intact habitats, via habitat corridors in the project area.

During the operational phase of the mine, communication with regional planners and conservation authorities should be undertaken to identify and maintain habitat corridors between the project area and the QNP to allow repopulation of the project area after rehabilitation,

Protect non-mined abiotic habitats, such as rock outcrops, which shelter many small faunal species, including reptiles and bats.

Significance statement Impacts associated with de-commissioning of the proposed mine development in the project area will definitely result in a moderate negative impact in the short-term in the Study Area on Species of Special Concern. The environmental significance of this impact is LOW, and may even be Beneficial if mitigation measures ensure connectivity to protected areas and rehabilitation to intact natural habitats. It will be HIGH if land use options other than complete rehabilitation are undertaken, and no habitat corridors are maintained. Table 7.4 Impacts resulting from Decommissioning Phase.

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Overall


Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

IMPACTS FROM DECOMMISSIONING PHASE

Issue 1: Effects o Fauna

Impact 1: Loss of Faunal Diversity

Without Mitigation

Long term Regional Very Severe Will occur HIGH

With Mitigation


Impact 2: Loss of Spedies of Special Concern

Without Mitigation

Long term Regional Very Severe Will occur HIGH

With Mitigation


7.5 Cumulative Impacts Impacts directly associated with the various stages of the Project are discussed in the preceding sections. The effects of the potential impacts associated with these project stages may be nullified or amplified by impacts associated with other developments in the area producing cumulative effects. Cumulative impacts may be defined as ‘impacts that result from the incremental impact, on areas or resources used or directly impact by the project, from other existing, planned or reasonably defined developments at the time the risks and impacts identification process is conducted’. Significant cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.



Cumulative effects are difficult to predict as they are the result of complex interactions between multiple projects or activities. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that details of the future development are largely unknown at this stage. Moreover, whether or not a potential future development actually occurs is dependent on a number of factors that are unknown at the time of this assessment. Mozambique’s economy is growing rapidly following resource discovery and foreign investments, and it is highly probable that other mines and/or large scale projects will occur within close proximity to the project area. The possible extent of cumulative impacts resulting from these interactions cannot be determined as the number, location and nature of projects developing in the region, as well as those that will receive environmental authorization, is unknown. It remains, however, important to identify what nature cumulative impacts may have in the future. Potential developments as well as population demographics are likely to result in an increase of human population in the region, as well as in the alien fauna associated with people (e.g. feral dogs and cats, house sparrows, rats and mice, etc). The development of urbanization and the supporting industries and services accompanying it, will increase pressure on infrastructure and services in northern Mozambique. The primary negative cumulative impacts would be the gradual transformation of undeveloped areas, with associated impacts on ecological functioning of many ecosystems. Increased conversion of natural landscape to accommodate burgeoning human population and its concomitant construction of increasing facilities will increasingly impact biodiversity. The environmental baseline studies have contrasted the proposed project’s impacts with those already existing, including current agricultural practices that have transformed the natural landscape and resulted in an alteration of the habitat for various fauna species. Mitigation and management of the negative cumulative impacts depend on the development of effective national and regional management strategies to reduce risk to the environmental resources and to offset impacts where mitigation is not possible. Strategic spatial planning by the Government of Mozambique and its agencies at this early stage is important to ensure development in the region is promoted, while maintaining ecosystem functions and services to enhance social well-being.



8 DISCUSSION The proposed development occurs in relatively pristine miombo woodland, where the presence of iconic threatened elephants still occur in passage, and where a relatively large number of SSC still occur, even if as vagrants. Moreover at least four known or potentially undescribed species occur within the region, which thus has high biodiversity importance. The northern edge of the project area occurs in close proximity (<10km) to the southern border of the Quirimbas National Park, adjacent to Block B, one of three regions within the QNP where medium and large mammals are concentrated and which has been identified as a potential zone for total protection due to the low density of human population. The project area thus falls in a ‘buffer zone’, currently not formally defined, which could be established like that surrounding the Niassa Game Reserve, to buffer impacts from surrounding developments If the project receives environmental clearance to go ahead, and if rehabilitation to existing environmental condition is required, then it is imperative that linkages between conservation and graphite mining in the region are explored. The project area is increasingly accessed for natural resource extraction (bushmeat, timber, charcoal production, etc) and the expansion of mashambas for cultivation. In addition, ephemeral streams in the region are illegally accessed by artisanal miners for gold and gemstone extraction. These result in the existing high faunal impacts. These impacts are exacerbated by the development of a network of access tracks made during drilling and mine exploration, that now allow great ease of access and resource extraction by surrounding people via vehicles. The discovery of gemstone deposits in Tanzania, and Mozambique in ecologically sensitive areas has shown that engaging with artisanal gemstone miners is challenging as the miners move frequently between deposits. However, ways in which ecological conservation could be linked to gemstone consumption are possible (Ali 2012), and this approach has been adopted in the Gemfields-Niassa GR association, and ruby mining in the Montepuez region is supporting lion conservation projects in the Niassa Game Reserve (Gemfield 2017). Graphite extraction is not possible by artisanal miners, but increasing artisanal gold mining in water courses in the region will lead to increased impacts. Physical mining activities in sensitive water courses disrupt river pools that are important aquatic faunal refugia in the dry season and also increase turbidity and run off into impoundments. These impacts are also exacerbated by long-lasting mercury pollution from gold extraction.



9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Ancuabe Graphite Project plans to mine graphite in the project area using open pit mining to extract the ore. This proposed development and its relationship to the existing terrestrial fauna is the focus of this report. This terrestrial fauna baseline report has identified and listed all species of terrestrial vertebrates occurring in the mining area; identified SSC using reference to the IUCN Red Data List and CITES; defined and mapped faunal habitats that are sensitive and require conservation; described current impacts on faunal groups and identified any issues and impacts that the different phases of the development (construction, operational, decommissioning) will have on the different faunal groups and specific species that would be significantly affected by the mining proposal. The area is predominantly covered by various forms of miombo woodland, some of which has either been removed or degraded due to human land use impacts. The proposed mine site sits in the ephemeral catchments of the Muaguide and Mogido rivers, but without extensive riparian vegetation or wetlands. Faunal diversity was historically high, but certain groups, i.e. large mammals and birds, have been depleted or locally extirpated. Forty nine amphibian species may occur in Cabo Degado Province, of which 25 were observed during the faunal surveys. Two amphibian SSC species occur, both probably representing new, endemic species that are being either described (Notophryne sp.) or are under investigation (Mertensophryne cf anotis). The amphibian fauna is not obviously impoverished from that expected to have historically occurred in the region. During the faunal surveys 30 reptiles were observed, and another three were reported to occur in the region. This number is a good reflection of the +50 species that can be expected for the region, with secretive snakes being the most under-represented group. No reptile SSC or endemic species were confirmed in the project area, although one Near Threatened terrapin (Cycloderma frenatum) occurs in the region and my be present. Two new species of endemic lizard (Panaspis sp. and Platysaurus sp.) currently being desribed are present in the project area, but both have wider distributions within Cabo Delgado Province. A significant number (10) of reptile species listed on CITES appendices, and whose international trade is therefore either banned or subject to strict control, were recorded in the region. It is probable that the low number of reptiles recorded during the survey reflects the shortness of the survey period and reduced reptile activity at the time. Due to persecution, the density of the larger, more conspicuous reptiles (e.g. pythons, cobras, mambas) may be impoverished from numbers expected to have historically occurred in the region. It is likely that the overall reptile diversity remains relatively intact. Although the incidence of snakebite in the region is reported to be low, at least 12 venomous snakes occur in the region, bites from the majority of which have caused fatalities. One hundred and thirty seven (137) bird species were observed during the faunal surveys. Although the number of birds recorded is low relative to the possible 440+ bird species that may occur in the study area, it is a good reflection of the common bird fauna of miombo woodlands. This number can be expected to increase with long-term observations. One IUCN threatened bird species (White-headed Vulture, Vulnerable) was recorded on site. However, a number (17) CITES listed species were recorded. These were mainly Falconiformes (e.g. eagles, buzzards, goshawks, sparrowhawks etc) or Strigiformes species (owls). Of the Tauraco species that also fall under CITES, the purple-crested turaco was the only species observed on site. Of the possible 145 mammal species which may occur in Cabo Delgado Province (99



terrestrial and 46 bats); only 24 were recorded during the surveys. A further 20 mammal species are reported to occur in the area, while a further 51 could possibly also occur in the area. Most of these are small mammals, such as rodents and shrews. Bats are poorly known in Mozambique and were not assessed during the surveys. Eighteen large to medium-sized herbivores and carnivores that historically occurred in the area are now either locally extnct or very rare vagrants. Six threatened mammals occur in the region, but only that of the elephant was confirmed to occur (at least occasionally) in the project area. All of these species are recorded in the adjacent QNP. The most sensitive habitats utilized by the surviving fauna include: 1) the Riparian zone and wetlands; 2) Steep slopes and rocky ridges. None of these habitats are specific to the project area and are well represented in Cabo Delgado Province. The ephemeral catchments of the Muaguide and Mogido rivers represent particularly sensitive habitats, especially for amphibians and birds.

