population, distribution and conservation status …
TRANSCRIPT
i
POPULATION, DISTRIBUTION AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF SITATUNGA
(TRAGELAPHUS SPEKEI) (SCLATER) IN SELECTED WETLANDS IN UGANDA
Submitted to
Research and Monitoring Unit
Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)
Plot 7 Kira Road Kamwokya, P.O. Box 3530 Kampala Uganda
Email/Web - [email protected]/ www.ugandawildlife.org
Prepared By
Dr. Edward Andama (PhD) Lead consultant
Busitema University,
P. O. Box 236, Tororo Uganda
Telephone: 0772464279 or 0704281806
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected], [email protected]
Final Report
January 2019
0
1
2
3
4
5Biological -Life history
Biological -Ecologicl…Biological -Dispersal
Biological -Human tolerance
Status -National Distribtuion
Status -National Abundance
Status -National…
Status -National…
Status -National Major…
Harvest Management -…
Harvest Management -…
Harvest Management -…
Harvest Management -Aim…Harvest Management -…
Control of Harvest-in…Control of Harvest-in…
Control of Harvest-in…
Control - Open access…
Control -Confidence in…
Monitoring - methods used…
Monitoring - confidence in…
Incentive - Effect of harvest
Incentive - species…
Incentive - habitat…
Protection -proportion…
Protection -Effectiveness…
Protection -Regulation of…
Tragelaphus spekii (sitatunga)
Non Detrimental Findings (NDF)
ii
Contents
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND GLOSSARY .......................................................... vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... viii
1.1Background ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Justification of the study .................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Aims of the study ............................................................................................................. 4
1.3.1 Specific objective .................................................................................................. 4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Species description, characteristics, distribution, habitat requirements and behaviour ... 5
2.1.1 Origin and Species description .............................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Distribution of sitatunga across Africa.................................................................. 6
2.1.3 Habitat requirements and behaviour ..................................................................... 8
2.2 Ecology and populations of sitatunga ................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Feeding and home range ....................................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Reproduction, development and predation.......................................................... 10
2. 3. Sport/Trophy Hunting and Conservation of Sitatunga ...................................................... 11
2.3.1. Trophy/Sport hunting and its potential role in promoting biodiversity conservation
........................................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Sport/Trophy hunting in Uganda......................................................................... 14
2.3.3. Case of benefit sharing from sport/trophy hunting proceeds in Uganda ............. 17
2.4 Challenges to conservation of Sitatunga ........................................................................ 17
2.5 Legal and Institutional framework for conservation of sitatunga in Uganda ................. 19
3.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS ................................................................................... 21
3.1 Location of study areas/sites .......................................................................................... 21
3.2 Detailed description of study sites ................................................................................. 22
3.2.1 Ssese Islands ........................................................................................................ 22
3.2.2 Opeta-Bisina wetland system .............................................................................. 22
3.2.3 Katonga river system ........................................................................................... 23
3.2.4 Mayanja and Lugogo river systems .................................................................... 23
3.2.5 Lugogo River system .......................................................................................... 24
3.2.6 Kafu River system.................................................................................................... 24
3.3. Population estimate ............................................................................................................ 24
3.3.1 Boat survey .......................................................................................................... 25
3.3.2 Recee walks ......................................................................................................... 27
3.3.3 Habitat (Vegetation) description ......................................................................... 28
iii
3.3.4. Human activity/factors threatening Sitatunga ......................................................... 28
3.4. Data analysis and presentation ........................................................................................... 29
3.4.1 Distribution information ...................................................................................... 29
3.4.2 Analyses of the occurrence and distribution of human threats ........................... 29
3.5 Community knowledge on the distribution and occurrence of Sitatunga ........................... 30
3.6 Determination of quota for sitatunga sport/trophy hunting ............................................ 30
4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 31
4.1 General observations on sitatunga activity..................................................................... 31
4.2. Estimation of density .......................................................................................................... 32
4.2.2 Sitatunga evidence abundance in study sites....................................................... 34
4.3. Distribution of sitatunga across Uganda ........................................................................ 39
3.3. Habitat types ....................................................................................................................... 41
3.3.1. Vegetation description ............................................................................................ 41
4.4 Human disturbance activities .............................................................................................. 42
4.5 Local community knowledge on sitatunga..................................................................... 45
4.6 Guidelines for allocation of national sitatunga sport hunting quota .............................. 46
5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 48
1.1 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 48
5.1.1 Occurrence and population sizes of sitatunga in study sites .................................... 48
5.1.2 Characteristics and intensity of threats affecting sitatunga conservation ........... 48
5.1.3 Opportunities for conservation of sitatunga ............................................................... 52
5.1.4 Monitoring for healthy populations of Sitatunga ................................................ 53
5.2 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 54
5.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 55
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 57
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 64
Appendix 1. Survey data sheet .................................................................................................. 64
Appendix 2: survey questionnaire: ............................................................................................ 65
Appendix 3: Stakeholder roles in conservation of sitatunga ............................................. 67
Appendix 4: Non-detrimental finding for Sitatunga Tragelaphus spekii (Speke, 1863) .......... 69
iv
List of figures
Figure 1 Sitatunga distribution adopted from IUCN-SSC (2016) .................................................. 7
Figure 2 Sitatunga distribution adopted from Furstenburg (2009) ................................................. 7
Figure 3. Locations of the six study sites ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 4. Periphery of Lake Bisina with human activities, including settlement (left and crop
cultivation (right) very close to the shores .................................................................................... 26
Figure 5. The observation tower (Machan) for studying sitatunga ............................................... 27
Figure 6 Variation with time of the day in the average percentage time that individual sitatunga
were visible from an observing platform ...................................................................................... 31
Figure 7 Variation in the density of sitatunga with distance from the observation point ............. 32
Figure 8. Stretches of papyrus vegetation slashed to induce sprouting to attract sitatunga visits in
Mayanja River site. ....................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 9 Distribution of sitatunga in Katonga wildlife reserve site .............................................. 36
Figure 10 Sitatunga distribution around Lake Opeta site ............................................................. 36
Figure 11 Sitatunga distribution around Lugogo river system ..................................................... 37
Figure 12 Sitatunga distribution along River Kafu system ........................................................... 37
Figure 13 Sitatunga distribution along River Mayanja system ..................................................... 38
Figure 14 Distribution of Sitatunga in Ssese Island (Bugala)....................................................... 38
Figure 15 Remains of the sitatunga carcass found in Katonga Wildlife Reserve ........................ 39
Figure 16 Captive male sitatunga kept at Ssese Island wildlife center (SIWC) under the
management of the Ssese Island Beach Hotel. ............................................................................. 39
Figure 17 Distribution of Sitatunga within Wetland system in Uganda ....................................... 40
Figure 18 General distribution of sitatunga in Uganda ................................................................. 41
Figure 19 Gallery forest at the periphery of Lake Bisina/Opeta ................................................... 41
Figure 20 Flood plains in Lake Opeta area which was flooded during the study in July 2018. ... 42
Figure 21 Farming, settlement and charcoal burning in Lake Bisina and Opeta sites .................. 43
Figure 22 Clearance of wetland for livestock farming near Katonga wildlife Reserve site ......... 43
Figure 23. Clearing of wetland vegetation for farming and wood cutting for fuels and charcoal in
Bugala island ................................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 24 Incidence of human activities in various study sites .................................................... 44
Figure 25 Human activities in the study sites ............................................................................... 44
v
List of Tables
Table 1 Sport hunting companies in Uganda (UWA 2012b) ........................................................ 16
Table 2 Allocated hunting quota for 2016, 2017 and 2018 for various hunting blocks for
sitatunga species (Source UWA Community conservation department) ...................................... 16
Table 3 The case of revenue generated by Uganda Wildlife Safaris Ltd. for its stakeholders over
nine year period: (source www.uws.org accessed October 13th 2018) ........................................ 17
Table 4 Population density estimate for sitatunga in study sites derived from surreys boat and
transect surveys. ............................................................................................................................ 33
Table 5 Projection of Sitatunga population in the study sites based on estimated suitable habitat.
....................................................................................................................................................... 34
Table 6 Encounter rate of sitatunga signs in the study sites ......................................................... 34
Table 7 Encounter rates of dung and tracks for sitatunga in the study sites ................................. 34
Table 8 Incidences of illegal human activities in the study sites .................................................. 43
Table 9 List of threats and possible consequences for the conservation of sitatunga................... 45
Table 10 Description of human threat categories recorded in the study sites .............................. 45
Table 11 Recommend off take for sitatunga in various study sites. ............................................. 47
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
On behalf of the research team, I thank the local communities, district technical and political
leaders at various level from local council I to local council V in various study sites where the data
was collected. Their hospitality and keen interest in the study was an inspiration during field work.
The research team is indebted to the head of the Monitoring and Research unit Mr. Aggrey
Rwesiba who guided in obtaining the written request for permission to the various administrative
and political units at the districts of the study areas.
The project was funded by UWA and I am we are grateful to the UWA management for
entrusting our team with the opportunity to do the project. Our thanks also go to concessionaire
companies at the various hunting sites especially Uganda Wildlife Safaris Ltd, Albert Safaris ltd
who allowed our team to operate in their sites and sometimes use their existing facilities for the
study. We are very grateful for useful comments from UWA which shaped the report. The research
team was led by Dr. Andama Edward, and supported by Mr. Mawa Walter and Mr. Adriko
Kennedy among others as technical/experts in their various fields of expertise.
Disclaimer
This research, commissioned by Uganda Wildlife Authority, was undertaken and report written
by Dr. Andama Edward, and other experts. The opinions expressed in this document are the
sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of
Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) unless otherwise stated. The report is property of Uganda
UWA and copyright for material in this report is held by UWA.
All photographs in this report are courtesy of Andama Edward and the research team unless
otherwise stated.
vii
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND GLOSSARY
CBNRM: Community-Based Natural Resource Management
CAMPFIRE: Community Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources
CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity
CITES: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna Flora
CWA: Community Wildlife Association
CWMA: Community Wildlife Management Areas
IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature
NDF: Non-Detriment Finding
NP: National Park
PA: Protected Areas
SP: Species
UWA: Uganda Wildlife Authority
WR: Wildlife Reserve
WS: Wildlife Sanctuaries
WUR: Wildlife Use Right
viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tragelaphus spekii (Speke, 1863) (Sitatunga) is a highly valued trophy antelope and one of the
key flagship species of economic value for promoting tourism in the previously non attractive sites,
especially the wetlands across Uganda. The antelope is dependent on wetland habitat and any
developments and degradations which negatively affects wetland status, negatively affect the
survival of the species. There is generally very scanty information on sitatunga population and
distribution in Uganda. This study commissioned by UWA on the population, distribution and
conservation status of sitatunga in selected wetlands in Uganda was aimed at providing
information on the (i) occurrence, distribution and relative abundance of sitatunga, (ii) evaluating
threats to the conservation of sitatunga and wetlands, (iii) assessing local community knowledge
on sitatunga (iv) developing a framework for monitoring the abundance, distribution patterns of
sitatunga and wetland resource use, (v) developing guidelines for allocation of national sitatunga
sport hunting quota and (vi) to undertake a Non Detrimental Finding (NDF) of sitatunga in Uganda.
The study was undertaken in six concession sites; (i) Lake Opeta and Bisina wetland system in
Karamoja and Teso regions, (ii) Lugogo wetland system in the districts of Nakaseke, Luwero and
Nakasongola, (iii) Mayanja wetland system in the districts of Nakaseke, Kiboga and Kyankwanzi,
(iv) Kafu River basin in Masindi, and Nakasongola, (v) Katonga wetlands along River Katonga in
Katonga Wildlife reserve and (vi) Ssese islands in Kalangala districts. The study adopted a
modified sampling approach developed for studying spatial and temporal variation in the
abundance of songbirds which was used by Beudels-Jamar et al. (1997) at Parc national de
Akagera in Rwanda to estimate population of sitatunga. Recee walks, and community interviews
were also used to provide distribution, relative abundance and habitat status. Community surveys
were conducted to gain information on their understanding of and factors affecting the survival of
sitatunga. The findings of the study indicate that sitatunga still occurs in viable populations in the
study sites. The study also demonstrated the importance of sustainable use of wetlands ecosystem
as critical for conservation of sitatunga in the country. The main human threats that negatively
impacts on conservation of sitatunga included habitat loss due to human extractive activities,
ranging from increased need for wetland for farming due to climate change impacts, expansion of
agricultural land in wetlands to produce food to feed the increasing human populations. Areas with
intensive human activity held low abundance of sitatunga population. For these reasons, it was
recommended to implement conservation actions and activities focusing on;
(i)
The findings of this study indicate that sitatunga still occurs in relatively viable populations in the
study sites. The study also demonstrated the importance of sustainable use of wetlands as critical
for conservation of sitatunga in the country. The main threat that significantly impacts on
conservation of sitatunga include habitat loss due to human activities ranging from need for land
for farming due to climate change impacts, need to feed increasing human populations and
urbanization among others. Five categories of human threats were recorded from this study
and the intensity of each of these categories also varied in different wetland sites. The
abundance and distribution of sitatunga varied between habitats as a result of the presence of
human threat indicators as shown in this study. Sitatunga is an antelope species which is dependent
on wetland habitat and any development which negatively affect wetland status negatively affect
ix
the survival of the species. Areas with intensive human activity registered low abundance of
sitatunga. This calls for urgent actions to mitigate human induced wetland habitats degradation
which will not only the help in securing sitatunga conservation but also other wildlife and
ecosystem services that accrues from the conservation of the wetlands. To promote sustainable
future for sitatunga in the wetland ecosystems the following actions are recommended:
(i) Take landscape based approach to conservation actions and activities, recognizing the
three major habitat functions (a) the wetland landscape which provides habitat to wider
ecosystem services to the community, (b) being habitats for sitatunga and other wildlife
species, and (c) humans use of wetland habitat for extractive and consumptive
resources to advance wetland management objectives.