9.1 Recommendations

1. River drainage and small associated wetland areas should be avoided wherever possible as these are sensitive area for amphibians and associated reptiles and birds.

2. Ecological corridors need to be maintained between all identified areas of High sensitivity. For many birds, reptiles and small mammals the primary target habitat is Mature (Intact) Miombo and Riparian Woodland. This vegetation type, although previously widespread in the region, has been extensively cleared and fragmented for human agriculture. This impact has increased substantially since the cessation of civil hostilities, and whilst previously associated with subsistence survival, it has dramatically increased recently as its use has become commercialized (e.g. directly exploited for timber or charcoal, or secondarily destroyed to make way for commercial crops such as maize, rice and cassava.

3. An ecological corridor between the northern riparian and mature miomo habitats and the adjacent QNP needs to be established to allow faunal migrations, particularly of large mammals. This will be essential for the maintenance of existing faunal diversity, and repopulation on decommissioning.

4. Conserved areas serve as small local refugia from existing land use impacts, and also those that will occur from the construction and operation of the proposed mine. In a regional context they are small, and their greater efficacy depends upon their incorporation into regional planning for conservation and ecosystem services. Although the proposed DUAT area provides a buffer zone from proposed mining operations, administration and protection of conserved areas has low priority as the country and province recover from past conflict. However, with burgeoning provincial growth local developments such as the proposed mine must be integrated into regional environmental planning, especially within the framework of increased tourism planned for the province.

5. An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is essential. A qualified ecologist, familiar in both vegetation and fauna, should be on site during the contruction phase, and to monitor environmental impacts during the operational phase. For faunal SSC (threatened, endemic or cultural important species), the EMP should include guidelines for the safe capture and relocation of SSC to suitable, safe habits. During all phases of significant habitat loss trained observers should be present to identify, capture and relocate SSC.

6. Any form of disturbance to the natural habitats provides an opportunity for the invasion and colonization of alien species. The EMP should contain a strict monitoring plan that can be implemented to prevent the spread of alien species, and to identify and remove alien species when encountered.



10 REFERENCES AGRECO 2008. National census of wildlife in Mozambique. Final Report. Ministério da Agricultura. Maputo, Mozambique. Ali, S. 2012. Conservation Gemstones: Beyond fair trade ? online ‘Voices’, National Geographic.

(http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/12/conservation-gemstones-beyond-fair-trade/) Anon. 2009. Expedition Report. "Reconnaissance of Coastal Forests in Cabo Delgado", 22nd

November – 13th December 2008, IIAM report. Araman, A. e Mahommed, J.D. 2006. Ground Count of Mammals of interest in the Quirimbas

National Park – Final Report, Pemba, Mozambique. Baldus, R. D. & Hahn, R. 2009. Th e Selous – Niassa Wildlife Corridor in Tanzania: Biodiversity

Conservation from the Grassroots. Practical Experiences and Lessons from Integrating Local Communities into Trans-boundary Natural Resources Management. Joint publication of FAO and CIC. Budapest. 48 pp.

Bento, C. 2003. Birds of Quirimbas. Relatório para o Parque Nacional das Quirimbas BirdLife International (2017) Country profile: Mozambique. Available from:

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/country/mozambique. Checked: 2 April 2017. Bittencourt-Silva G, Conradie W, Siu-Ting K, Tolley KA, Channing A, Cunningham M, Farooq HM,

Menegon M, Loader SP (2016) The phylogenetic position and diversity of the enigmatic mongrel frog Nothophryne Poynton, 1963 (Amphibia, Anura). Molecular Phylogenies and Evolution 99: 89–102.

Blake DK (1965) The fourth Umtali Museum expedition to Mozambique: November –December 1964. The Journal of the Herpetological Association of Rhodesia 23: 31–46.

Borghesio, L., Amakobe, B., Bakari, S., Balidy, H., Biasio, D. & Menommusanga, M. 2009. A bird survey of the Ruvuma Delta, northern Mozambique. Bull. ABC, 16: 197-203.

Branch, W. R. (1998). Field Guide to the Snakes and other Reptiles of Southern Africa. rev. ed. Struiks Publ., Cape Town, 399 pp, 112 col. pls.

Branch, W. R. (2004). Herpetological survey of the Niassa Game Reserve, Northern Mozambique, Sociedade para a Gestão e Desenvolvimento da Reserva do Niassa, March 2004.

Branch, W.R., M.-O. Rödel & J. Marais (2005a). Herpetological survey of the Niassa Game Reserve, northern Mozambique - Part I: Reptiles. – Salamandra, Rheinbach, 41: 195-214.

Branch, W.R., M.-O. Rödel & J. Marais (2005b). A new species of rupicolous Cordylus Laurenti 1768 (Sauria: Cordylidae), from Northern Mozambique. Afr. J. Herpetol. 54(2): 131-138.

Branch, W.R. & Bayliss, J. (2009). A new species of Atheris (Serpentes: Viperidae) from northern Mozambique. Zootaxa 2113: 41-54.

Branch, W.R. & K. A. Tolley (2010). A new chameleon (Sauria: Chamaeleonidae: Nadzikambia) from Mount Mabu, northern Mozambique. Afr. J. Herpetol. 59(2): 157-172.

Branch, W.R., Bayliss, J. & K. A. Tolley (2014). Pygmy chameleons of the Rhampholeon platyceps compex (Squamata: Chamaeleonidae): Description of four new species from isolated ‘sky islands’ of northern Mozambique. Zootaxa. 3814(1): 1-36.

Branch, W.R. & Jackson, A., 2016. Natural History Note: Dispholdus typus A. Smith, 1828, Melanism. African Herp News 63: 9-11.

Broadley, D.G. 1992. Reptiles and amphibians from the Bazaruto Archipelago, Mozambique. Arnoldia Zimbabwe 9 (38): 539-548.

Broadley, D.G. & Farooq. H.O.M. 2013. Geographical Distribution: Thelotornis usambaricus. African Herp News 59: 48-50.

Broadley, D.G., Measey, G.J. 2016. A new species of Zygaspis (Reptilia: Squamata: Amphisbaenidae) from north-eastern Mozambique. Afr. J. Herpetol. 65(2): 115-122.

Burgess, N., Neguissie, G., Bechtel, P., Moises, N.O. & Doggart, N. 2003. Coastal Forest of Northern Mozambique. The ARC Journal. 15: 1-4.

Channing, A. (2001). Amphibians of Central and Southern Africa, Protea Books, Pretoria, 470p. Coals, P.G.R. 2011. Report of the 2011 Sengi expedition to Northern Mozambique, 10th June – 3rd

July 2011, Society of Biology, unpubl. report. Conradie, W., J. Harvey, A. Kotzé, D.L. Dalton, and M.J. Cunningham. (2011). Confirmed amphibian

chytrid in Mount Mulanje area, Malawi. Herpetol. Rev. 42: 369–371.



Conradie, W., G.B. Bittencourt-Silva, H.M. Engelbrecht, S.P. Loader, M. Menegon, C. Nanvonamuquitxo, M. Scott & K.A. Tolley (2016a). Exploration into the hidden world of Mozambique’s sky island forests: new discoveries of reptiles and amphibians. Zoosyst. Evol. 92(2): 163-180.

Conradie, W., G.B. Bittencourt-Silva, S.P. Loader, M. Menegon, C. Nanvonamuquitxo, A. Kotze, D.L. Dalton, & K.A. Tolley (2016b). Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis Survey of Amphibians in the Northern Mozambique “Sky Islands” and Low-lying Areas. Herpetol. Rev. 47(1): 42-46.

Cumming, D. (1999) Study on the Development of Transboundary National Resource. Environmental Pre-Assessment Report 2015.

Du Preez, L.H. and Carruthers, V.C. 2009. A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa. Struik Publ., Cape Town, 488pp

Farooq, H.O.M. 2011. Preliminary report of the terrestrial fauna of Vamizi Island, Cabo Delgado, Mozambique. Universidade Lurio, 18pp.

Farooq, H.O.M, Conradie, W. 2015. A second record of Scolecomorphus kirkii Boulenger, 1883 (Gymnophiona: Scolecomorphidae) for Mozambique. Herpetology Notes 8: 59–62.

Farooq, H., Liedtke, H.C., Bittencourt-Silva, G., Conradie, C., Loader, S. 2015. The distribution of Mertensophryne anotis with a new record in Northern Mozambique. Herpetology Notes 8: 305-307.

Gemfield (2017) GIA Field Gemology Project (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrG0FQYqOfU) GRNB 2010. Biodiversity baseline of the Quirimbas National Park, Mozambique: Final report. 91p.

(http://cebem.org/cmsfiles/publicaciones/PNQ_Biodiversity.pdf) Gosling, M. 2014. 900 tuskers killed in 3 years. http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/ environment/900-tuskers-killed-in-3-years-1.1706623#.VjOf2qTlp9A IUCN 2016. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>.

(Downloaded on 17 February 2017). Kindler, C., Branch, W.R., Hofmeyr, M.F., Maran5, J., Široký, P., Vences, M., Harvey, J., Hauswald,

S., Schleicher, A., Stuckas, H. & Fritz, U. 2012. Molecular phylogeny of African hinge-back tortoises (Kinixys Bell, 1827): implications for phylogeography and taxonomy (Testudines: Testudinidae). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 50(3): 192–201.

Kingdon, J. 1997. The Kingdon field guide to African mammals. Academic Press Ltd, London. Laurance W. F. (2015). Roads to Ruin. The New York Times APRIL 12, 2015. Accesses on the

17.04.2015. Access at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/roads-to-ruin.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1

Lepage, D. 2013. Checklist of the birds of Mozambique. Avibase, the world database. Retrieved from http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org.

Medina, M.F., Bauer, A.M., Branch, W.R., Schmitz, A., Conradie, W., Nagy, Z.T., Hibbitts, T.J., Ernst, R., Portik, D.M., Nielsen, S.V., Colston, T.J., Kusamba, C., Kusamba, C., Rȍdel, M-O. & Behangana, M., Greenbaum, E., 2015. Molecular phylogeny of Panaspis and Afroablepharus skinks (Squamata: Scincidae) in the savannas of sub-Saharan Africa. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 100: 409–423.

MICOA 2009. The National Report on Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Mozambique. Ministry for the Coordination of Environmental Affairs, Maputo, Mozambique.

Monadjem A, Taylor PJ, Cotterill FPD, Schoeman M.C. 2010a. Bats of Southern and Central Africa: A Biogeographic and Taxonomic Synthesis. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.

Monadjem A, Schoeman MC, Reside A, Pio DV, Stoffberg S, Bayliss, J., Cotterill, F.P.D., Curran, M., Kopp, M. & Taylor, P.J. 2010b. A recent inventory of the bats of Mozambique with documentation of seven new species to the country. Acta Chiropterologica 12: 371–391.

Nicoll, M. E. & Rathbun G.B. 1990. African Insectivora and Elephant-shrews, an Action Plan for their Conservation. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland.

Ohler, A. & Dubois, A. 2016. The identity of the South African toad Sclerophrys capensis Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia, Anura). PeerJ, 4, (e1553), p. 1–13.

Ohler, A., & Frétey, T. 2015. Going back to Rovuma: the frog fauna of a coastal dry forest, and a checklist of the amphibians of Mozambique. Journal of East African Natural History 103(2): 73–124.

Parker, V. 1999. The Atlas of the Birds of Sul do Save, southern Mozambique. Endangered Wildlife Trust & Avian Demography Unit, Johannesburg and Cape Town, 276p.

http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/%20%20%20%20%20%20environment/900-tuskers-killed-in-3-years-1.1706623#.VjOf2qTlp9A

http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/%20%20%20%20%20%20environment/900-tuskers-killed-in-3-years-1.1706623#.VjOf2qTlp9A

http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/



Parker, V. (2001). Mozambique pp 627–638. In: FISHPOOL, L.D.C. & EVANS M.I. (eds.), Important Bird Areas in Africa and Associated Islands: Priority sites for conservation. Newbury and Cambridge, UK. Pisces Publications and BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No.11).

Parker, V. 2005. The Atlas of the Birds of Central Mozambique. Endangered Wildlife Trust & Avian Demography Unit, Johannesburg and Cape Town, 321p.

Parker V 2005b. The Birds of the Niassa Reserve, Mozambique. Bright Continent Guide 4. Cape Town: ADU. 30pp.

Pascal, O. (compiler) 2011. The Coastal Forests of Northern Mozambique, 2008 2009 expeditions. Our Planet Reviewed Programme, report n°1. Pro-Natura international / Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. 160 pp.

Petzold, A., Vargas-Ramírez, M., Kehlmaier, C., Vamberger, M., Branch, W.R., Du Preez, L., Hofmeyr, M.D., Meyer, L., Schleicher, A., Široký, P. & Fritz, U. 2014. Diagnoses for African helmeted terrapins (Testudines: Pelomedusidae: Pelomedusa), with the description of six new species. Zootaxa 3795(5): 523-548.

Porembski, S. and Barthlott, W. (eds) 2000. Inselbergs: biotic diversity of isolated rock outcrops in tropical and temperate regions. Ecological studies 146, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany. 524 pp.

Portik, D.M., Travers, S., Bauer, A.M. & Branch, W.R. 2013a. A new species of Lygodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) endemic to Mount Namuli, an isolated ‘sky’ island of northern Mozambique. Zootaxa 3710 (5): 415–435.

Portik, D.M., Mulungu, E., Sequeira, D. & McEntee, J.P. 2103b. Herpetological surveys of the Serra Jeci and Namuli massifs, Mozambique, and an annotated checklist of the southern Afromontane archipelago. Herpetological Review, 44(3): 394–406.

Poynton JC 1966. Amphibia of northern Mozambique. Mems. Inst. Invest. client. Mocam. 8 Ser. A: 13-34.

Poynton, J.C. 199. Amphibians of Southeastern Tanzania with special reference to Stephopaedes and Mertensophryne Bufonidae. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 152: 451–473.

Poynton, J.C. and Broadley, D.G. 1991. Amphibia Zambesiaca 5. Zoogeography. Ann. Natal Mus., 32: 221-277.

Rachowicz, L. J., R. A. Knapp, J. A. T. Morgan, M. J. Stice, V. T. Vredenburg, J. M. Parker, and D. C. J. Briggs. 2006. Emerging infectious disease as a proximate cause of amphibian mass mortality. Ecology 87:1671−1683.

Rasplus, J.Y., Martinez, M., Madogolele, N., Duplantier, J.M. (2009). ZoologicalComponent. Expedition Report. Reconnaissance of Coastal Forests in Cabo Delgado 22nd Nov. – 13th Dec. 2008. Pro-Natura international/Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris. Pp. 31–41.

Roberts VII Multimedia Birds of Southern Africa Android Edition (2017). http://www.sabirding.co.za/roberts7/android.html Ruas, C. 2002. Batráquios de Moçambique em colecção no Centro de Zoologia. Garcia de Orta, Serie de Zoologia 24(1–2): 131–137. Ryan P, Bento C, Cohen C, Graham J, Parker V & Spottiswoode C 1999. The avifauna and

conservation status of Namuli Massif, northern Mozambique. Bird Conservation International 9: 315-331.

SADC TFCA 2013. Southern African Development Community. SADC Programme for Transfrontier Conservation Areas. Rpt. SADC Secretariat, Gaborone. 34p.

Schneider Mf, Buramuge Va, Aliasse L & Serfontein, F. 2005. Checklist and centres of vertebrate diversity in Mozambique. 19. Maputo: Forestry Department Report.

Sitoe, A., Macandza, V., Jorge, P., Gabriel, A., Carvalho, M. & Amade, F. 2011. Biodiversity Baseline of the Quirimbas National Park, Mozambique: Final Report. GRNB, Universitdade Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo. 1-104.

Smithers, R.H.N. and Tello, J.L.T.L. 1976. Checklist and atlas of the mammals of Mozambique, Mus. Mem. Natl. Mus. Monum. Rhod. 9: 1-147.

Stuart, S. N., J. S. Chanson, N. A. Crox, B. E. Young, A. S. L. Rodrigues, D. L. Fischman, and R. W. Waller. 2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306(5702):1783–1786.



Taylor PJ, Stoffberg S, Monadjem A, Schoeman MC, Bayliss J, et al. 2012. Four New Bat Species (Rhinolophus hildebrandtii Complex) Reflect Plio- Pleistocene Divergence of Dwarfs and Giants across an Afromontane Archipelago. PLoS ONE 7(9): e41744.doi:10.1371/

Temudo, M.P., Silva, J.M.N., 2012. Agriculture and forest cover changes in post-war Mozambique. J. Land Use Sci. 7, 425–442.

Timberlake, J.R., Goyder, D.J., Crawford, F. & Pascal, O. 2010. Coastal dry forests in Cabo Delgado Province, northern Mozambique – botany & vegetation. Report for "Our Planet Reviewed" a joint initiative Pro-Natura international and the French Museum of Natural History, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London. 92 pp.

Uetz, P., Freed, P. & Jirí Hošek (eds.), 2017. The Reptile Database, http://www.reptile-database.org (accessed 18 April 2017).

USAid, 2008. Mozambique Biodiversity and Tropical Forests. 118/119 Assessment.

Valencia-Aguilar A, Cortés-Gómez AM, Ruiz-Agudelo CA 2013. Ecosystem services provided by amphibians and reptiles in Neotropical ecosystems. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 9, 3: 257-272.

Verburgt, L. (2013) Herpetofauna baseline of the Afungi Peninsula. In: Environmental Impact Assessment - I) Introduction, project description and baseline. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Texas, USA. Available from: http://www.mzlng.com/content/documents/ MZLNG/EIA/Volume_I/English/Chapter_8-_LNG_Final_EIA_Feb_2014_Eng.pdf (accessed 19 July 2016).

Verburgt, L., Verburgt, U. & Branch, W.R. 2017. A new species of Scolecoseps (Reptilia: Scincidae) from coastal north-eastern Mozambique. Afr. J. Herpetol. In press.