(ii) Develop sensitization and awareness campaign programmes that might improve
networking and collaboration between stakeholders and possibly attract their
interest in the protection of the wealth of biodiversity in the wetland ecosystem. In
this regard, sensitization and awareness campaigns addressing the wetland
management policies, risks and benefits that may accrue from successful participation
and conservation are recommended.
(iii) Develop integrated approach to conservation of wetland ecosystem through; Investing
in alternative livelihoods opportunities based on sustainable use of wildlife resources
and its habits such as bee keeping, monitored resources extraction. This would be
alongside sport hunting or ranching of wildlife for meat to provide financial incentives
for the local community to maintain wildlife in these corridor areas. The adjacent
communities in these wetland systems need to be sensitized on how to sustainably use
resources in their area while conserving them.
(iv) Continuous monitoring of sitatunga population and other wildlife species in wetland
for remedial conservation action is proposed. In this regard, both scientific and
integrated (including stakeholders) long-term ecological monitoring programs are
suggested. This can be done through establishing a wildlife population and habitat
monitoring system with incorporation of community conservation initiative
programmes in wetland. Scientific monitoring of sitatunga and large mammal
population on the transects within wetlands that were surveyed during this study in the
study sites. Additional monitoring is proposed especially in Ssese islands which
contains endemic island sitatunga subspecies is recommended. Incorporate community
in the monitoring of sitatunga and wetland health for wider benefit such as ecosystem
service and conservation of sitatunga.
(v) Due to the increasing human pressure on wetland there is need to demarcate wetland
boundaries to reduce encroachments. It is also important to ensuring connectivity
between different wetland systems through creating corridors to links two or more
larger wetlands habitats is vital to facilitate dispersal or allow undisturbed movement
of sitatunga within different populations/sites to avoid potential challenges of
inbreeding and promote healthy and viable populations.
x
(vi) Strengthen institutions responsible for wetland management at local government levels.
There is need to sensitize, train and strengthen local government at district and lower
levels (environment committee) to management the wetlands sustainably.
(vii) Initiate collaborative management of wildlife on private/public land for management
of wetland habitats. This is consistent with the Uganda Wildlife Act (2000) and the
Local Government Act (1997) and other laws and guidelines that may supplement
implementation of such imitative.
(viii) Develop Conservation Actions and species management plan for Sitatunga. This will
help in regulating and management of harvest and Trade in the species by the local
community and general public.
(ix) Development of enabling policy framework for wetland management, including:
a. Design and implement Ramsar sites and Framework wetland management plans.
b. Design and implementation of Ramsar site wetland research, eco-tourism and
education centers.
c. Design and implement District wetland action plans, with biodiversity and carbon
sink potential.
d. Promote wetlands law enforcement and governance.
e. Restore, regenerate, restock and gazette degraded wetlands in urban areas so as to
conserve biodiversity and promote increased ecosystem serves provision.
(xii) Create an Island National Park in Lake Victoria Islands with Island Sitatunga
(T.s.sylvestris) as a Flagship Species for promoting Tourism in the Ssese Island. It has been
identified as potential endemic in Africa due to restricted occurrence in Ssese Island.
(xiii) To institute byelaws on sustainable use of wetland and to ban burning of the swamps
/wetlands which are the habitats for sitatunga.
1
1.0`INTRODUCTION
1.1Background
Sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekii) is a spiral horned antelope endemic to sub-Saharan Africa. It
belongs to the tribe Tragelaphini, order artiodactyla (even-toed), family bovidae and the genus
Tragelaphus. The genus also includes the Giant Eland (Tragelaphus derbianus), Common Eland
(Tragelaphus oryx), Nyala (Tragelaphus angasi), Bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus), Mountain
Nyala (Tragelaphus buxtoni), Lesser Kudu (Tragelaphus imberbis) and Greater Kudu
(Tragelaphus strepsiceros). Its Afrikaans name “water-kudu” refers to the animal’s aquatic and
thus amphibious behavior (meaning it can live on both land and water). It is mainly confined to
swampy and marshy habitats (Dudgeon, 2008). As an adaptation to living in swampy or marshy
habitats it has elongated, narrow and wide-splayed hooves (Alden et al., 1996) and the skin coat
is shaggy, oily and a film of oil tends to float when the animal immerses itself in water (Alden et
al., 1996; Kingdon, 1982). Sitatunga mainly inhabits tall and dense vegetation of perennial as well
as seasonal swamps, marshy clearings in forests, riparian thickets and mangrove swamps
(Magliocca et al., 2002). Sitatunga mainly moves along clearly marked tracks in their swampy
habitat, often leading to reed beds (Amin et al., 2016). The tracks, may reach up to 7 m (23 ft)
wide, leading to feeding grounds located in the nearby riverine forests (Thome, 2010).Sitatunga
holds small home ranges near water bodies (Noss et al., 2012). In savannas, they are typically
found in stands of papyrus and reeds (Phragmites species and Echinochloa pyramidalis). They
share their habitat with the Nile lechwe in the Sudd swamps in Southern Sudan and with the
southern lechwe in Angola, Botswana and Zambia (IUCNSSC, 2008).In Uganda Sitatunga has
been recorded to occur in Murchison Falls National Park (NP) (Andama and Ocen, 2002), Kibale
NP, Lake Mburo N.P and Katonga Wildlife Reserve (WR) (Wilson, 1995), Semliki NP, Bwindi
Impenetrable N.P, Ajai WR and Pian Upe WR. However, much of the ranges where Sitatunga
occurs are outside the protected areas in the private land. In general there is little knowledge on
population and distribution of Sitatunga in Uganda and yet, these animals face constant threats due
to hunting and habitat destruction by the neighboring communities. Rossi (1999) reported that
sitatunga occurs quite widely in swamps associated with Uganda's extensive lake and river
systems. Among all wildlife taxa, sitatunga are the most prone to local extirpation as they
are specifically adapted to wetland habitats which are vulnerable to human modification. Sitatunga
just like other mammal species contribute to ecosystem functioning (Wunderle, 1997), however,
the population and suitable habitats for their survival are reportedly declining across Africa
because of human activities, including direct exploitation and habitat alteration (Craigie et al.,
2
2010, Morrison et al., 2007). In order to avoid extermination there is an urgent need to secure and
maintain sites containing reasonable populations and assemblages of Sitatunga. For effective
management of wildlife populations, there is need to provide accurate knowledge of population
densities, diversity, distribution and their habitat preferences (Cassey, 1999) and constantly
monitor populations (Varman & Sukumar, 1995). To promote sustainable conservation of
Sitatunga there is thus need for investigation of underlining knowledge in human societies, their
activities and the effects of their activities on sitatunga habitat. This knowledge is used to develop
favorable policies for sustainable management of sitatunga populations. Specifically, conservation
strategies laid down under wetland policy are currently facing implementation challenges due
to the lack of adequate ecological information on which effective conservation and
management strategies and policies could be based (Nature Uganda 2009). This study established
the potential challenges facing sitatunga conservation and other wetland wildlife species in relation
to different human activities and how the species is likely to respond to different habitats and
habitat alterations caused by humans.
1.2. Justification of the study
Sitatunga is one of the Africa’s least known antelopes (Owen, 1983). However, reliable estimates
of the size of natural populations of Sitatunga are important for development of effective
strategies for management and conservation of the species by Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)
that is mandated with sustainable utilization of wildlife resources in Uganda. The interest on
sitatunga study started when the species was included in the sport hunting list by UWA in 2008.
Undetaking estimates of the sitatunga population in hunting concessions areas across Uganda is
essential to ensure that sport hunting is managed sustainably (Camille & Boyce, 2016). To improve
the conservation of sitatunga in Uganda, primary information is needed on its occurrence,
distribution, abundance, population size, habitat requirements and anthropogenic factors such as
hunting and human impacts on its habitats. Currently there is generally very scanty information on
the Sitatunga population and distribution status within Uganda and very little elsewhere in Africa
(e.g. Owen, 1970; Williamson, 1986). Habitat specialization of Sitatunga suggests that it may have
great significance on the ecology of plants and other living organisms occurring in the same habitat
(Ndawula et al., 2011). In 2010 UWA authorized trophy hunting for sitatunga (Thome, 2010) but
this was not based on distribution and population status information. Although sustainable sport
hunting can provide the crucial funds for conservation, especially in areas rarely visited by tourists,
this requires knowledge about populations, habitat and threats. The proposed quota by UWA for
Sitatunga harvest was based on adaptive management approach, which is a widely accepted and
3
used (Bunnefed et al., 2015.; Muposhi et al., 2016& Packer et al., 2011) across the world
especially where data on animal populations is scanty or unreliable. It is thus very prudent to
propose hunting quota based on reliable population estimates. Information about sitatunga
population density and distribution will not only improve local management, but also add to the
body of knowledge about sitatunga that can aid in conservation of the species across its range.
Sitatunga subspecies Tragelaphus spekii sylvestris (island Sitatunga) is globally categorized as
Not Evaluated (NE) due to limited scientific information about the sub species. The subspecies is
particularly restricted in distribution within Ssese islands (WCS et al., 2016). National status
assessment categorized it as CR (critically endangered) B1ab (v) because it is endemic to Ssese
islands (WCS et al., (2016)) with restricted distribution. The East African Sitatunga (Tragelaphus
spekii spekii) is considered widespread within Uganda and is categorized globally as LC (LC least
concern) but nationally VU (vulnerable) B1b (i) c (i) due to the challenges of habitat loss (WCS
et al., 2016). Study of Sitatunga is thus important because its conservation is dependent on the
increasing human population which is consequently increasing pressure and demand for access to
wetland resources such as water, habitat and grazing land of livestock (Sinibaldi et al., 2004). In
general, sitatunga survival is dependent on water availability and sustainable wetland habitat
management as such any negative effects of inappropriate wetland resources management may
lead to decrease in populations of sitatunga.
Sitatunga is a highly valued trophy animal (Flack, 2015) and one of the key flagship species of
economic value for the tourism industry in Uganda (UWA, 2017). For example Sitatunga is the
key mammal species attracting tourists in Katonga Wildlife Reserve and other concession areas
such as Ssese Island, Mayanja and Ajai WR. Sitatunga sport hunting therefore provides a good
strategy to diversify wildlife-based tourism attractions in Uganda and with its unique and
specialized wetland habitat, has a great potential to become a major tourist attraction in the
wetlands which were previously non attractive tourist sites. This could increase tourism benefits,
especially to the local communities neighboring these wetlands. Therefore a well-regulated
hunting of sitatunga can provide crucial funds for conservation, especially in areas seldom visited
by mass tourists such as wetlands areas. However, sustainable harvest management requires
knowledge about populations and habitats (Camille & Boyce, 2017). Therefore detailed
information on the distribution, abundance and threats are of inestimable value in order to develop
management strategies to conserve sitatunga and wetland ecosystems. Additionally, developing a
system for assessing and monitoring the trends of Sitatunga population will acts as indicator of
changes in wetland ecosystem status as a whole.
4
The main interest of UWA to undertake this study was to come up with Non-Detrimental Findings
(NDF) for sitatunga. However, in order to do this there is need for information on the elements
relating to the species such as population status, distribution, population trends, harvests, and other
biological and ecological factors, trade information and conservation status of the species within
the country as recommend by IUCN SSC (2016).
1.3 Aims of the study
The overall aim of this survey was to undertake a Non Detrimental Finding (NDF) of Sitatunga in
Uganda.
1.3.1 Specific objective
The specific objectives of the survey were to:
(i) Generate baseline information on the occurrence, distribution and relative abundance of
Sitatunga both inside and outside Protected Areas in Uganda.
(ii) Investigate and evaluate threats to the conservation of Sitatunga and wetlands
(iii) Assess local community knowledge on Sitatunga
(iv) Develop a monitoring framework for the abundance, distribution patterns of Sitatunga and
wetland resource use.
(v) Develop National norms and standards for the management and monitoring sitatunga in
Uganda.
(vi) Develop Guidelines for allocation of national sitatunga sport hunting quota based on the
study findings.
5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Species description, characteristics, distribution, habitat requirements and
behaviour
2.1.1 Origin and Species description
The origin of Sitatunga is unknown as fossil remains have not yet been found to date (Kingdon,
1982). Generally, Sitatunga are the most amphibious antelope in Africa. They are semi-social,
sedentary animals, with small home ranges and potentially high density (Estes, 1991; Kingdon,
1982). There is difference in the sizes between Sitatunga subspecies across Africa. The East
African sitatunga is the smallest and the forest subspecies, the largest (Furstenberg, 2018). The
shoulder height of an adult male sitatunga ranges from 75 to 125 cm, depending on the subspecies,
and the body mass ranges from 40 to 120 kg. Adult males of the Zambezi sitatunga average height
of 90-100 cm and average mass of 115 kg (Beudels, et al., 2008). As with most antelopes, Sitatunga
females are distinctly smaller than the males, having a mean shoulder height of 75-80 cm and
average mass of 40-55 kg (Furstenberg, 2018). Sitatunga and Nyala females are smaller and are
referred to as ewes rather than cows. The pelage is woolly and water resistant with hair of up to 70
mm on the throat, groins, lower flanks, buttocks and upper legs. Female Sitatunga are generally
bright chestnut-brown colored and immature males are rufous-red. As males mature, their body
gradually turn grey chocolate-brown or grey-black. Both sexes have characteristic white markings
on the face, ears, cheeks, body, legs and feet. Females have a prominent black dorsal stripe along
the spine and one white marking on the throat. Males acquire a second white marking on the
throat and grow a prominent mane around the neck. The coloration, markings and texture
of hair varies between populations in different geographical regions (Kingdon, 1982). The East
African Sitatunga adult males are grey-brown with faint shadow stripes and silky hair. The Nile
Sitatunga has exceptionally bright body stripes and thin, scanty hair, while the Zambezi sitatunga
males are dull dark-brown and black, or have less obvious, body stripes and long, coarse, shaggy
hair (Furstenberg, 2018). Only the bulls possess horns which are spiralled with 1.5-2 twists when
fully grown and have length of 45-90 cm which constitutes the trophy which is of high interest and
value to the professional hunters. The horns of Sitatunga are inferior compared to that of an adult
greater kudu that has horns of 150 cm and 3.5 twists. The horn buds of Sitatunga bull appear at an
age of 6 months. The horns are ivory tipped when fully developed (Furstenberg, 2018). The
hooves are extremely long, narrow and average up to 10 cm long but can reach up to 18 cm on the
front feet and 16 cm on the hind feet of old bulls. They have extended, lateral false hoofs 2.5-3 cm
6
long. Due to their length, the false hooves are often printed in the spoor as round dots behind the
hooves. The spoor of the front hoof is longer and thinner than the hind and is more widely split at
the front. The joints of the feet possess a unique flexibility and, combined with the special hoof
form, is a specialized adaptation for moving on marshy surfaces. The hoof form makes
Sitatunga movement very clumsy on dry or broken terrain.
2.1.2 Distribution of sitatunga across Africa
Sitatunga is one of the most poorly researched animals due to its inaccessible habitat (Beudels –
Jamar et al., 1997). The former range of Sitatunga included the areas of West Africa south of the
Sahara and parts of the Sahel. Sitatunga occurrence is restricted to the main land Africa and
probably occurred formerly alongside all waterways throughout the lowland forest zone of West
and Central Africa, extending into swamp systems in the savanna zones of Central, East and
Southern Africa (IUCN SSC, 2016). It is now rare and localized in West Africa, with a very small
and limited range in Senegal, Gambia, Guinea and Guinea-Bissau. However, it still remains
widespread elsewhere, from Benin through Congo Basin forests and in swamp systems within the
savannas of Central, East and Southern Africa as far as Okavango delta (May & Lindholm 2013).
It was long extinct in Niger and probably extinct in Togo, but have recently been confirmed as still
surviving in Ghana (May & Lindholm 2013). Kingdon (1982) and Palazy et al. (2011) listed three
main subspecies of sitatunga as (i) Forest sitatunga -Tragelaphus spekii gratus, (ii) Zambezi
sitatunga Tragelaphus spekii selousi and (ii) East African sitatunga-Tragelaphus spekii spekii).
These categorizations are centred on a river system or drainage basin. IUCN SSC (2016) provides
a general distribution of sitatunga in Africa (see figure 1). Furstenberg (2009) however categorized
sitatunga into five subspecies which are outlined with their distribution patterns across Africa
(figure 2), referred to below.
a) Tragelaphus spekii selousi (Rothschild, 1898), the Zambezi or southern Sitatunga, also
referred to as Selous’s Sitatunga
b) T.s. gratus (Sclater, 1880), the forest or West African Sitatunga
c) T.s. spekii (Speke, 1863), the Speke’s or East African Sitatunga
d) T.s. larkeni (St Leger, 1931), the Nile or Sudan Sitatunga
e) T.s. sylvestris (Meinertzhagen, 1916), from isolated islands in Lake Victoria.
7
Figure 1 Sitatunga distribution adopted from IUCN-SSC (2016)
Figure 2 Sitatunga distribution adopted from Furstenburg (2009)
8
The southern subspecies called Tragelaphus spekei selousi is found in the Bangwelu, Zambezi,
and Okavango basins. The Forest Sitatunga T.S gratus has the largest distribution range, stretching
from West African southwards through Central Africa, the Congo basin and parts of East Africa,
following the wet and humid regions of mainly tropical forests from Gambia to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (Furstenberg, 2009). The East African Sitatunga termed Tragelaphus spekei
spekei is found in the Lake Victoria basin, covering Uganda, Western Kenya and Northern
Tanzania and is mainly confined to the shores of Lake Victoria. The Island sitatunga T.s. sylvestris
(Meinertzhagen, 1916) is found in isolated islands in Lake Victoria. The Nile Sitatunga T.s. larkeni
is restricted to the White Nile and its tributaries in southern Sudan, and the northern parts.
In the assessment of nationally threatened species for Uganda, WCS et al. (2016) indicated that
there were two subspecies of sitatunga in Uganda, which include Tragelaphus spekii sylvestris
(Ssese island sitatunga) which accordingly is globally categorized NE (not evaluated) and
nationally categorized as CR B1ab (v) critical with potential endemic because it is restricted to
Nkosi in Ssese Islands. Tragelaphus spekii spekii is categorized as least Concerned (LC) globally
because of being widespread in Africa, but is nationally rated as vulnerable (VU) B1b(i)c(i) due
to the high threats to its habitat. Based on the described distribution pattern provided by various
authors (Groves and Grubb, 2011, Furstenburg, 2018, Kingdon 1997 and Meinertzhagen, 1916),
there is an indication that Uganda may likely have three subspecies of Sitatunga i.e. the Nile
sitatunga (T.s. larkeni) distributed in the northwestern part of Uganda, along river Nile shoreline
towards the boundary with South Sudan, the East African sitatunga (T.s. spekii) in the Central parts
of Uganda and the T.s. sylvestris the island sitatunga restricted in isolated islands in Lake Victoria.
This makes Uganda as converging point for different sitatunga subspecies in Africa.
2.1.3 Habitat requirements and behaviour
Sitatunga are semi-aquatic and spend their entire lives in the close vicinity of open water habitats,
especially of marshes, swamps and floodplains bordering lakes and rivers with permanent water
(Furstenberg, 2018). The most essential requirement is permanent, open water and an evergreen
vegetation cover. This habitat is mostly restricted to tropical and subtropical regions between
13°N around Lake Chad and 20°S, and from the western coastline of Africa, eastwards to 35°E.
The optimal habitat is swamp with permanent water of depth of up to 1 m with dense stands of
Papyrus Cyprus, reed beds of Phragmites mauritianus and Echinochloa sp and beds of bulrush
Typha sp. bordered by an ecotone of terrestrial thicket or woodland. The reeds generally stand
9
3-6 m above the water surface which provide camouflage to the mammals. Habitats with
shrubby growth, herbs, sedges, tall grasses and palms that border forest waterways are also used.
Sitatunga have been recorded to enter forest clearings, gallery forests and forest islands in
savannahs with permanent open water (Games, 1983).
Sitatunga spend most of their time in think vegetation during most of the daylight hours. In the
hot midday hours they rest in the shade among reeds on platforms made of debris or broken reed
(Furstenberg, 2018). In the cooler and darker hours they come out to feed and may take up to
late, often after 22hrs. They leave the wetland to browse vegetation in the neighboring dry land,
returning to the safety of the swamp up to mid-morning hours. When moving between the swamp
and the land they follow footpaths that can either be their own or the paths of other mammals such
as hippopotamuses. When feeding, they are usually solitary and spread over a large area but when
alarmed they become gregarious and aggregate while running for safety. Sitatunga are very shy
and avoid detection by crawling beneath thick vegetation. Danger is detected using a combination
of hearing and scent. Their sense of hearing is acute and splashing or movement of the reeds
causes them to flee for a distance of between 50-100 m. They then stop to re-evaluate the situation
and continue to feed once they are no longer under threat (Furstenberg, 2018). They are good
swimmers and Carpenter (1929) reported that sitatunga swims between different islands within
Lake Victoria islets. If seriously alarmed, they dive under water and swim towards deeper water
with only the nostrils showing. A bull defends itself by attacking aggressively when cornered,
while restless and alarmed males often bark. When feeding, the presence of sitatunga is often
revealed by the breaking of reed stems (Furstenberg, 2018). Ewes have nocturnal sneezing call
and bulls following a ewe, produces a high-pitched mewing sound.
2.2 Ecology and populations of sitatunga
2.2.1 Feeding and home range
Sitatunga are selective mixed feeders of grass, sedges, water plants and terrestrial grass, forbs and
browse shrubs and small trees. In isolated wetland in South Western Uganda Ndawula, et al.
(2013) reported that sitatunga feeds on young papyrus and reed shoots which account for 45% of
the dietary intake in the rainy season, rising up to 90% in the dry season, depending on the
height of the water level in the swamp. Browse lines have been recorded on knob-thorn (Acacia
nigrescens) and jackal-berry (Diospyros mespiliformis) trees. In common with the dik-dik
(Madoqua kirkii) and the gerenuk (Litocranius walleri), sitatunga stand on their hind legs to reach
the flowers and seeds of sedges and tall grasses. During the night sitatunga invade areas of
10
agricultural pastures and planted crops (Ndawula et al., 2013). The territorial behaviour of
sitatunga has not been widely described although it appears to be restricted to mature bulls during
the peak periods of mating (Furstenberg, 2018). Home ranges are small and are defended by the
resident male of the family group. Home range size differences are due to high, localized sitatunga
densities that affect alternating social behaviour between solitary and gregarious. Home range
sizes also vary with the area of individual habitats and the presence of other competitors in the
niche such as lechwe and Kobus (IUCN/SSC, 1998). Temporary mass gatherings and sharing of
food sources indicate a high degree of tolerance between sitatunga and allows for major degree of
home range overlap. Sitatunga are either solitary or aggregate in small family groups of up to 15,
consisting of an adult male, an average of three ewes, and juveniles of both sexes. Small family
groups account for 4% of the population and male/female pairs, 35%. Adult males not associated
with family groups are usually solitary and account for 46% of the population. Sub-adult males
leave the group at the birth of the next offspring at 7.5 -10 months and form small, nomadic,
bachelor groups of 3-4 individuals (Peter, 2015). Juveniles often form temporary crèches of 3-5
in number. In densely populated habitats, family groups tend to be more tolerant of each other and
often form multiple, mass groups of up to 40 animals (Peter, 2015). The group size could be a
direct consequence of food abundance. A spatial distance of at least 1-2 m is generally maintained
between individuals allowing little physical body contact (Games 1983). A hierarchy of
dominance exists between females in a family group. Individuals frequently interchange between
family groups, indicating a lack of tight family bonding (Kingdon, 1982).