Verheyen, W., Hulselmans, J., Wendelen, W., Leirs, H., Corti, M., Backeljau, T. & Verheyen, E. (2011) Contribution to the systematics and zoogeography of the East-African Acomys spinosissimus Peters 1852 species complex and the description of two new species (Rodentia: Muridae). Zootaxa 3059: 1–35.

http://www.reptile-database.org/

http://www.mzlng.com/content/documents/%20MZLNG/EIA/Volume_I/English/Chapter_8-_LNG_Final_EIA_Feb_2014_Eng.pdf

http://www.mzlng.com/content/documents/%20MZLNG/EIA/Volume_I/English/Chapter_8-_LNG_Final_EIA_Feb_2014_Eng.pdf



APPENDIX 1: LIST OF AMPHIBIAN SPECIES

Species Common Name Red List

Possible Ancuabe Wet Dry

Cabo Delgado (C). Niassa (N) Province

ARTHROLEPTIDAE

Common Squeaker Arthroleptis stenodactylus LC Y C, N

Dwarf Squeaker Arthroleptis xenodactyloides LC Y C, N

Yellow-spotted tree frog Leptopelis flavomaculatus LC Y C, N

Broadley’s tree frog Leptopelis broadleyi LC Y C

BUFONIDAE

Garman’s Toad Sclerophrys garmani LC C

Guttural toad Sclerophrys gutturalis LC Y Y C, N

Flat-backed toad Sclerophrys pusilla LC Y Y C, N

Lindner’s dwarf toad Mertensophryne lindneri LC Y C

Earless dwarf toad Mertensophryne cf anotis LC Y C

Red toad Schismaderma carens LC Y C

BREVICIPIDAE

Mozambique Rain Frog Breviceps mossambicus LC Y C, N

Eastern Rain Frog Breviceps adspersus LC Y C

MICROHYLIDAE

Striped rubber frog Phrynomantis bifasciatus LC Y C

HEMISOTIDAE

Marbled snout-burrower Hemisus marmoratus LC Y C, N

PIPIDAE

Tropical platanna Xenopus muelleri LC Y Y C, N

HYPEROLIIDAE

Snoring leaf-folding frog Afrixalus cf. crotalus LC Y C

Delicate Leaf-folding Frog Afrixalus delicatus LC C

Giant leaf-folding frog Afrixalus fornasinii LC Y C, N

Leaf-folding Frog Afrixalus cf. brachychemis LC Y C

Argus reed frog Hyperolius argus LC Y C, N

Painted Reed Frog Hyperolius marmoratus LC Y C, N

Long Reed Frog Hyperolius microps LC Y C. N

Parker’s Reed Frog Hyperolius parkeri LC Y C

Waterlily Reed Frog Hyperolius pusillus LC Y C

Tinker Reed Frog Hyperolius tuberlinguis LC Y C

Pemba Reed Frog Hyperolius sp. DD Y C

Spotted Reed Frog Hyperolius substriatus LC Y N

Red-legged Kassina Kassina maculata LC Y C, N

Senegal Kassina Kassina senegalensis LC Y C, N

PHRYNOBATRACHIDAE

Eastern Puddle Frog Phrynobatrachus acridoides LC Y C

Mababe Puddle Frog Phrynobatrachus mababiensis

LC Y C, N

Natal Puddle Frog Phrynobatrachus natalensis LC Y C, N

PTYCHADENIDAE

Anchieta’s Ridged Frog Ptychadena anchietae LC Y Y C, N

Guibe's Ridged Frog Ptychadena guibei LC Y C

Mascarene Ridged Frog Ptychadena mascareniensis LC Y C

Mozambique Ridged Frog Ptychadena mossambica LC Y C

Sharp-nosed Ridged Frog Ptychadena oxyrhynchus LC Y C, N

Schilluck Ridged Frog Ptychadena schillukorum LC Y C

Dwarf Ridged Frog Ptychadena taenioscelis LC Y C

Ornate frog Hildebrandti o. ornata LC Y C, N

PYXICEPHALIDAE

Delalandi’s river frog Ameitia delalandii LC Y N

Dwarf Bullfrog Pyxicephalus edulis LC Y C, N

Mongrel Frog Notophryne sp. nov. DD Y C

Sand Frog Tomopterna sp. Y C

RHACOPHORIDAE

Grey Foam Nest Frog Chiromantis xerampelina LC Y Y C, N

RANIDAE

Galem White-lipped Frog Amnirana galamensis LC Y C

TOTALS 49 19 20 10 C – 47, N – 23



* from Branch (2004), Ohler & Fretey (2014), Verburgt (2013) Y - Records highlighted in red are new provincial records

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF REPTILE SPECIES

Species Common Name Red List Status

CITES Possible Ancuabe Surveys Wet Dry

Cabo Delgado & Niassa Province

ORDER: SQUAMATA

LIZARDS

GEKKONIDAE

Tropical house gecko Hemidactylus mabouia LC Y Y C, N

Flat-headed house gecko Hemidactylus platycephalus

LC Y Y C, N

Cape Dwarf Day Gecko Lygodactylus capensis LC Y Y C, N

Painted Dwarf Day Gecko Lygodactylus luteopicturatus

LC Y C

Speckled Gecko Pachydactylus punctatus LC Y N

Turner’s Thick-toed Gecko Chondrodactylus turneri LC Y N

Tete gecko Elasmodactylus tetensis LC Y N

VARANIDAE

Rock monitor Varanus albigularis LC 2 Y C, N

Water monitor Varanus niloticus LC 2 Y Y C, N

CHAMAELEONIDAE

Flap-necked chameleon Chamaeleo dilepis LC 2 R C, N

Sword-nosed Chameleon Trioceros melleri LC 2 C

Short-tailed Leaf Chameleon Rieppeleon brachyurus LC 2 C

AGAMIDAE

Branch’s Tree agama Acanthocercus branchi LC Y N

Ground Agama Agama armata LC Y Y C, N

Kirk’s Rock Agama Agama kirkii LC Y N

Mozambique Agama Agama mossambica LC Y Y C, N

LACERTIDAE

Johnston’s Lizard Latastia johnstoni LC Y N

Ornate sandveld lizard Nucras ornata LC Y C

Rough-scaled desert Lizard

Meroles squamulosus LC Y C

SCINCIDAE Y

Loveridge’s Burrowing Skink Melanoseps cf loveridgei LC Y N

Mozambique WrithingSkink Mochlus afrum LC Y C, N

Sundevall’s Writhing Skink

Mochlus sundevallii LC Y C, N

Snake-eyed skink Panaspis nov. sp. LC Y Y C, N

Dwarf Burrowing Skink Scolecoseps nov. sp. DD Y C

Boulenger’s Skink Trachylepis boulengeri LC Y C, N

Rainbow Skink Trachylepis margaritifer LC Y Y C, N

Striped Skink Trachylepis striata LC Y Y C, N

Varied Skink Trachylepis varia LC Y Y C, N

Speckled-lipped skink) Trachylepis maculilabris LC Y Y C, N

GERRHOSAURIDAE

Giant plated lizard Matobosaurus validus LC Y Y C, N

Rough-scaled plated Lizard

Broadleysaurus major LC Y C

Yellow-throated plated Lizard

Gerrhosaurus flavigularis LC C

Black-lined plated lizard Gerrhosaurus intermedius LC Y Y C

CORDYLIDAE

Tropical Girdled Lizard Cordylus tropidosternum LC 2 Y C

Spotted Flat Lizard Platysaurus cf maculatus LC Y Y C, N

AMPHISBAENIDAE

Swynnerton’s Worm Lizard Chirindia swynnertoni LC Y C, N

Marais Worm Lizard Zygaspis maraisi DD Y C * based on Branch et al. (2005), Verburgt (2013)



Species Common Name Red List Status


Cabo Delgado & Niassa Province *

SERPENTES

TYPHLOPIDAE

Zambezi Blind Snake Afrotyphlops mucruso LC Y N

LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE

Ionides’ Thread Snake Myriapholis Ionidesi LC Y ?

PYTHONIDAE

Southern African Python Python natalensis LC 2 Y C, N

ATRACTASPIDIDAE

Purple-glossed Snake Amblyodipsas polylepis LC Y

Cape Centipede-Eater Aparallactus capensis LC Y N

Plumbeous Centipede Eater

Aparallactus l. lunulatus LC Y

Günther’s Centipede Eater

Aparallactus guentheri LC Y

Bibron’s Burrowing Asp * Atractaspis bibronii LC Y C

LAMPROPHIIDAE

Cape House Snake Boaedon capensis LC Y C, N

Cape Wolf Snake Lycophidion capense capense

LC Y C, N

Cape File Snake Gonionotrophis capensis capensis

LC Y C

Nyassa File Snake Gonionotrophis nyassae LC Y ?