2.2.2 Reproduction, development and predation
Sitatunga has a high reproductive rate of 80-100% in adult ewes and up to 45% of female
population can reproduce twice a year. In females oestrus occurs every 20 days and lasts for 2
days during which time the bull attempts 7-12 matings per day (Games, 1983). Gestation lasts
for approximately 165 days after which a single lamb is born, either in a swamp on a platform of
debris between the reeds, or in thicket in the forest. The mother hides her sibling for up to 2
weeks. Ewes have 4 teats and suckling continues until an age of 4-5 months. The very young
are unsteady and stumble on their long hooves when moving over land or crossing reeds (Games,
1983). Once in the water they dive to escape danger. Birth intervals range from 5.5-9 months,
depending on environmental factors and animal density. In larger family groups, several ewes
in the group are mated with subordinate males that steal in during the night to mate, although
very few of these attempts result in conception (Games, 1983). The young of forest Sitatunga have
a survival rate of up to 80% before weaning (IUCN, 1974). Using these figures, a group of 19
11
forests Sitatunga with 8 adult ewes in their natural environment have a mean, annual population
growth rate of 55%. Sitatunga densities of 55-200 animals per 100 ha in optimal habitat have
been reported, although their long-term sustainability has not been established (Games, 1983).
The common predators of Sitatunga are crocodile, leopard, python, hyena, lion, feral dogs and
man (Kingdon, 1982). Excessive flooding resulting in the drowning of young sitatunga and
permanent drying of marshlands by human development are additional threats. Sitatunga
frequently fall prey to the predators when leaving the swamp at night as they are waylaid along
the way back (Furstenberg, 2018).
2. 3. Sport/Trophy Hunting and Conservation of Sitatunga
Sport hunting, also known as trophy hunting, game hunting, and safari hunting, involves the
hunting of wildlife for sport or recreation and not primarily for food or sustenance (Yasuda, 2012).
This old form of recreation remains active today, and the significance of consumptive wildlife
tourism, including sport hunting and sport fishing, has been increasingly highlighted (Lovelock
eds., 2008). Africa is considered as “Mecca” or “home” for sport hunters from all over the world,
and over half of Sub-Saharan African countries officially authorized sport hunting (Roulet, 2004).
More than 18,500 hunters, mainly from USA and Europe, visit these countries each year,
generating annual gross revenues of at least US$201 million (Lindsey et al., 2007). Trophies
include, but are not limited to parts—such as elephant ivory tusks, rhino horns or deer antlers—to
entire heads that can be mounted on walls or complete bodies that can be formed into life-like
poses by a taxidermist (Humane Society of the United States, 2016). Trophy hunters display their
trophies in their homes or offices. Some researchers have argued that sport hunting plays an
important role in the tourism industry and community conservation and might represent a
“breakthrough” wildlife conservation strategy for Africa. This theory appears to be based on the
“success” of community conservation project focused on sport hunting in Southern Africa, such
as CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe and ADMADE in Zambia. Wildlife conservation on private lands
has also been deemed successful. For example, private land owners in Namibia and South Africa
have converted cattle or farm ranches into game ranches, and more income has been generated
through wildlife conservation and use (hunting, cross-breeding, selling) than by farming and
grazing (Barnes & Brian, 2009; Child, 2009). Jones (2009) considered the benefits and costs to
local people of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) programs in Botswana,
Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. He concluded that although actual livelihoods or poverty
12
impacts of benefits were difficult to measure, CBNRM could provide a range of benefits to
local communities and even small amounts of cash could have significant impacts on livelihoods.
Trophy hunting is controversial, prompting questions of sustainability, equitable treatment of user
groups, and ethics (Nelson et al., 2016). For the developing world, however, trophy hunting can
provide crucial funds for conservation of wildlife and habitats, especially in places with limited
tourism potential (Lindsey et al, 2007 and Minin et al., 2016). One reason for skepticism of trophy
hunting is sparse data and limited monitoring to form the basis for harvest quotas for target species
(Nelson et al., 2016). There is however lack of consensus among conservationists as to whether
trophy hunting represents a legitimate conservation tool in Africa (Lindsey et al., 2006). Hunting
advocates stress that trophy hunting can create incentives for conservation where ecotourism is not
profitable. However, for conservation outside of parks to be successful, sufficient revenues must
be generated from wildlife to offset opportunity costs associated with protecting wildlife and
habitats on the private or community lands. Sport hunting represents one means of generating
revenues from wildlife, and which has proven successful in creating income from and for several
major national parks and privately owned wildlife areas in Africa (Lindsey, 2006) and to a lesser
extent communally owned wildlife areas (Barnes, 2001; Kiss, 2004; Thirgood et al., 2006).
2.3.1. Trophy/Sport hunting and its potential role in promoting biodiversity conservation
Sport hunting has been practiced as conservation and livelihoods enhancement tool across the
African continent. Countries in the Southern Africa adopted this strategy and results have been
positive, ecologically and economically (Ochieng, 2011). In the developing world, trophy hunting
offers incentive to landowners to preserve hunted animal species and their habitats (Lindsey et al.,
20007, Bunnefeld et al., 2013). Trophy hunting is the most profitable form of consumptive wildlife
utilization, and represents a large and growing industry in several parts of Africa (Child, 2000).
For example, trophy hunting generates US$65.6–137 million per year in South Africa (Van der
Merwe, 2002; Damm, 2005), US$27.6–36.1 million per year in Tanzania (Baldus & Cauldwell,
2005), US$18.5 million per year in Zimbabwe (Booth, 2002) and US$12.6 million per year in
Botswana (ULG Northumbrian, 2001). These revenues provide economic justification for wildlife
as a land use option over vast agriculturally unproductive areas. Positive aspects of trophy hunting
as a conservation tool include a low off-take rate and a focus on males (typically 2% of male
populations), both of which do not in the long run jeopardize wildlife populations. These evidences
indicate that trophy hunting can play a key role in endangered species conservation (Leader-
13
Williams et al., 2005). Trophy hunters pay higher fees per client than conventional tourists (Baker,
1997; Lewis & Alpert, 1997); therefore, revenues can be generated from lower volumes of people,
resulting in potentially lower environmental impact (Gosling, 2000; Mayaka et al., 2004).
Advocates for sport hunting also point out that trophy hunting generates revenues for conservation
in areas that may not be suitable for tourism, such as those lacking attractive scenery or high
wildlife densities (Leader-Williams & Hutton, 2005). As reported by Gerhard (2015) in African
Indaba Stewart Dorrington, a former president of the Professional Hunters’ Association of
South Africa and a life-long game rancher, puts it simple: “My hunting price is $2,500 for a kudu,
more than 10 times what the meat of one of these antelopes would bring. If you stop hunting,
the market is going to change completely; it’ll go to meat value, really; less than 60 cents
a pound”. As further reported by Gernhard (2015) that Vernon Booth, a Zimbabwe-based
ecologist who worked in African wildlife management for 30 years, said that “lions were now
protected because of the high value attached to them [by hunters]. Locals tolerate wild animals
because of the income that trickles down to them. Without the hunt money, locals would
increasingly poison lions, which are considered dangerous to people and livestock. One of
the successful innovations across African continent is the Communal Areas Management
Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) programme which is a long-term
programmatic approach to rural development that uses wildlife and other natural resources as a
mechanism for promoting devolved rural institutions and improved governance and livelihoods
which is based on using the trophy hunting revenue. The cornerstone of CAMPFIRE is the right
to manage, use, dispose of, and benefit from these resources in sustainable manner. Between 1989
and 2006, CAMPFIRE income, mostly from high valued safari hunting, totaled nearly USD$ 30
million, of which 52% was allocated to sub-district wards and villages for community projects and
household benefits. Whilst a number of assumptions underlying the success of CAMPFIRE as an
innovative model for CBNRM have yet to be met, CAMPFIRE confirms the concept that
devolving responsibility and accountability for natural resource management can be highly
effective for the collective and participatory management of such resources (WWF, 1997).
Sitatunga is one of the highly rated antelope species by the professional hunters due to its
significance as a trophy animal (Lindsey et al., 2006). It can provide an important economic
incentive for conservation of the species and its habitats (IUCN/SSC, 2016).The hunting zones
adjoining national parks and equivalent reserves thus have the potential to play an increasingly
important role in the conservation of the Sitatunga (East 1999). A 21-day all-inclusive hunt of a
leopard may cost USD$35,000, an African elephant bull hunt may cost USD$40,000-70,000, a
14
crocodile under 9 feet hunt may cost USD$6,000, a caracal hunt may cost USD$1,000, a baboon
hunt may cost USD$690 and a jackal hunt may cost USD$375.32 (Ochieng 2011). The trophy
price for sitatunga varies from USD$2451 to 4500 depending on the subspecies (Palazy et al.,
2011). Compared to other countries across East and Southern Africa (such as Tanzania, Zimbabwe,
Namibia and South Africa), Uganda is running a small scale sport hunting program, mostly outside
protected areas where wildlife populations are still low. As a result UWA uses a precautionary
system in this case 2% maximum off-take level used to determine the quota allocations. Booth &
Chardonnet (2015) recommend that, a sustainable hunting yield can be achieved within a range of
1-3% of the population. Sitatunga is among the most highly prized mammal species that sell
Uganda hunting safaris (UWA, 2018).
2.3.2 Sport/Trophy hunting in Uganda
Within Eastern Africa, Uganda started implementing sport hunting on private or communal land
in the parishes around Lake Mburo National Park in 2001. It was aimed at changing the long
history of human-wildlife conflict and to deliver financial benefits to communities around Lake
Mburo National Park (Ochieng, 2011). The Uganda Wildlife Policy (1999), the Wildlife Act (Cap
200 of 2000) and the UWA Community Conservation Policy (2004) all recognize the contribution
of wildlife to the well-being of humanity and highlight the need to share the benefits accruing from
wildlife if wildlife conservation is to be meaningful (UWA 2010). Sharing of benefits from wildlife
is also important incentive in promoting positive attitudes, knowledge and change of behaviour of
the neighboring communities and the general public towards wildlife conservation in general.
Uganda Wildlife Act (Cap. 200 of 2000) further provides six wildlife use right classes under which
the general public can benefit from wildlife. UWA started implementing wildlife use rights (WUR)
class A (Sport hunting) since 2001 on pilot basis in accordance with the Uganda Wildlife Policy
1999 and section 29 of the Uganda Wildlife Act 2000. Wildlife use rights was envisaged as an
incentive to promote the conservation of wildlife outside Protected Areas (PAs) and eliminate the
negative perception by community who still regard wildlife as Government property and of benefit
to only foreign tourists (Ochieng 2011). Granting Sport hunting use right depends on viable
population of target species and appropriate monitoring and enforcement systems. The case of
class A WUR was developed considering that there was an increased illegal hunting, changing
land uses and degradation of wildlife habitats in the country's land landscape (UWA 2010). This
was an issue of concern with regard to wildlife conservation outside protected areas. The attitude
of communities towards the wildlife and protected areas was not conducive for wildlife
15
conservation. For example in the private ranches around Lake Mburo the pastoralists on whose
land the wild animals reside perceived them as a problem because they were destroying their
property and competing with livestock for pasture, water and salt leaks (Ochieng, 2011). The
residents on ranches saw wildlife as useless and destructive, and this attitude encouraged
promotion of illegal hunting. There was needed to save wildlife resident on the ranches and give
value to the wildlife as an incentive to the landowners to manage and protect it. This resulted in
the piloting of the first sport hunting in Uganda in Lake Mburo National park. In August 2001
UWA in collaboration with Rurambiira Community Wildlife Association, a community-based
organization signed an agreement with Game Trails (U) LTD (a company licensed by UWA to
undertake a pilot professional sport-hunting program) to implement a one-year sport-hunting pilot
project, on private ranches number and the government ranch around Lake Mburo National Park .
An evaluation of the pilot project by Ochieng (2011) found that through the community based
conservation, the communities in the three parishes were involved in decision making through
their Community Wildlife Associations (CWAs) which was instrumental in positively changing
the attitude of the communities towards wildlife and a large number of the communities were
reportedly protecting wildlife on their farms. Many had been involved in various projects (using
funds generated from sports hunting) to help improve household income which spread risks from
wildlife damages to other projects that were not easily destroyed by wild animals (Ochieng, 2011).
To expand the sport/trophy hunting UWA licensed five additional companies’ to undertake sport
hunting within some conservation areas and community hunting areas which still have populations
of wildlife animals. The concession companies include Uganda Wildlife safaris (UWS), Ateker
Safaris, Game Trails, Lake Albert Safaris and Karamoja Overland safaris with their allocated areas
of hunting blocks (table 1). Some of the annual quota set by UWA for various haunting block for
the various campsites targeting Sitatunga are indicated in the table 2, below. The hunting blocks
which have Sitatunga species include Ssese Island, Katonga Wildlife Reserve, Nsara Hunting,
Nakaseke, Nakasongola, Ajai Wildlife Reserve, Aswa-lolim, and Pian-Upe wildlife Reserve. As
indicated earlier the quotas were reported set using the adaptive management which is not based
on the scientific population estimates. General observation of the utilization of the quotas indicate
high demand for Sitatunga trophy which resulted in the complete/maximum utilization of the set
quota and additional higher request by the concession companies that were licensed to undertake
sport hunting in the various hunting blocks with Sitatunga (table 2). Uganda’s Class A quota in
most cases was based on the 2% maximum off-take level which was is applied to determine the
16
quota for every year as recommended by Booth and Chard on net (2015) who suggested that, a
sustainable hunting yield can be achieved within a range of 1-3% of the population.
Table 1 Sport hunting companies in Uganda (UWA 2012b)
No. Sport hunting company Operational areas
1 Game Trails (U) Ltd
(GTL)
Ranches outside Lake Mburo National Park (Kiruhura district,
Katonga Wildlife Reserve
2 Lake Albert Safaris Ltd Kalangala district, Kabwoya and eats Madi wildlife Reserves, and
Kaiso-tonya community wildlife area
3 Karamoja Safaris Ltd Bokora-Mtheniko wildlife reserve, Karenga and Iriri community
wildlife area
4 Uganda Wildlife Safaris
Ltd
Ajai wildlife reserve and Luwero, Nakaseke, Nakasongola and
Amuru Nwoya districts
5 Karamoja Overlander
Safaris Ltd.
Pian-Upe wildlife reserve and Amudat community wildlife area.
Table 2 Allocated hunting quota for 2016, 2017 and 2018 for various hunting blocks for sitatunga
species (Source UWA Community conservation department)
Hunting Block 2016
quot
a
2015
Quota
utilize
d
2016
quota
Utilized
2017
Quota
Utilized
Average
Annual
Quota
Utilized
2018
Quota
Client's
Request
2019
Proposed
hunting
quota by
WUR
Kalangala Island - 10 10 10 10 5 15 12
PI-Nupe/Amudat 4 4 4 3 4 5 8 5
Nwoya/Aswa-lolim 5 5 5 5 5 8 7
Nakaseke 8 6 5 5 5 5 8 7
Nakasongola (Kafu
river basin)
8 8 5 3 5 5 10 8
Kyakwanzi
(Kafu/Mayanja)
- 6 8 - 5 5 8 5
*Sitatunga is the only first prized animal or the only Species that sells a hunting safari in
Katonga and Nakaseke blocks.
17
2.3.3. Case of benefit sharing from sport/trophy hunting proceeds in Uganda
Accordingly UWA records between 2008-2016, the sport hunting programme generated over
UGX 3.5bnfor UWA and UGX 1,646,093,726 for the District Local Governments, Land owners,
Community Wildlife Associations (UWA, 2015 ). For the case of Uganda Wildlife Safaris ltd.
over the 8 year period a total of 1174,016.7 US$ was generated which was distributed to various
stakeholders concerned with wildlife conservation (table 3).
Table 3 The case of revenue generated by Uganda Wildlife Safaris Ltd. for its stakeholders over
nine year period: (source www.uws.org accessed October 13th 2018)
Stakeholders
2009
US$
2010 US
$
2011 U
S$
2012
US$
2013 US
$
2014 US
$
2015 US
$
2016 US
$
2017 US
$
Landowners 1,172 15,925 16,073 6,480 30,167 41,425 50,450 89,551 26,666
District Wildlife Associations 3,325 11,922 23,315 7,570 42,675 53,040 56,240 155,845 28,688
District Local Governments 2,910 14,721 5,470 1,615 7,655.00 11,700 13,410 23,270 7,934
Uganda Wildlife Authority 8,832 31,962 16,835 8,445 37,922 47,793 65,490 44,463 31,006
Anti-Poaching Funds: 670 7,403 7,170 3,330 14,790 20,400 23,970 53,828 15,082
Total Income for Stakeholders: 16,911 82,132 68,862 27,440 118,420 174,358 209,560 366,957 109,376
Total: 1,174,016.7 US$
The above preliminary amount generated by the Uganda Wildlife Safaris ltd suggest that there is
great opportunity in promoting sport/trophy hunting in Uganda to increase benefit to the various
stakeholders which could induce positive support from the community.
2.4 Challenges to conservation of Sitatunga
There is a general declining trend in the abundance, distribution and population of Sitatunga
mainly caused by destruction of their natural habitats, competition with livestock and excessive
illegal off take by subsistence meat hunters and in many cases through the activities of poor rural
communities who lack alternative protein options (Manning, 1976). Sitatunga is among the
antelope species whose habitat is currently under threat from increased drainage of wetlands to
expand land for farming. In Uganda like in the rest of Africa, Sitatunga is adapted to survive mostly
in large swamps associated with extensive lake and river systems (Kingdon, 1982). Wetlands
provide habitat for a wide array of animal species, including Sitatunga by offering food, shelter
and protecting nesting sites. Human actions are a major cause of change in plant communities in
the wetlands such as modification or even complete alteration of vegetative communities which
may have diverse impact on their survival. Wetlands are very important in the survival of sitatunga
18
because sitatunga is adapted to survive in wetlands/swamp conditions only and therefore any
artificial reduction of water flow and the reduction and degradation of wetland for other uses may
result in reduction of complete disappearance of sitatunga (Games, 1983).The wetland habitats
include areas of seasonally flooded grassland, swamp forest, permanently flooded papyrus, grass
swamp and upland bog. Around the world wetlands in its natural condition supply numerous
economic and ecological benefits to local communities, including water quality protection, flood
and erosion control, fish and wildlife habitat, aquatic productivity and unique opportunities for
education and recreation (Zahir & Nijamir, 2018). Wetlands are also valuable as ecosystems in
their own right, providing carbon storage, biogeochemical transformations, and aquifer recharge
(U.S. EPA, 2002). According to Dugan (1990), wetlands have been reclaimed Worldwide and are
still being reclaimed which diverts their original uses to new uses “regarded” as more profitable to
man and the rate at which wetlands have been destroyed is threatening their existence, leading to
an environmental crisis in many countries. Any degradation of wetlands affects ecosystem services
it provides negatively (Abila, 2002).
Uganda is immensly endowed with wetland resources. The percentage of Uganda’s area covered
by wetlands is estimated at 10.9% (MWE, 2017) of the country’s area, covering about 30,000 km2
of Uganda’s land area and is considered to be important ecosystems, which contribute considerably
to the national economy and rural livelihoods (Nature Uganda 2009). The wetlands comprise of
swamp (8,832 sq. km), swamp forest (365 sq. km) and sites with impeded drainage 20,392 sq. km
(MWE, 2017). Acording to NEMA (2009) most wetlands in Uganda occur outside of protected
areas. The key threats to wetland biodiversity in Uganda include, unsustainable resource
harvesting, habitat loss through agricultural conversion, urban settlement, industrial development
and burning (MWE, 2017). Negative impacts associated with wetland drainage include reduced
and/or loss of biodiversity such as the population reduction of Crested cranes (Uganda’s symbol)
while the Sitatunga or water antelope (Tragelaphus spekei Sclater), a globally threatened species,
has been eliminated from many areas due to swamp drainage. In many localities the raw materials
for traditional artisanal industries which were previously obtained from wetland vegetation are no
longer readily available as well as medicinal herbs (Nature Uganda, 2009).According to the
NEMA (2016) the regional status of wetlands and their level of degradation in Uganda are
categories as follows (i) in Eastern Uganda alone 20% of wetlands have been destroyed, Central
region 2.8%,Northern 2.4% and western 3.6% of wetlands have been destroyed (NEMA, 2008).
This has implications on wetlands biodiversity, especially for wetland dependent species such as
19
Sitatunga. Current threats to wetlands and their biodiversity in Uganda (NEMA 2016) include the
following: (a) Encroachment of wetlands due to extended demand for land for grazing and
agriculture especially rice and other cereal crops in the Eastern region, dairy farming and
vegetables in South West and pastoral land in the North and East. This type of wetland conversion
is most common in rural and sub-urban areas. (b) Drainage of wetlands in urban centers especially
in the central urban area and region is driven by the force of urban expansion or development. (c)
Pollution of wetlands especially in urban places from discharging and dumping of untreated
industrial, municipal and household wastes while in rural areas from large agricultural farms and
mining areas. (d) Overharvesting or over-exploitation of wetland resources which includes
overfishing, overharvesting of wetland plants especially papyrus for domestic and commercial use
and harvesting of construction materials like clay, sand, firewood, timber, papyrus and ornamental
plants among others. (e) Siltation of wetlands; this is due to poor methods of farming surrounding
the wetland area that may cause massive erosion of soil into the wetland. All the above mentioned
constraints reduced the ecosystem service provided by wetlands.
2.5 Legal and Institutional framework for conservation of sitatunga in Uganda
In Uganda, legislative framework for species protection and illegal trade in wildlife includes the
Uganda Wildlife Act (2000) in addition to the Wildlife Policy (2014) and other sectoral policies
and legislations touching on wildlife and biodiversity protection. Such policies and legislation are:
the Local Governments Act, Cap 243 (1997), the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003),
the Fish Act, Cap 197 (2000), the National Policy for the Conservation and Management of
Wetlands (1995), the Uganda Forestry Policy (2001). Other important regulations include the
National Environment (Wetlands; River Banks and Lake Shores Management) Regulations, 2000
Statutory Instruments. No. 3, which provides the legal framework for sustainable use of wetlands
in Uganda. Uganda developed an elaborate institutional framework for sustainable use of the
wetland resources. The legal framework devolves the responsibility to the Local Governments to
hold in trust for the people and protect the wetlands for the common good of the citizens of Uganda.
The statute guides on wetland resources to be utilized in a sustainable manner, compatible with
promoting continued existence of the wetlands and their hydrological functions and services. It
provides for regulation of activities to be undertaken in a wetlands.
Uganda ratified the CITES in 1991, and like a number of the Parties to CITES, does not have
specific legislation to implement CITES. Uganda has and continues to rely on the general wildlife
20
legislation and Customs legislation to control trade in endangered species and their products
(Ayorekire et al., 2011). The illegal hunting and the national political unrest throughout the 1970s,
negatively affected wildlife populations, with some species, such as the white rhinoceros becoming
extinct in the country eco-systems (Kamugisha et al., 1997) and this led to a ministerial decree that
banned all forms of hunting in Uganda in 1979 to allow for wildlife regeneration (Ayorekire et al.,
2011). The decree for traditional hunting has not been lifted up-to-date. This basically means that
traditional or substance hunting is banned in Uganda and is thus illegal.
21
3.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS
3.1 Location of study areas/sites
The study was undertaken in six sites (Figure 3) which are located within the areas allocated for
concession for sport hunting by UWA.
River Kafu site
Lake Bisina-Opeta site
Mayanja
River Mayanja site
River Lugoogo site
River Katonga site Mayanja site
Ssese Island site
Locations of the study sites within
Uganda
Figure 3. Locations of the six study sites
22
The study sites included; (i) Lake Opeta and Bisina wetland system in Karamoja and Teso regions,
(ii) Lugogo wetland system in the districts of Nakaseke, Luwero and Nakasongola, (iii) Mayanja
wetland system in the districts of Nakaseke, Kiboga and Kyankwanzi, (iv) Kafu River basin in
Masindi, and Nakasongola, (v) Katonga wetlands along River Katonga in Katonga Wildlife
reserve and (vi) Ssese islands in Kalangala districts.
3.2 Detailed description of study sites
3.2.1 Ssese Islands
Ssese Island is a group of Islands located in the North-western part of Lake Victoria, just south of
the equator (NEMA 2007). Bugala Island is the largest of the 84 islands making up Ssese islands
and is situated in the North-west of Lake Victoria (3r3'E. to 3r20'E, 0014'S to 0033'S) with its
western coastline is within two and a half miles of the mainland. Ssese Islands administratively
constitute Kalangala district in Uganda. The study was undertaken in Bugala Island which is
approximately 29,600ha, 58km long, 2-5 km wide and roughly S-shape. The grassland and forest
form a mosaic over the island and account for most of the vegetation. Swamps occur in shallow
waters and sheltered situations whilst resting farm land, containing a variety of herbs and
perennials was to be found in areas which had, until recently, been tilled. The study was
concentrated on Bugala Island due to strong waves during the time of study and thus other smaller
island were not visited.