PSAMMOPHIIDAE Y

Spotted Bark Snake Hemirhagerrhis nototaenia

LC Y

Angola Dwarf Sand Snake

Psammophis angolensis

LC Y

Olive Grass Snake Psammophis mossambicus

LC Y C, N

Eastern Striped-bellied Snake

Psammophis orientalis LC Y C, N

Beaked Snake Rhamphiophis rostratus LC Y C, N

PROSYMNIDAE

Stulmann’s Shovel Snout

Prosymna stuhlmannii LC Y C

COLUBRIDAE

Red-lipped Snake Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia

LC Y C, N

Broadley’s Tree Snake Dipsadoboa flavida broadleyi

LC Y C

Usambara Green Snake Philothamnus macrops LC Y C

Common Green Snake Philothamnus hoplogaster

LC Y C, N

Speckled Green Snake Philothamnus punctatus LC Y C

Spotted Bush Snake Philothamnus semivariegatus

LC Y C, N

Tiger Snake Telescopus semiannulatus

LC Y C, N

Boomslang * Dispholidus viridus LC Y C, N

Usambara Twig Snake * Thelotornis usambaricus LC Y C

Mozambique Twig * Snake

Thelotornis mossambicanus

LC Y C

Semiornate Snake Meizodon semiornatus LC Y N

East African Egg-eater Dasypeltis medici LC Y C

Common Egg-eater Dasypeltis scabra LC Y C, N

NATRICIDAE

Forest Swamp Snake Natriciteres sylvatica LC Y N



Species

Common Name Red List Status


Cabo Delgado & Niassa Province *

ELAPIDAE

Boulenger’s Garter Snake *

Elapsoidea boulengeri LC Y C

Forest Cobra * Naja melanoleuca LC Y C

Mozambique Spitting Cobra *

Naja mossambica LC R C, N

Black Mamba * Dendroaspis polylepis LC Y N

Green Mamba * Dendroaspis angusticeps

LC Y C

VIPERIDAE

Snouted Night Adder * Causus defilippii LC Y C, N

Rhombic Night Adder * Causus rhombeatus LC Y N

Puff Adder * Bitis arietans arietans LC Y C, N

Gaboon Adder * Bitis gabonica R C

ORDER: CHELONIA

TESTUDINIDAE

Southern Hingeback Tortoise

Kinixys zombensis LC 2 Y C

Spek’s Hingeback Tortoise

Kinixys spekii LC 2 Y Y C

TRIONYCHIDAE

Zambezi Soft-shelled Terrapin

Cycloderma frenatum NT Y C, N

PELOMEDUSIDAE

Marsh Terrapin Pelomedusa subrufa LC Y C

Yellow-bellied Hinged Terrapin

Pelusios castanoides LC Y C

Serrated Hinged Terrapin

Pelusois sinuatus LC Y Y C, N

ORDER: CROCODYLIA

CROCODYLIDAE

Nile Crocodile Crocodylus niloticus LC 2 Y Y C, N

TOTALS 90 10 53 22 26 85

19L, 30S, 4C

3R 37L,40S, 6C, 1Cr

* venomous



APPENDIX 3: LIST OF BIRD SPECIES *

Species Common Name Red List

CITES Possible Quirimbas

Recorded W/D Status

Accipiter badius Shikra LC 2 Y

Accipiter melanoleucus Black Sparrowhawk LC 2 W

Accipiter minullus Little Sparrowhawk LC 2 D

Accipiter ovampensis Ovampo Sparrowhawk LC 2 Y

Accipiter tachiro African Goshawk LC Y

Acrocephalus arundinaceus Great Reed-warbler LC Y

Acrocephalus gracilirostris Lesser Swamp-warbler LC Q

Acrocephalus palustris Marsh Warbler LC D

Acrocephalus schoenobaenus Sedge Warbler LC D

Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper LC W

Actophilornis africanus African Jacana LC D

Aenigmatolimnas marginalis Striped Crake LC Y

Alcedo cristata Malachite Kingfisher LC Q

Alcedo semitorquata Half-collared Kingfisher LC Y

Alopochen aegyptiaca Egyptian Goose LC Y

Amadina fasciata Cut-throat Finch LC Y

Amandava subflava Zebra Waxbill LC Y

Amaurornis flavirostra Black Crake LC Q

Amblyospiza albifrons Thick-billed Weaver LC Y

Anaplectes rubriceps Red-headed Weaver LC W, D

Anas erythrorhyncha Red-billed Teal LC Y

Anas hottentota Hottentot Teal LC Y

Anas sparsa African Black Duck LC Y

Anastomus lamelligerus African Openbill LC Q

Andropadus importunus Sombre Greenbul LC W

Anhinga rufa African Darter LC Q

Anthoscopus caroli African Penduline-tit LC Y

Anthreptes anchietae Anchieta's Sunbird LC Y

Anthreptes collaris Collared Sunbird LC W, D

Anthreptes longuemarei Western Violet-backed Sunbird

LC Y

Anthus cinnamomeus African Pipit LC W

Anthus nyassae Woodland Pipit LC Y

Anthus trivialis Tree Pipit LC Y

Anthus vaalensis Buffy Pipit LC Y

Apalis flavida Yellow-breasted Apalis LC W, D

Apalis thoracica Bar-throated Apalis LC Y

Apaloderma narina Narina Trogon LC Q

Apus affinis Little Swift LC W



Apus apus Common Swift LC W

Apus barbatus African Black Swift LC Q

Apus caffer White-rumped Swift LC Y

Apus horus Horus Swift LC Y

Aquila nipalensis Steppe Eagle LC 2 Y

Aquila pomarina Lesser Spotted Eagle LC 2

Aquila rapax Tawny Eagle LC 2 D

Aquila wahlbergi Wahlberg's Eagle LC 2 Y

Ardea alba Great White Egret LC Y

Ardea cinerea Grey Heron LC D

Ardea goliath Goliath Heron LC Q

Ardea melanocephala Black-headed Heron LC Q

Ardea purpurea Purple Heron LC Q

Ardeola ralloides Squacco Heron LC Q

Ardeola rufiventris Rufous-bellied Heron LC Y

Asio capensis Marsh Owl LC 2 Y

Aviceda cuculoides African Cuckoo-hawk LC 2 Q

Balearica regulorum Grey Crowned-crane EN 2 Y

Bias musicus Vanga Flycatcher LC Q

Batis soror Mozambique Batis LC D

Bostrychia hagedash Hadada Ibis LC Q

Botaurus stellaris Eurasian Bittern LC Y

Bradornis pallidus Pale Flycatcher LC W, D

Bradypterus baboecala Little Rush Warbler LC Y

Bubo africanus Spotted Eagle-owl LC 2 W, D

Bubo lacteus Giant Eagle-owl LC 2 Y

Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret LC D

Bucorvus leadbeateri Southern Ground Hornbill VU Q

Bugeranus carunculatus Wattled Crane VU 2 Y

Burhinus capensis Spotted Thick-knee LC Y

Burhinus vermiculatus Water Thick-knee LC Q

Buteo augur Augur Buzzard LC 2 Y

Buteo buteo Common Buzzard LC 2 Y

Buteo buteo vulpinus Steppe Buzzard LC 2 Q

Butorides striata Green-backed Heron LC Q

Bycanistes bucinator Trumpeter Hornbill LC W, D

Calandrella cinerea Red-capped Lark LC Y

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper LC Y

Calidris minuta Little Stint LC Y

Camaroptera brachyura Green-backed Camaroptera

LC W

Camaroptera stierlingi Stierling's Wren-warbler LC Y

Campephaga flava Black Cuckooshrike LC Y



Campethera abingoni Golden-tailed Woodpecker

LC Q

Campethera bennettii Bennett's Woodpecker LC Y

Campethera elachus Little Spotted Woodpecker

LC Q

Caprimulgus europaeus Eurasian Nightjar LC Y

Caprimulgus fossii Square-tailed Nightjar LC W

Caprimulgus pectoralis Fiery-necked Nightjar LC Y

Caprimulgus tristigma Freckled Nightjar LC Y

Centropus burchellii Burchell's Coucal LC D

Centropus grillii Black Coucal LC Y

Centropus senegalensis Senegal Coucal LC W

Centropus superciliosus White-browed Coucal LC Y

Cercomela familiaris Familiar Chat LC Q

Ceryle rudis Pied Kingfisher LC Q

Ceyx pictus African Pygmy-kingfisher LC Y

Ceuthmocares aereus Green Malkhoa LC Q

Charadrius asiaticus Caspian Plover LC Y

Charadrius hiaticula Common Ringed Plover LC Y

Charadrius marginatus White-fronted Plover LC Q

Charadrius pecuarius Kittlitz's Plover LC Q

Charadrius tricollaris Three-banded Plover LC W

Chlidonias hybrida Whiskered Tern LC Y

Chlidonias leucopterus White-winged Tern LC Y

Chlorocichla flaviventris Yellow-bellied Greenbul LC W

Chrysococcyx caprius Didric Cuckoo LC W

Chrysococcyx cupreus African Emerald Cuckoo LC W

Chrysococcyx klaas Klaas's Cuckoo LC W

Cichladusa arquata Collared Palm-thrush LC Y

Ciconia abdimii Abdim's Stork LC Y

Ciconia ciconia White Stork LC D

Ciconia episcopus Woolly-necked Stork LC Q

Ciconia nigra Black Stork LC 2 Y

Cinnyricinclus leucogaster Violet-backed Starling LC D

Cinnyris bifasciatus Purple-Banded Sunbird LC D

Circaetus cinerascens Western Banded Snake-eagle

LC 2 Y

Circaetus cinereus Brown Snake-eagle LC 2 D

Circaetus fasciolatus Southern Banded Snake Eagle

LC 2 Y

Circaetus pectoralis Black-chested Snake-eagle

LC 2 D

Circus aeruginosus Western Marsh-harrier LC 2 Y

Circus macrourus Pallid Harrier NT 2 D

Circus ranivorus African Marsh-harrier LC 2 D



Cisticola aberrans Lazy Cisticola LC Y

Cisticola brachypterus Siffling Cisticola LC Y

Cisticola cantans Singing Cisticola LC Y

Cisticola chiniana Rattling Cisticola LC W

Cisticola erythrops Red-faced Cisticola LC Y

Cisticola fulvicapilla Neddicky (Piping) LC D

Cisticola galactotes Rufous-winged Cisticola LC Q

Cisticola juncidis Zitting Cisticola LC Q

Cisticola lais Wailing Cisticola LC Y

Cisticola natalensis Croaking Cisticola LC Y

Clamator glandarius Great Spotted Cuckoo LC Y

Clamator jacobinus Jacobin Cuckoo LC W

Clamator levaillantii Levaillant's Cuckoo LC Y

Colius striatus Speckled Mousebird LC Y

Coracias caudatus Lilac-breasted Roller LC D

Coracias garrulus European Roller NT Y

Coracias naevia Purple Roller LC Y

Coracias spatulatus Racket-tailed Roller LC Y

Coracina pectoralis White-breasted Cuckooshrike

LC W

Corvus albicollis White-necked Raven LC D

Corvus albus Pied Crow LC D

Corythaixoides concolor Grey Go-away-bird LC Q

Cossypha heuglini White-browed Robin-chat LC W

Cossypha natalensis Red-capped Robin-chat LC Q

Coturnix coturnix Common Quail LC Q

Coturnix delegorguei Harlequin Quail LC Y

Creatophora cinerea Wattled Starling LC Q

Crecopsis egregia African Crake LC Y

Crex crex Corncrake LC Y

Cuculus canorus Common Cuckoo LC Y

Cuculus clamosus Black Cuckoo LC Y

Cuculus gularis African Cuckoo LC Y

Cuculus poliocephalus Lesser Cuckoo LC Y

Cuculus rochii Madagascar Cuckoo LC Y

Cuculus solitarius Red-chested Cuckoo LC W, D

Cursorius temminckii Temminck's Courser LC Y

Cypsiurus parvus African Palm-swift LC D

Delichon urbicum Common House-martin LC Y

Dendrocygna bicolor Fulvous Whistling-duck LC Y

Dendrocygna viduata White-faced Whistling-duck

LC D

Dendropicos fuscescens Cardinal Woodpecker LC D

Dicrurus adsimilis Fork-tailed Drongo LC D



Dircrurus ludwigii Square-tailed Drongo LC W, D

Dryoscopus cubla Black-backed Puffback LC W, D

Egretta alba Great White Egret LC Q

Egretta ardesiaca Black Heron LC D

Egretta garzetta Little Egret LC D

Egretta intermedia Yellow-billed Egret LC Q

Egretta ardesiaca Black Egret LC Q

Elanus caeruleus Black-shouldered Kite LC 2 D

Elminia albonotata White-tailed Crested-flycatcher

LC Y

Emberiza cabanisi Cabanis's Bunting LC Y

Emberiza flaviventris African Golden-breasted Bunting

LC Q

Emberiza tahapisi Cinnamon-breasted Bunting

LC W

Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis

Saddle-billed Stork LC Y

Eremomela icteropygialis Yellow-bellied Eremomela

LC D

Eremomela scotops Greencap Eremomela LC Y

Eremomela usticollis Burnt-neck Eremomela LC Y

Eremopterix leucotis Chestnut-backed Finchlark

LC Q

Erythrocercus livingstonei Livingstone's Flycatcher LC Q

Erythropygia leucophrys White-browed Scrub-robin

LC Q

Erythropygia quadrivirgata Bearded Scrub-robin LC W

Estrilda astrild Common Waxbill LC W

Euplectes albonotatus White-winged Widowbird LC D

Euplectes ardens Red-collared Widowbird LC D

Euplectes axillaries Fan-tailed Widowbird LC

Euplectes capensis Yellow Bishop LC Q W, D

Euplectes hordeaceus Black-winged Bishop LC W, D

Euplectes macrourus Yellow-mantled Widowbird

LC W

Euplectes orix Red Bishop LC D

Eupodotis melanogaster Black-bellied Bustard LC 2 Y

Eurystomus glaucurus Broad-billed Roller LC W, D

Falco amurensis Amur Falcon LC 2 Y

Falco biarmicus Lanner Falcon LC 2 Y

Falco chicquera Red-necked Falcon LC 2 Q

Falco concolor Sooty Falcon NT 2 Y

Falco cuvierii African Hobby LC 2 Y

Falco dickinsoni Dickinson's Kestrel LC 2 Q

Falco eleonorae Eleonora's Falcon LC 2 Y

Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel LC 2 Q

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon LC 1 Y



Falco rupicolus Rock Kestrel ? 2 Q

Falco subbuteo Eurasian Hobby LC 2 Y

Falco vespertinus Red-footed Falcon NT 2 Y

Ficedula albicollis Collared Flycatcher LC Y

Francolinus afer Red-necked Spurfowl LC W, D

Francolinus coqui Coqui Francolin LC Q

Francolinus sephaena Crested Francolin LC W

Gallinago media Great Snipe NT Y

Gallinago nigripennis African Snipe LC Y

Gallinula angulata Lesser Moorhen LC Y

Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen LC Q

Glareola pratincola Collared Pratincole LC Y

Glaucidium capense African Barred Owlet LC 2 Y

Glaucidium perlatum Pearl-spotted Owlet LC 2 Y

Gorsachius leuconotus White-backed Night-heron

LC Y

Guttera pucherani Crested Guineafowl LC W

Gyps africanus White-backed Vulture EN 2 Y

Halcyon albiventris Brown-hooded Kingfisher LC D

Halcyon chelicuti Striped Kingfisher LC D

Halcyon leucocephala Grey-headed Kingfisher LC Y

Halcyon senegalensis Woodland Kingfisher LC Y

Haliaeetus vocifer African Fish Eagle LC 2 D

Hieraaetus ayresii Ayres's Hawk-eagle LC 2 Y

Hieraaetus pennatus Booted Eagle LC 2 Y

Hieraaetus spilogaster African Hawk-eagle LC 2 Y

Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt LC Q

Hippolais icterina Icterine Warbler LC Y

Hippolais olivetorum Olive Tree Warbler LC Y

Hirundo abyssinica Lesser Striped-swallow LC W, D

Hirundo albigularis White-throated Swallow LC Q

Hirundo dimidiata Pearl-breasted Swallow LC Y

Hirundo fuligula Rock Martin LC W

Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow LC W, D

Hirundo semirufa Rufous-chested Swallow LC Y

Hirundo senegalensis Mosque Swallow LC W, D

Hirundo smithii Wire-tailed Swallow LC W

Hyliota flavigaster Yellow-bellied Hyliota LC Y

Hypargos niveoguttatus Red-throated Twinspot LC Q

Indicator indicator Greater Honeyguide LC Q

Indicator meliphilus Pallid Honeyguide LC Y

Indicator minor Lesser Honeyguide LC Y

Indicator variegatus Scaly-throated Honeyguide

LC Y



Ispidinia crista Pygmy Kingfisher LC Q

Ixobrychus minutus Little Bittern LC Y

Ixobrychus sturmii Dwarf Bittern LC Y

Kaupifalco monogrammicus Lizard Buzzard LC 2 W, D

Lagonosticta rhodopareia Jameson's Firefinch LC Q

Lagonosticta rubticata African Firefinch LC W, D

Lagonosticta senegala Red-billed Firefinch LC Q

Lamprotornis chalybaeus Greater Blue-eared Glossy-starling

LC Y

Laniarius major Tropical Boubou LC W

Lanius collaris Common Fiscal LC Y

Lanius collurio Red-backed Shrike LC Y

Lanius minor Lesser Grey Shrike LC D

Lanius souzae Souza's Shrike LC Y

Larus fuscus Lesser Black-backed Gull LC Y

Leptoptilos crumeniferus Marabou Stork LC Y

Locustella fluviatilis River Warbler LC Y

Lophaetus occipitalis Long-crested Eagle LC 2 Q

Luscinia luscinia Thrush Nightingale LC Y

Lybius melanopterus Brown-breasted Barbet LC Q

Lybius torquatus Black-collared Barbet LC W

Macheiramphus alcinus Bat Hawk LC 2 D

Macrodipteryx vexillarius Pennant-winged Nightjar LC Y