3.2.2 Opeta-Bisina wetland system
Located in Eastern Uganda, this wetland system is a combination of the Lake Opeta Ramsar site
and Lake Bisina Ramsar site both designated in 2006 (Nature Uganda, 2009). Lake Bisina is a
shallow lake covering an area of 192km2 with a flood plain of 30km long and 6.5km wide. They
are both Important Bird Areas (IBAs). Together, this wetland system covers an area of 123,141ha
and is shared by the districts of Kumi, Katakwi, Soroti, Bukedea, Nakapiripiriti and Sironko
(Nature Uganda 2009). It is predominantly an extensive swamp of Hippo grass (Vossia cuspidata)
graduating into dry Hyparrhenia grassland savannas and the periphery is dominated by an
association of acacia and Combretum. Part of the system covers the Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve
that provides a refuge for the local animals including Sitatunga during the dry season and also
when the wetland is flooded. Pian-Upe wildlife reserve is adjoined to the Bisina - Opeta wetland
system by a series of marshes and papyrus swamps. Lake Bisina and Opeta have emergent
vegetation mainly of sedges and floating vegetation dominated by water lily (Nymphaea) species,
patches of Cyperus papyrus submerged water weeds (Nature Uganda, 2009). The main inflow into
the Opeta- Bisina wetland system is through River Sironko. Several human activities with negative
23
impacts in the catchment including rice growing, livestock grazing, papyrus harvesting and fishing
among others. The two lakes are very important to the surrounding communities in terms of
fishing, transport and supply of water for domestic and livestock use. A rhizome of the Nymphea
genus acts as a source of food during the dry season (Nature Uganda, 2009). Most of the wetland
fringes have been converted into rice schemes while other areas are being continuously degraded
through over use by livestock (Nature Uganda 2009).
3.2.3 Katonga river system
The Katonga River is located in the southwestern part of Uganda. Its channel is continuous
between Lake Victoria and Lake George, reflecting that it once drained away from Lake Victoria
into Lake George along its entire length. Regional uplifting events between the two lakes
associated with the western limb (Albertine Rift) of the geologically active East African
Rift system, caused the swampy region to the southwest of Lake Wamala to become the
new watershed for the Katonga River, which changed course to flow east into Lake Victoria,
augmented by several tributaries along its course. This watershed is located approximately 0°13'N
30°39'E near the Katonga Wildlife Reserve. Vegetation of the area around River Katonga and the
nearby Katonga Wildlife Reserve is characterized by savannah mixed with acacia scrubland or
woodlands. Also, the largest part of the wildlife reserve has either seasonal or permanent wetlands
but there are also patches of tropical forest and river line. In the 1960s, the reserve was home to a
variety of animals including the zebra, topi and eland. Between 1971 and 1985, most of the wildlife
was killed through commercial and subsistence poaching and some of these animals are being re-
introduced back into the reserve. Other mammals include Black and White Colobus Monkey, the
River Otter, and Olive Baboon, Uganda Kob, Waterbuck, Leopard, Buffalo, reedbuck, bushbuck
and duiker and chevrotain. The reserve is also home to various reptiles, amphibians and butterflies.
3.2.4 Mayanja and Lugogo river systems
Mayanja River is located in Central Uganda between 900 and 1100 M above sea level. The source
of River Mayanja is located in Wakiso, district and eventually drains into river Kafu near the
village of Ndede, in Nakaseke District. The river traverses or forms the borders of the following
districts: Wakiso District, Mpigi District, Kiboga District, Kyankwanzi District and Nakaseke
District. The length of River Mayanja, is approximately 150 kilometres (93 miles) from source to
end. Some of the wildlife species in the area include Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibious),
24
Nile bush back (Tragelaphus scriptus), Defassa water buck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), oribi (Ourebia
ourebi), bohor reed buck (Redunca redunca), warthog (Phacochoerus africanus), bushpig
(Potamorchoes rus larvatus), and common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia) (Camille & Boyce, 2017).
3.2.5 Lugogo River system
Lugogo river system is similarly located in the central part of the Uganda and flows in a north
easterly direction from the Kafu River. River Mayanja and River Lugogo are the two main
tributaries flowing through the vast permanent papyrus swamps before finally emptying their
waters into River Kafu. It is interesting to note that the spectacular landscape of River Kafu Basin
is mainly made up of thick bush thicket and verdant papyrus swamps.
3.2.6 Kafu River system
The Kafu River originates in the western part of Uganda, starting from a swamp approximately 12
kilometres, northeast of the village of Kitoma, in Kibaale District. It flows eastwards at first, then
it turns north, to empty into the Victoria Nile, approximately 8 kilometres, upstream of the town
of Masindi Port, in Masindi District. On its course eastwards, northeastwards and northwards, the
river traverses or forms the borders of the following districts: Kibaale District, Hoima
District, Kyankwanzi District, Nakaseke District, Nakasongola District and Masindi District. The
swamp, out of which River Kafu arises, is also transversed by another river system called River
Nkusi. At its source, River Kafu is at an altitude of approximately 1,100 metres. At its point of
entry into River Nile, the altitude is approximately 1,040 metres. Kafu River receives water from
various sources including Mayanja and Lugogo which are the major tributaries. The length of
River Kafu is approximately 180 kilometres, from source to end. The area surrounding the three
rivers is referred to as the "Cattle Corridor” because of the pastoral livelihoods that dominate the
zone. The wetland vegetation in Kafu basin is mainly dominated by Papyrus swamps and dense
bush thickets. The wildlife residents of the area include the East African Sitatunga, East African
Bush Duiker, East African Bohor Reedbuck, Nile Bushbuck, Ugandan Defassa Waterbuck,
Leopard, Common Oribi and Bush Pig among others.
3.3. Population estimate
Estimating population of Sitatunga through direct observation or direct sighting of the animals in
the wetlands is generally problematic (Birchers et al., 2002) because of the shy, elusive and
cryptic nature of Sitatunga and also because of the poor visibility in the dense wetland
vegetation. Due to these circumstance special methods are required to estimate the abundance of
25
Sitatunga (Beudels-Jamar, 1997). Due to the inaccessibility of dense wetland habitats by foot and
the associated difficulties in distance sampling for population estimates, alternative techniques to
monitor and estimate population density are required (Camille & Boyce, 2016). Studies to assess
populations and densities of Sitatunga generally require longer time as were for most studies within
southern and eastern Africa (e.g. Maya Nord in the Republic of Congo (Magliocca et al., 2001 and
Camille and Boyce (2017) in Mayanja river central Uganda. Several indirect approaches have been
developed to address the problem of studying elusive species such as sitatunga and these include
the use of indirect signs such as, dung, nests, tracks and trails (Barnes, 2001 and Plumptre,
2000). The indirect signs can be used as proxy for the estimation of animal presence, distribution
and population. Advance systematic methods of indirect estimation of large mammal densities
include the use of camera traps (Noss et al., 2012, Tobler et al., 2008, Camella & Boyce, 2017),
video recording (Scheibe et al., 2008), and line transect method (Plumptre, 2000, Walsh and
White, 1999, Varman & Sukumar, 1995). Due to the limited time for this study the team adopted
line transect method using mainly boat navigation along natural channels in the swamp habitat.
3.3.1 Boat survey
For boat survey the method used by Beudels-Jamar et al. (1997) was adopted and used in five
locations; Katonga River, Mayanja River, Kafu, Lake Bisina-Opeta wetland system and Ssese
Island swamps which were more accessible. Lugogo River had very dense vegetation which was
rather difficult to penetrate. The Lake Bisina was an open area with highly degraded
periphery/shores where only human activities could be visible (Figure 8). In some sections of the
sites listed above visibility was restricted due to the tall vegetation which resulted in discontinues
or non-uniform use of the boat survey. The study adopted a modified sampling approach developed
for studying spatial and temporal variation in the abundance of songbirds (adopted and modified
from Ferry & Frochot, 1970; Gates et al., 1993; Gregory, et al., 1994) which was used by Beudels-
Jamar et al.(1997) at Parc national de Akagera in Rwanda to estimate population of sitatunga. The
approach used as described in Blondel (1986) in which observers stop at predetermined points
along transect and record the number of individuals of each bird species which they can hear
signing or calling within a fixed period. Surveys were carried out from a speed boat equipped with
a 15HP (Yamaha) boat engine or canoe powered by two persons which was driven at a speed of
1kilometers per hour, along the channel through the swamp in the river or along the edge of the
lake. Starting from a random chosen point, the boat was stopped every 5 minutes and the area
around was scanned with binoculars for 5 minutes. The number of individual sitatunga observed
26
and their distance from the boat was recorded and the habitat types were also recorded. A total of
8 transects varying in length from 25 to 40 minutes were carried out at various times of the day,
from 06:30 to 18:30 between June 2018 to August 2018. This provided 37 sets of observations.
Based on previous experience Bueam et al. (1994) recommended sitatunga surveys to be
undertaken between 07:00 and 10:00 am which was followed during this study.
In order to provide additional information on sitatunga observations were carried out from about
10 meter high tower (Machans or observation tower) overlooking/ along the part of the swamp
(Figure 5). Observations were made from 06:00 to 19:00 in an arch of 150 in front of the tower
during 5 separate days in each site. The exact time of observations of the sitatunga and when it
disappeared from view were recorded. Its initial bearing and distance from the tower was estimated
using compass (suuto type) a rangefinder (Coleman Rangematic, with a precision of 3% at 40 to
300m). The measurements were used to plot movement of each individual on a chart of the area.
The animal was classified as male or female and adult or juvenile. Any details which could be used
to identify the individual (such as color, natural marks, and shape) were recorded to permit
recognition of individual animals on the same day but not different days. The weather conditions
were recorded every hour and classed as 1. Bright sunlight, 2. Partial cloud cover, 3. Complete
cloud cover. Along each transect route, additional data collected for analyses included the
direct indirect signs such as dung, track, nest, heard, feeding residue among others.
Figure 4. Periphery of Lake Bisina with human activities, including settlement (left and crop cultivation
(right) very close to the shores
27
Figure 5. The observation tower (Machan) for studying sitatunga
3.3.2 Recee walks
During the fieldwork additional information was collected from a combination of both recce walks
(not straight line transects but instead taking path of least resistance) and straight line
transects to obtain information on sitatunga presence, distribution and abundance . Both direct
and indirect methods of mammal census were used to indicate presence of sitatunga in the study
area. The use of spoors, tracks, prints, hairs, dens, scats and other animal signs is a standard
method for censuring wildlife when they are not easy to see, for example if they are
secretive, nocturnal or when habitat conditions impede visibility (Norton-Griffiths, 1978).The
field assistants were trained on field procedures and in particular the use of equipment
(Garmin GPS60 navigation, use of range finder and sighting compass), data recording,
identifying sitatunga sign, searching behaviour and general data collection protocol in addition
to strategies for social and cultural interaction with the local communities. Community
members from the nearby villages assisted in guiding the team during the field work. The survey
route followed approximately zigzag format based on easy of access and passage point, starting
from random point within the study sites. During recee walk the team used direct sightings of
sitatunga as the target animal, hearing of vocalizations, recording of tracks, presence of
dungs/droppings, and other evidences such as carcasses and skeletal remains to identify
sitatunga species. The recee surveys were carried out during the day. Night walks were not possible
due to security reasons. The survey team walked at an average speed ranging between 1 to 3 km
/hours including pauses of every 100 to 200 meters to listen to animal calls and record
28
information on the data sheet. Animal sighting distance ranged widely but for dung/scat,
footprint, soil excavations, skeletal remains the average path width was 5 meters.
During recee walks it was only possible to differentiate the following categories; males, females,
infant/juveniles. The observations and measurements were recorded on a standard data sheet
(appendix 1). The field team members consisting of three persons carefully searched the ground
for dung remains. The state of decomposition of the dung and vegetation type at that location
was recorded in the data sheet in appendix 2. The Dung pellets were identified using field guides
to mammal signs by Louis (1992), Chris and Tilde (1994, 2003) and Clive (1996). The GPS way
points for each observation were recorded together with habitat type. The foot prints or tracks
were measured in length and width to the nearest millimeter when identifying the tracks of
sitatunga. Other opportunistic information collected during the survey included skeletal (skull
and other bones) or carcass remains of the animals when found.
3.3.3 Habitat (Vegetation) description
Vegetation forms an important habitat for the mammal populations as it serves as food and resting
/hiding place. Along the survey route, vegetation types were recorded. The overall study path
followed transects which passed through major representative habitats of the study area. A simple
vegetation classification system, based on obvious dominant plant species was used. The dominant
plant species were identified in the field or specimen collected, pressed and identified using plant
identification guide by Eggling (1951) and Katende et al. (1995).
3.3.4. Human activity/factors threatening Sitatunga
Information on human activity/disturbance of the sitatunga habitat is important because it helps
to assess the threats to the species and general biodiversity of the areas. During recee walks the
research team recorded observations of human presence in the study area. Common signs of
human activities recorded included resource extractions, settlements (huts), farmlands, and
building of access roads or paths to the newly established homesteads and farms, thatch and
broom grass collection, pole collection, collection of fire wood, charcoal making, collection
of wild rope, fruits, medicinal plants among others. Additional information was obtained from
non-formal interactions with the communities members during visits to the study sites.
29
3.4. Data analysis and presentation
3.4.1 Distribution information
The GPS locations of animal sightings, spoors and evidence of human activities we rerecorded
and used to plot distribution maps using Arc-GIS 10 (Arc-map version 9.3) software
programme. Correlation/regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between
relative abundance of sitatunga signs and level of human activities in the study area. Additional
information on distribution of sitatunga was obtained from the previous studies undertaken on wild
mammal species survey by different researchers within various parts of the country and form UWA
library and reports.
3.4.2 Analyses of the occurrence and distribution of human threats
To facilitate the analysis of the effects of human factors on mammal species, signs recorded along
transects were grouped into eight categories. Analysis of the encounter rates of human threat
categories in the study areas and analysis to show the relationship or association between threats
and Sitatunga encounter rates in the study areas were done using SPSS. For each sign
category, indices of human pressure including index of abundance of human threat category for
the sampled area, index of abundance of human threat category per transect, and index of
abundance of human threat category per site were analyzed to show the intensity of human
influence in the study area. Encounter rates (ER) of human signs recorded from sampled area were
calculated as:
ER = Count of each sign category………………………………………
Transect length covered (km)
Encounter rates of signs of human disturbance recorded from recee walks/survey were also
analyzed. Frequencies of occurrence of the different human threat categories were analyzed to
determine distribution of threats. Spatial data collected with the aid of Garmin 60 and 62 GPS
hand held devices on the various human signs that were noted in the study area were later entered
into ArcGIS 10 programme for visual analysis to show the distribution.
30
3.5 Community knowledge on the distribution and occurrence of Sitatunga
Sitatunga is particularly difficult to survey in a short space of time thus in addition to the field
observations we relied on local knowledge of hunters and other community members to identify
the species in the study sites. This is a wieldy acceptable method used by mammalogists to compile
species lists. These interviews were carried out while being guided using the photographic plates
from reference books such as Kingdom field guides to African mammals by Kingdom (1997),
Chris & Tilde (2008) and Clive (1996). Residents of the villages were interviewed using guideline
provided in appendix 2 using local languages.
3.6 Determination of quota for sitatunga sport/trophy hunting
Sport/trophy hunting is provided under Section 29 of the Uganda Wildlife Act Cap. 200, UWA
adopted wildlife use rights (Class A –E) as a tool of sustainable management of wildlife outside
protected areas.In wildlife management, a quota represents the number of animals that can be
safely removed/harvested from a population each year without biologically reducing that
population. Setting quotas ensures that wildlife populations maintain themselves and continue to
survive biologically into the future (WWF, 1997). Quota setting for sport hunting is aimed at
providing the number of target animals which may be killed by sport hunters so that there is no
decrease in the number of trophy animals over time. In order to determine the quota off-take it is
important to establish maximum yield. To do this we need to have an idea of how many animals
there are and how many of these animals can be used. Some key factors considered while setting
quotas are; information on the animal populations, fecundity, sex ratios and the level of threat of
the animal species in an area. The use of comprehensive information sources is to ensure that
species utilization does not threaten their existence in the wild. A combination of local knowledge
and scientific methods greatly help the process of establishing animal numbers and setting quotas
as was undertaken during this study. There are many factors which influence quota setting and this
is linked to the growth rate of the population. There are many natural factors which can speed up
or slow down the growth rate in a year or over a number of years. Additional information on the
sitatunga population ecology and behaviour was obtained from reference sources such as Games
(1983), Owens (1983), IUCN/SSC (2016), IUCN (1974), Kingdom (1997), Furstenberg (2008)
among others. Based on the available information and the current population data and site specific
conditions maximum off-take rate of 1 to 2% is proposed for use in determine quota.
.
31
4. RESULTS
4.1 General observations on sitatunga activity
The study team observed the daily activity of the Sitatunga which was characterized by careful
period of inactivity (freezing) at frequent intervals. This was probably to provide time /opportunity
to sense danger of predators within the vicinity. In some cases it was difficult to sense presence of
a Sitatunga if one had not marked its location before as it stood still in order to camouflage itself
from any dangers. Similar behavior was reported by Beudels –Jamar et al. (1994) who attributed
the possibility of detecting a Sitatunga during a survey to its level of activity at the time of
observation. The time when the sitatunga was seen were mainly early in the morning hours (6; 30
to 8:30 hours) and evening hours (17:00 to 19:00 hours). Sitatunga were generally not very active
in other times of the broad day light and could not be located, suggesting that they were probably
hidden in the thick habitat of the swamps. Thus the detestability of sitatunga was related to the
time of the day and weather conditions as indicated by the figure 8 in which the activity levels, the
percentage of time that each individual was visible from the machan/observation tower varied
during the course of the day was not affected by distance for animals within the 350 meters of the
observing point. The sitatunga were most active between 6 and 10 hours and evening between 17
to 19 hours (figure 6).
Figure 6 Variation with time of the day in the average percentage time that individual sitatunga were
visible from an observing platform
There was a significant difference in activity between different times of the day (F= 2.945 <0.01)
and weather conditions (F = 3.3 p <0.01) but not sex of an individual. In general the level of activity
of sitatunga was likely to be affected by time of the day. Figure 7 indicate the variation of the
observed density of Sitatunga with the distance from the observation plat form. It was observed
that in Mayanja river site vegetation (papyrus) was deliberately cut to initiate sprouting which
formed good quality (young papyrus) feeding resource (figure 8) and thus provide a clear vision
for observation of Sitatunga while feeding in more open vegetation. Under such conditions the
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
PER
CEN
TAG
E O
F TI
ME
EAC
H
INV
IDIU
AL
IS V
ISIB
LE
HOURS OF THE DAY
32
observation was not affected by the distance from the platform except where it was concealed in
the sites that are not open. As such the detectability of an active Sitatunga which is was presumed
was not affected by the distance from observer as long as the animal was within the 350m of the
observer. The density was fairly less variable between 225 and 350 which suggests that within the
350 m (figure 7) density may not be affected by the distance from the observer.
Figure 7 Variation in the density of sitatunga with distance from the observation point
Figure 8. Stretches of papyrus vegetation slashed to induce sprouting to attract sitatunga visits in Mayanja River site.
4.2. Estimation of density
To convert the individual counts made from the boat or point of stopping along the shoreline to
the estimates of density, there was need to determine for each area around the point of observation
the probability that an animal which was present within that area would be detected by the
observer. This depends on the degree of vision obstruction by vegetation, the activity pattern of
the animals and the disturbance introduced by the observer (Beudels –Jamar et al., 1994). It was
assumed that active animals were always detected within the entire radius of observation from the
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
Den
sity
(in
div
idu
lsa
/km
squ
er)
Density (/individula/km2)
33
sampling point, up to the maximum distance of observation recorded, that inactive animals are
never detected and that disturbance did not in itself provoke activity (Beudels –Jamaretal. 1994).
The second model proposes that all animals originally situated within a distance d1 of the boat
were detected only if active, on a surface reduced by obstacles to vision beyond d2. Distance d1
and d2 may not be accurately determined but for the case of this study it was observed to be on
average 60 meters and 120 meters respectively. The probability of detection was determined by a
combination of the level of activity of animals at that particular time of the day, and the number
of periods of activity at the time of the day. The probability of detecting an animal during an
observation period was expressed as the sum of the probability for the animal to be active at the
beginning of the observation period plus the probability that it begins its activity at any time during
the observation period. That is described by the following equation.
Dt =Ar + (1-Ar)Nrn T (adopted from Beudels-Jamar et al., 1994)
Where: Dt: is the detect ability at the time of day, T: is the probability that an animal which is
present in the effective area will be detected during a period of observation T (within 5 minutes in
this case). A: being the level of activity at the time of day t that the survey was conducted, and N:
is the number of periods of activity at that time of the day. Mean values of the day (06:30 -9:00,
10:00 – 10:59 and 17:00 -1959, and 11:00 – 16:59) were estimated from the data collected from
observation tower. The number of Sitatunga counted at each sampling point, the appropriate detect
ability and areas of visibility and the resulting density estimated are shown in table 4. For the five
sites (Mayanja and Katonga, Kafu, Opeta and Ssese sites) based on the second hypothesis. This
leads to an average density of Sitatunga in the various sites as indicated in table 4. The estimated
total populations of sitatunga in the study sites based on suitable habitats are indicated in table 5.
Table 4 Population density estimate for sitatunga in study sites derived from surreys boat and
transect surveys.
Time of the
day and
observ
No.
of
obser
v.
No. of
animals
seen
Activi
ty
levels
/hour
Period
of
activity
Detectab
ility
Corrected No
of Sitatunga
for Mayanja
Corrected
no. of
Sitatunga
for Kafu.
Corrected no.
of Sitatunga
for Opeta.
Corrected no.
of Sitatunga for
Ssese islet.
06:– 09: 17 15 0.13 0.4 0.18 77 75 14 81
09:-10: 6 4 0.03 0.2 0.08 3 2 1 5
17: –19 17 14 0.10 0.5 0.03 70 68 12 71
Average
Effective
area (Km2)
- - - - - 2 1.5 2 1
34
Table 5 Projection of Sitatunga population in the study sites based on estimated suitable habitat.
Site Average density
of sitatunga (km2)
Estimated suitable area
square kilometers
Projected population
for the site
Comment
Mayanja 12 95 1,140
Kafu 14 120 1,680
Opeta 5 90 450
Ssese (Bugala island) 22 30 660 Restricted to Bugala Island
Katonga 26 70 1,820 Include habitats outside Katonga WR
4.2.2 Sitatunga evidence abundance in study sites
The sitatunga was easily identified from spoors, dung and carcass (Table 6.). Table 7 shows the
encounter rate expressed as number of animals sighted per kilometer distance covered per site.
Table 6 Encounter rate of sitatunga signs in the study sites
Site/type of spoor Distance
covered (km)
Observations Foot prints Carcass Dung
pellet
Resting site/
tunnel
Total
Mayanja 12 5 14 0 0 0 19
Kafu 10.5 3 11 0 2 1 17
Opeta 14 1 3 0 0 3 7
Ssese island
(Bugala)
8 3 13 0 2 5 23
Katonga 14.5 9 23 1 2 0 34
For this study dungs and tracks were used to provide indication of sitatunga encounter rates in
various sites of the study. The overall mean relative abundance of dung and track signs per
kilometer in the study areas is indicates in table 7. The results show that the least number of dung
and track signs of sitatunga was recorded in Lake Opeta site. This was expected considering that
during the study period area were flooded and most of sitatunga could have migrated to safe sites.
Table 7 Encounter rates of dung and tracks for sitatunga in the study sites
Site Transect
length
(km)
Number of
dung
Dung
Encounter
rate
Number of
tracks
Feeding
signs
Track
Encounter rate
per Km
Average encounter rates
of dung and tracks per km
Mayanja 12 1 0.083 14 23 1.166 1.25
Kafu 10.5 3 0.285 11 14 1.047 1.33
Opeta 14 0 0.0 3 03 0.214 0.214
Ssese island
(Bugala)
8 2 0.25 13 19 1.625 1.875
35
As shown in table 7 sitatunga signs were most abundant in Mayanja, Kafu and Ssese Island
(Bugala) sites as indicated by their comparatively higher mean spoor encounter rates, starting from
1.1 and above. The encounter rates of dung spoor were generally low for most sites but lower for
Lake Opeta sites. This may be attributed to the flooding which was experienced during the study
period in Lake Opeta/Bisina sites. Results suggest that for every kilometer walked in the respective
study sites, one would find 70 time more dung and tracks per kilometer in other sites compared to
Lake Opeta sites which may be due to the annual flooding pattern of the sites during the year.
4.2.4 Distribution of sitatunga in the study sites
The distribution of spoors and siting of sitatunga in various study sites is indicated in the figures
from 9 to 14. All the recording indicates that observations of sitatunga were located within the
wetlands or close to the wetland or along riverine forest. Only one sitatunga carcass (Figure 15)
was recorded along the periphery of Katonga River wetland. The victim could have been caught
when it had moved into the nearby riverine forest to forage. In Bugala Island (Ssese Island) one
male sitatunga (figure 16) was identified which was kept captive in an enclosure under the
management of Ssese Island Beach Hotel.
36
Figure 9 Distribution of sitatunga in Katonga wildlife reserve site
Figure 10 Sitatunga distribution around Lake Opeta site
37
Figure 11 Sitatunga distribution around Lugogo river system
Figure 12 Sitatunga distribution along River Kafu system
38
Figure 13 Sitatunga distribution along River Mayanja system
Figure 14 Distribution of Sitatunga in Ssese Island (Bugala)
39
Figure 15 Remains of the sitatunga carcass found in Katonga Wildlife Reserve
Figure 16 Captive male sitatunga kept at Ssese Island wildlife center (SIWC) under the
management of the Ssese Island Beach Hotel.