Macronyx croceus Yellow-throated Longclaw

LC Q

Malaconotus blanchoti Grey-headed Bush-shrike LC W

Megaceryle maxima Giant Kingfisher LC Q

Melaenornis pammelaina Southern Black Flycatcher

LC W, D

Melierax gabar Gabar Goshawk LC 2 W, D

Melierax metabates Dark Chanting-goshawk LC 2 W, D

Melocichla mentalis Moustached Grass-warbler

LC Y

Merops apiaster European Bee-eater LC W

Merops boehmi Boehm's Bee-eater LC W

Merops bullockoides White-fronted Bee-eater LC W

Merops hirundineus Swallow-tailed Bee-eater LC D

Merops nubicoides Southern Carmine Bee-eater

LC Y

Merops persicus Blue-cheeked Bee-eater LC D

Merops pusillus Little Bee-eater LC W, D

Merops superciliosus Olive Bee-eater LC Q

Mesophoyx intermedia Intermediate Egret LC Y

Microparra capensis Lesser Jacana LC Q

Milvus aegyptus Yellow-billed Kite LC 2 Y



Milvus migrans Black Kite LC 2 Q

Mirafra rufocinnamomea Flappet Lark LC Q

Miafra sabota Sabota Lark LC Q

Monticola angolensis Miombo Rock-thrush LC Y

Motacilla aguimp African Pied Wagtail LC D

Motacilla clara Mountain Wagtail LC Y

Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail LC Y

Muscicapa adusta African Dusky Flycatcher LC D

Muscicapa caerulescens Ashy Flycatcher LC W, D

Muscicapa striata Spotted Flycatcher LC W

Mycteria ibis Yellow-billed Stork LC Q

Myioparus plumbeus Grey Tit-flycatcher LC Y

Myrmecocichla arnoti Arnott's Chat LC Y

Neafrapus boehmi Boehm's Spinetail LC W

Necrosyrtes monachus Hooded Vulture EN 2 Y

Cinnyris amethystina Amethyst Sunbird LC Y

Cinnyris bifasciata Purple-banded Sunbird LC Q

Cinnyris cuprea Copper Sunbird LC Y

Cinnyris senegalensis Scarlet-chested Sunbird LC W, D

Cinnyris shelleyi Shelley's Sunbird LC Y

Cinnyris talatala White-bellied Sunbird LC D

Cinnyris venusta Variable Sunbird LC Q

Netta erythrophthalma Southern Pochard LC Q

Nettapus auritus African Pygmy-goose LC Q

Nicator gularis Eastern Nicator LC W

Nilaus afer Brubru LC Y

Numida meleagris Helmeted Guineafowl LC W, D

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-heron

LC Y

Oena capensis Namaqua Dove LC Y

Oenanthe pileata Capped Wheatear LC Y

Onychognathus morio Red-winged Starling LC Q

Oriolus auratus African Golden Oriole LC Y

Oriolus larvatus African Black-headed Oriole

LC Q

Oriolus oriolus Eurasian Golden Oriole LC Y

Ortygospiza locustella Locust Finch LC Y

Otus leucotis White-faced Scops-owl LC 2 Q

Otus senegalensis African Scops-owl LC 2 Q

Pachycoccyx audeberti Thick-billed Cuckoo LC Y

Pandion haliaetus Osprey LC 2 Q

Parus niger Black Tit LC W

Passer diffusus Southern Grey-headed Sparrow

LC D



Passer domesticus House Sparrow LC D

Passer griseus Northern Grey-headed Sparrow

LC Y

Pelecanus onocrotalus Great White Pelican LC Y

Pelecanus rufescens Pink-backed Pelican LC Y

Pernis apivorus European Honey-buzzard LC 2 Y

Petronia superciliaris Yellow-throated Petronia LC D

Phalacrocorax africanus Reed Cormorant LC Q

Phalacrocorax carbo White-breasted Cormorant

LC Y

Philomachus pugnax Ruff LC Y

Phoeniconaias minor Lesser Flamingo LC Q

Phoeniculus purpureus Green Wood-hoopoe LC D

Phyllastrephus cerviniventris Grey-olive Greenbul LC Y

Phyllastrephus terrestris Terrestrial Brownbul LC W

Phylloscopus trochilus Willow Warbler LC D

Pinarocorys nigricans Dusky Lark LC Y

Pitta angolensis African Pitta LC Y

Platalea alba African Spoonbill LC Y

Platysteira peltata Black-throated Wattle-eye

LC Q

Plectropterus gambensis Spur-winged Goose LC Y

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis LC Y

Plocepasser mahali White-browed Sparrow-weaver

LC Y

Ploceus bicolor Dark-backed (Forest) Weaver

LC W, D

Ploceus cucullatus Village Weaver LC Y

Ploceus intermedius Lesser Masked Weaver LC W

Ploceus ocularis Spectacled Weaver LC Q

Ploceus subaureus Yellow Weaver LC D

Ploceus velatus Southern Masked-weaver LC Q

Ploceus xanthops Holub’s Golden Weaver LC W

Ploceus xanthopterus Southern Brown-throated Weaver

LC Y

Podica senegalensis African Finfoot LC Y

Pogoniulus chrysoconus Yellow-fronted Tinkerbird LC Q

Poicephalus cryptoxanthus Brown-necked Parrot LC Q

Poicephalus suahelicus Grey-headed Parrot LC Q

Polemaetus bellicosus Martial Eagle NT 2 Y

Polyboroides typus African Harrier-hawk LC 2 W, D

Porphyrio alleni Allen's Gallinule LC Y

Porphyrio porphyrio Purple Swamphen LC Y

Porzana porzana Spotted Crake LC Y

Porzana pusilla Baillon's Crake LC Y

Prinia subflava Tawny-flanked Prinia LC W



Prionops plumatus White Helmet-shrike LC Y W

Prionops plumatus White-Crested Helmet Shrike

LC W, D

Prionops retzii Retz's Helmet-shrike LC W

Prionops scopifrons Chestnut-fronted Helmet-shrike

LC Q

Prodotiscus regulus Brown-backed Honeyguide

LC Y

Prodotiscus zambesiae Green-backed Honeyguide

LC Y

Psalidoprocne orientalis Eastern Saw-wing LC Q

Pseudhirundo griseopyga Grey-rumped Swallow LC Y

Psophocichla litsitsirupa Groundscraper Thrush LC Y

Pterocles bicinctus Double-banded Sandgrouse

LC Y

Pycnonotus tricolor Dark-capped Bulbul LC D

Pyrenestes minor Lesser Seedcracker LC Y

Pytilia afra Orange-winged Pytilia LC D

Pytilia melba Green-winged Pytilia LC W, D

Quelea erythrops Red-headed Quelea LC Y

Quelea quelea Red-billed Quelea LC Y

Rallus caerulescens African Rail LC Y

Recurvirostra avosetta Pied Avocet LC Y

Rhinopomastus cyanomelas Common Scimitarbill LC W, D

Rhinoptilus chalcopterus Bronze-winged Courser LC Y

Riparia paludicola Plain Martin LC Y

Riparia riparia Sand Martin LC Y

Rostratula benghalensis Greater Painted-snipe LC Y

Rynchops flavirostris African Skimmer NT Y

Sagittarius serpentarius Secretarybird VU 2 Y

Sarkidiornis melanotos Comb Duck LC Y

Sarothrura boehmi Streaky-breasted Flufftail LC Y

Sarothrura elegans Buff-spotted Flufftail LC Y

Scopus umbretta Hamerkop LC D

Scotopelia peli Pel's Fishing-owl LC 2 Y

Schoutendenapus myoptilus Scarce Swift LC Q

Crithagra mozambicus Yellow-fronted Canary LC W, D

Crithagra sulphuratus Brimstone Canary LC Q

Smithornis capensis African Broadbill LC Y

Spermestes cucullatus Bronze Mannikin LC W, D

Spermestes fringilloides Magpie Mannikin LC Q

Spermestes nigriceps Red-backed Mannikin LC W

Stactolaema leucotis White-eared Barbet LC Q

Stephanoaetus coronatus African Crowned Eagle NT 2 Y

Stigmatopelia senegalensis Laughing Dove LC D



Streptopelia capicola Cape Turtle-dove LC D

Streptopelia decipiens African Mourning Dove LC W, D

Streptopelia semitorquata Red-eyed Dove LC Y

Strix woodfordii African Wood-owl LC 2 Q

Sylvia borin Garden Warbler LC D

Sylvia communis Common Whitethroat LC Y

Sylvietta rufescens Cape Crombec LC Y

Sylvietta whytii Red-faced Crombec LC W

Tachybaptus ruficollis Little Grebe LC Q

Tachymarptis aequatorialis Mottled Swift LC Y

Tauraco porphyreolophus Purple-crested Turaco LC 2 W, D

Tauraco livingstonii Livingstone’s Turaco LC W

Tchagra australis Brown-crowned Tchagra LC Q

Tchagra senegalus Black-crowned Tchagra LC W, D

Telacanthura ussheri Mottled Spinetail LC Y

Telophorus quadricolor Gorgeous Bush-shrike LC Q

Telophorus sulfureopectus Orange-breasted Bush-shrike

LC W

Terathopius ecaudatus Bateleur NT 2 Q

Terpsiphone viridis African Paradise-flycatcher

LC Q

Thalassornis leuconotus White-backed Duck LC Q

Thamnolaea cinnamomeiventris

Mocking Cliff-chat LC D

Threskiornis aethiopicus African Sacred Ibis LC Y

Thripias namaquus Bearded Woodpecker LC D

Tockus alboterminatus Crowned Hornbill LC W, D

Tockus erythrorhynchus Red-billed Hornbill LC Y

Tockus nasutus African Grey Hornbill LC D

Tockus pallidirostris Pale-billed Hornbill LC Y

Torgos tracheliotos Lappet-faced Vulture VU 2 Y

Trachyphonus vaillantii Crested Barbet LC Y

Treron calvus African Green-pigeon LC Q

Trichocercus cyanomelas Blumantled Flycatcher LC Q

Trocholaema leucomelas Pied Barbet LC Q

Trigonoceps occipitalis White-headed Vulture VU 2 D

Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper LC Y

Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank LC Q

Tringa ochropus Green Sandpiper LC Y

Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper LC Y

Tripias namaquus Bearded Woodpecker LC Q

Turdoides jardineii Arrow-marked Babbler LC Q

Turdus libonyanus Kurrichane Thrush LC Y

Turnix nanus Black-rumped Buttonquail

LC Y



Turnix sylvaticus Small Buttonquail LC Y

Turtur afer Blue-spotted Wood-dove LC Y

Turtur chalcospilos Emerald-spotted Wood-dove

LC W, D

Turtur tympanistria Tambourine Dove LC W

Tyto alba Barn Owl LC 2 Q

Tyto capensis African Grass-owl LC 2 Y

Upupa epops African Hoopoe LC D

Uraeginthus angolensis Blue Waxbill LC W, D

Urocolius indicus Red-faced Mousebird LC Q

Vanellus armatus Blacksmith Lapwing LC D

Vanellus coronatus Crowned Lapwing LC Y

Vanellus crassirostris Long-toed Lapwing LC Y

Vanellus lugubris Senegal Lapwing LC Y

Vanellus senegallus Wattled Lapwing LC Y

Vidua funereal Dusky Indigobird LC W

Vidua chalybeate Village Indigobird LC D

Vidua macroura Pin-tailed Whydah LC W, D

Vidua obtusa Broad-tailed Paradise-whydah

LC W, D

Vidua paradisaea Long-tailed Paradise-whydah

LC W

Vidua purpurascens Purple Indigobird LC Y

Zosterops senegalensis African Yellow White-eye LC Q

Totals 448 17 66 311 137

Excluding seabirds


Coastal & Environmental Services Triton Ancuabe Graphite mine 91

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF NON-VOLANT MAMMAL SPECIES

Scientific Name English Name Red List

Quirimbas NP* Possible Recorded

Wet Dry

Atelerix albiventris Four-toed Hedgehog LC R

Elephantulus fuscus Dusky Elephant Shrew DD Y

Elephantulus myurus Eastern Rock Elephant Shrew LC Y Y

Petrodromus tetradactylus Four-toed Elephant-shrew LC Y Y

Rhynchocyon cirnei Chequered Giant Sengi NT Y Y

Crocidura cyanea Reddish-gray Musk Shrew LC Y

Crocidura fuscomurina Bicolored Musk Shrew LC Y

Crocidura hirta Lesser Red Musk Shrew LC Y Y

Crocidura luna Greater Gray-brown Musk Shrew LC Y

Crocidura olivieri African Giant Shrew LC Y

Suncus lixus Greater Dwarf Shrew LC Y

Suncus megalura Climbing Shrew LC Y

Papio cynocephalus Yellow Baboon LC Y Y Y

Cercopithecus m. erythrarchus Stairs' White-collared Monkey * LC Y Y Y

Chlorocebus pygerythrus Vervet monkey * LC Y Y Y

Paragalago granti Mozambique Dwarf Galago * LC Y R

Otolemur crassicaudatus Thick-tailed Bushbaby LC Y R

Smutsia temminckii Ground Pangolin VU Y

Lepus saxatilis Scrub Hare LC Y Y Y

Heliophobius argenteocinereus

Silvery Mole Rat LC Y Y

Cryptomys darlingi Mashona Mole-rat LC Y

Graphiurus kelleni Kellen's Dormouse LC Y

Graphiurus microtis Small-eared Dormouse LC Y





Wet Dry

Graphiurus murinus Woodland Dormouse LC

Graphiurus platyops Rock Dormouse LC Y Y

Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape Porcupine LC Y Y

Acomys sp. Spiny Mouse LC Y

Aethomys chrysophilus Red Rock Rat LC Y Y

Dasymys incomtus African Marsh Rat LC Y

Grammomys dolichurus Woodland Thicket Rat LC Y

Lemniscomys rosalia Single-striped Grass Mouse LC R

Mastomys natalensis Natal Mastomys LC Y

Mus minutoides Pygmy Mouse LC Y

Otomys angoniensis Angoni Vlei Rat LC Y

Pelomys fallax Creek Groove-toothed Swamp Rat

LC Y

Rhabdomys pumilio Four-striped Grass Mouse LC Y

Gerbilliscus boehmi Boehm's Gerbil LC Y

Gerbilliscus leucogaster Bushveld Gerbil LC R

Thallomys paedulcus Acacia Rat LC Y

Uranomys ruddi Rudds Bristle-furred Rat LC Y

Cricetomys gambianus Gambian Rat LC Y

Dendromus melanotis Gray African Climbing Mouse LC Y

Dendromus mystacalis Chestnut Climbing Mouse LC Y

Dendromus nyikae Nyika Climbing Mouse LC Y

Saccostomus campestris Pouched Mouse LC Y Y

Steatomys pratensis Fat Mouse LC Y

Heliosciurus mutabilis Mutable Sun Squirrel LC Y

Paraxerus cepapi Smith's Bush Squirrel LC R





Wet Dry

Paraxerus flavovittis Striped Bush Squirrel LC Y

Paraxerus palliatus Red Bush Squirrel LC Y Y Y

Thryonomys swinderianus Greater Cane Rat LC Y Y

Canis adustus Side-striped Jackal * LC Y Y

Lycaon pictus African Wild Dog * EN Y V

Caracal caracal African Caracal LC Y

Felis silvestris African Wild Cat LC Y Y

Leptailurus serval Serval LC Y Y Y

Panthera leo African Lion VU Y V

Panthera pardus Leopard NT Y R R

Acinonyx jubatus Cheetah VU Y

Atilax paludinosus Marsh Mongoose LC Y

Bdeogale crassicauda Bushy-tailed Mongoose LC Y

Herpestes sanguineus Slender Mongoose LC Y Y R

Helogale parvula Common Dwarf Mongoose LC R

Herpestes ichneumon Large Grey Mongoose LC Y R

Ichneumia albicauda White-tailed Mongoose LC R

Mungos mungo Banded Mongoose LC Y Y R

Rhynchogale melleri Meller's Mongoose LC Y

Crocuta crocuta Spotted Hyaena * LC Y R

Aonyx capensis African Clawless Otter LC Y Y

Lutra maculicollis Speckle-throated Otter LC Y

Mellivora capensis Honey Badger LC Y R

Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat LC Y





Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel LC Y

Nandinia binotata African Palm Civet LC Y Y

Wet Dry

Civettictis civetta African Civet LC Y R

Genetta maculata Large-spotted Genet LC Y Y

Orycteropus afer Aardvark LC Y Y

Loxodonta africana African Elephant VU Y R R

Heterohyrax brucei Bush Hyrax LC Y

Procavia capensis Rock Dassie LC Y Y

Equus quagga Burchell's Zebra LC Y

Phacochoerus africanus Common Warthog LC Y Y

Potamochoerus larvatus Bushpig LC Y Y

Hippopotamus amphibius Common Hippopotamus VU Y E

Aepyceros melampus Impala LC Y R

Hippotragus equinus Roan Antelope LC ? R

Hippotragus niger Sable Antelope LC Y Y

Kobus ellipsiprymnus Waterbuck LC Y R

Nesotragus moschatus Suni LC Y Y

Oreotragus oreotragus Klipspringer * LC Y Y

Ourebia ourebi Oribi LC Y R

Raphicerus campestris Steenbok LC Y Y

Sylvicapra grimmia Common Duiker LC Y Y

Cephalophus natalensis Red Duiker LC Y Y

Cephalophus monticola Blue Duiker LC Y Y

Syncerus caffer African Buffalo LC Y E

Tragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck LC Y Y R





Tragelaphus strepsiceros Greater Kudu LC Y R

Totals 99 (+ 46 possible bats species) 1E, 5V 46 51 18 (R2) 15 (R22)

* species protected by Forest and Wildlife Law (República de Moçambique, 2002). R = Reported, V = Vagrant, E = Extirpated

grafex ancuabe graphite project, phase 2, mozambique ancuabe 206amber260717/5. specialist... ·...

Documents