4.3. Distribution of sitatunga across Uganda
The 17 shows distribution of sitatunga in various parts of Uganda based on the wild animal studies
in different parts of the country and data base of UWA. The general pattern indicate that the
40
sitatunga had wider distribution across Uganda. Figure 18 shows potential areas cross Uganda
where sitatunga could be found. Based on the information that sitatunga can persist in its natural
habitat provide the habitat is less disturbed (Kingdon, 1997), it is possible that relatively intact
patches of permanent wetland habitats within Uganda that may be hosting of sitatunga.
Figure 17 Distribution of Sitatunga within Wetland system in Uganda
41
Figure 18 General distribution of sitatunga in Uganda
3.3. Habitat types
3.3.1. Vegetation description
The vegetation of study area was grouped into five broad categories:
(i) Riverine/Gallery forest (RF) vegetation: Consisted of riverine or gallery forest (figure 25.).
This was mainly found along permanent water courses and sometimes along swampy
wetland shores. The common tree species included Acacia gerdi, Acacia abyssinica,
Acacia Senegal, Balanities aegyptiaca, Afzelia africana, and Khaya senegalensis.
Figure 19 Gallery forest at the periphery of Lake Bisina/Opeta
42
(iv) Flood plains (FP): (figure 26) were found in low lying areas and valleys adjacent to the thick
woodlands with permanent water. The vegetation was dominated by spear grass (Imperata
cylindrical) with scattered shrubs and trees mainly consisting of Piliostigma thonningii,
Balanities aegyptiaca, Acacia species and Kigelia africana.
(v) Swamp vegetation (SV): This was restricted to the river/lakes and permanent swamps. It was
dominated by Papyrus species such as Cyperus involucratus, Pennisetum purpureum and
Brachiaria species.
Figure 20 Flood plains in Lake Opeta area which was flooded during the study in July 2018.
4.4 Human disturbance activities
The main types of human disturbance recorded included; Collection of thatching grass
(Hyparrhenia species)/papyrus, tree cutting for fire wood/poles for housing, charcoal making and
clearing areas for crop cultivation, livestock farming and sand mining/bricklaying. The prevalence
of the key human disturbance activities in various study sites is indicated in table 8. Other human
disturbances included bush burning to facilitate hunting of wild animals, clearing of land for
agriculture and sand extraction. Some of the threats recorded along transects and recee walks,
respectively in the study areas are illustrated in figures 21 to 23. Figure 24 summarizes various
human activities taking place in the areas while figure 25 compares average levels of all activities
in all study sites.
43
Table 8 Incidences of illegal human activities in the study sites
Site/activity Mayanja Kafu Lugogo Opeta Ssese island
(Bugala)
Katonga Total
Collection of
grass/papyrus
3 8 15 26 1 4 57
Tree cutting for fire
wood/poles/
Charcoal
17 19 2 13 12 0 63
clearing areas for
crop cultivation
1 2 6 2 14 2 27
livestock farming 9 14 1 24 0 5 53
Sand mining/
bricklaying
0 1 12 0 0 0 13
Total 30 44 36 63 27 11
Figure 22 Clearance of wetland for livestock farming near Katonga wildlife Reserve site
Figure 21 Farming, settlement and charcoal burning in Lake Bisina and Opeta sites
44
Figure 25 Human activities in the study sites
The individual threat indicators with potential consequences grouped into four categories are
shown in table 9. Table 10 describes different categories of threats recorded in the study sites.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Collection ofgrass/papyrus
Tree cuttingfor fire
wood/poles/Charcoal
clearing areasfor crop
cultivation
livestockfarming
Sand mining/bricklaying
inci
den
ce o
f h
um
an a
ctiv
ties
Human activities
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Kayanja Kafu Lugogo Opeta Sseseisland
(Bugala)
Katonga
Occ
ura
nce
Study sites
Figure 23. Clearing of wetland vegetation for farming and wood cutting for fuels and charcoal in Bugala island
Figure 24 Incidence of human activities in various study sites
45
Table 9 List of threats and possible consequences for the conservation of sitatunga
Threat Some consequences
1 Clearing habitat for crop and
livestock farming
Habitat destruction
Increase plant diversity
2 Livestock grazing Seasonal burnings , Opportunity for bush-meat
hunting Habitat destruction
3 Tree cutting for fire wood/poles/
Charcoal
Habitat destruction
4 Sand mining and brick laying Habitat destruction
Table 10 Description of human threat categories recorded in the study sites
Threat category Description
1 Biomass removal includes all signs of tree cutting for wood fuel or timber logging
such as old and active logging tracks, abandoned logs, old felled
tree stumps and felled logs and pilled logs.
2 Farming Includes all active and abandoned crop fields, new forest clearings
and burnt areas for cultivation.
3 Livestock Includes the presence of cow, sheep, goat and signs of livestock
presence including dung and tracks.
4 Sand and soil
mining/ Extraction
Includes signs associated with removal of resources such as sand for
construction, clay soil for brick making.
5 Hunting and
burning
Includes signs of hunting such as presence of dogs, burning
vegetation to facilitate hunting.
The general relationship between mammal distribution pattern (using the spoors) and intensity of
human activities was examined using Spearman rank correlation tests The findings indicate that
there was highly negative correlation (r -0.585, p<0.01) for Bisina-Opeta site. An assessment of
the contribution of human activity to the occurrence of sitatunga signs using regression
analysis (R2 0.342, P<0.01) indicates that it contributes about 30% to the species occurrence.
This suggests that various human activities negatively impact on occurrence of sitatunga in the
study sites.
4.5 Local community knowledge on sitatunga
The questionnaire was administered to total of 131 respondents drawn from the six study sites.
The majority (86%) of the respondents were male perhaps because most participants involved in
digging around the wetlands were men. Women mainly got opportunity to reach swamps when
46
going to fetch water. The age of the respondents ranged from 23 to 76 years with the majority
between 4o to 50 years and had stayed in the location for over 10 years. Due to the rural nature of
the study sites most respondents were peasant farmers or cattle keepers (86%) who occasionally
engaged in fishing. The only few respondents in the Mayanja river site were casual laborers at the
landing sites or farms. The framers engaged in mixed cropping in all sites mainly consisting of
sorghum, millet, cassava, rice, vegetables crops such as tomatoes among others. Locally sitatunga
was known as “Njobe” in Lutoro, lunyoro or Luganda which were the predominant language
spoken at the study sites other than the iteso. The respondents had very good description of general
ecology and behaviour of sitatunga which was in agreement with available published information
such as that in Kingdon (1982). Most of the respondents had seen sitatunga and described it as
medium sized mammal with the males being bigger with horns while the females were smaller and
hornless. In distinguishing sitatunga from other mammal species the respondents used the long
pointed and wide splayed hoof by using forked fingers. They similarly indicated the time when
they saw sitatunga was either very early in the morning or late in the evenings when the suns was
not bright. The individuals who were expert hunters indicated that sitatunga follows tunnels when
going or coming back from the grazing sites. All respondents reported that only one baby was born
at a time. Some respondents had observed sitatunga swimming in the water when escaping from
predation. They reported that sitatunga rest in shade during hot day time and that the males were
more aggressive than the females and that sitatunga barks occasionally. They reported that
sitatunga mainly moves individually and rarely in groups except the females that move with their
juveniles. All respondents indicated that it was usually difficult to detect sitatunga because of the
behaviour of freezing or disappear into the wetland when disturbed. When asked on the future of
conservation of sitatunga, the majority of the respondents (90) reported that degradation of the
wetland vegetation was responsible and may lead to extinction of the species in their localities.
4.6 Guidelines for allocation of national sitatunga sport hunting quota
Quota setting provides the number of animals which may be killed by sport hunters per year so
that there is no decrease in the number of trophy animals over time. Based on the available
information on the sitatunga population an off take rate ranging from 1 to 2 % is recommended,
depending on the site conditions is shown in table 11.
47
Table 11 Recommend off take for sitatunga in various study sites.
Site Population % off take % yield
Mayanja 1,140 2 22.8
Kafu 1,680 2 33.6
Katonga 450 2 9
Ssese Island 660 1 13.2
Lake Opeta/Bisina 1,820 1 36.4
The low proportion of harvesting is recommended because genetic considerations provide for a
minimum viable population of 500 individuals (Bakuneeta, 2003) for successful long-term
conservation under natural conditions (Frankel & Soule, 1981).
48
5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1 Discussion
5.1.1 Occurrence and population sizes of sitatunga in study sites
The accurancy of estimate of densities and popualtions depend on the estimated of the area of
visibiity at each of the sampling points in the study sites. Other biases may arise due to the survey
boat and becaosue some of the counts were made on the edge of the open water or swamp which
means the survey result is an approximation. Based on the result of this study, all study sites seem
to contain viable populations of the sitatunga which suggests that the sites are representative of a
suitable sitatunga habitats in Uganda. The popuation estimates obtained in this study were
moderate (raning from 5 to 23 animals per sqaure km). Some of the population density values
obtained in this study were slightly higher comnpared to other findings in the same site example
by Camille and Boyce (2016) in Mayanja swamp but lower when compared to the density estimate
values obatained elsewhere (such as in Akagera N.P 57-60 /km2(Beudels –Jamar et al., 1997),
64/km 2 in Busanga swamps (May & Lindholm 2019; East 1999) using other methods. The
distribution pattern of sitatunga indicate that these animals were closely affiliated to the wetland
systems with permanent water in Uganda.
5.1.2 Characteristics and intensity of threats affecting sitatunga conservation
The study sites experienced various threats from the diverse human exploitative activities as well
as developmental activities. Threat categories recorded in the study sites included; collection of
grass/papyrus, tree cutting for fire wood/poles/ charcoal making, clearing vegetation areas for crop
cultivation, livestock farming and sand mining/ bricklaying which all result in degradation of the
wetland habitat and thereby negatively affecting conservation of sitatunga. Of the categories of
threats, habitat destruction was perhaps the most severe as it was recorded in most sites. Elsewhere
human activities have been reported as responsible for causing the disappearance of wetlands,
leading to local extinctions of wetland dependent species. For example Nsabagasani et al. (2008)
reported that in Akanyaru wetlands in Rwanda populations of resident Sitatunga had disappeared
or were significantly reduced at Nyiramatuntu and Kinyovi. Habitat destruction was wide spread
in some of the study sites and could be responsible for low numbers of sitatunga signs reported in
Bisina /Opeta site. It was possible that sitatunga migrated away from the disturbed sites at Lake
Bisina area to Pin-Upe WR which was believed to be safer because it was partly in the protected
area. In Kenya sitatunga was reported to migrate when the conditions become unfavorable as
49
documented by Kenya Wildlife Service (https://allafrica.com/stories/201206070081.html) where
hundreds of sitatunga were reported to have migrated from their natural habitats at King'wal
swamp to the neighboring wetlands after exposure to danger of burning. At Tisai Islands which
separates Lake Bisina and Lake Opeta there was massive vegetation removal for various proposes,
including firewood, charcoal production, clearing vegetation for livestock grazing. Ocen and
Andama (2002) similarly reported that sitatunga occurrence was reduced in areas with higher
human activities such as sites with removed papyrus and where livestock grazing was intense. This
could explain the lower numbers of sitatunga populations and sparse distribution recorded in this
study. Collection and extraction of plant resources such as thatch grass, papyrus and reeds
may probably have minimal detrimental impact if it is regulated. However, tree cutting for poles,
fire wood, charcoal making and timber exploitation may significantly change habitat conditions
and thus cover pattern in most areas due to the commercialization of the products. There is
currently high demand for wood fuel and thatch grass in most urban areas which increases
vegetation clearance. Habitat loss coupled with burning facilitates hunting especially during dry
seasons when plant biomass was reduced in wetlands. Extensive burning of the wetland was
reported in Mayanja site Camille and Boyce (2017) and this type of habitat destruction paves way
for establishing farm lands and facilitates hunting as hiding sites for sitatunga are destroyed leaving
them vulnerable to hunters. This types of burning is very common in wetland habitats around
Uganda. One incidence of active fire burning event was recorded during the time this study at
Katonga WR site although the extent of damages was not measured. In general terms fire was
observed to destroy large area of papyrus habitat. The open or cleared habitat deprives sitatunga
of shelter and thus exposing them to human predators and other natural predators. The
increasing demand for food and other materials, in combination with droughts that make
upland agriculture more risky, has intensified farming in wetlands (Wood and van Halsema,
2008; Rebelo et al., 2010). Increasingly, wetlands are reclaimed permanently for large scale
farming, often through corporate or government activity e.g. in the Yala wetland, Kenya
(Kinaro, 2008) and in Uganda where swamp rice variety is being promoted. Sitatunga is adapted
to survive in swamp vegetation conditions only and any artificial reduction in water flows may
result in reduction in sitatunga numbers (Games, 1983). The Uganda govrenment proposal to
increase food production through use water for crop production and the challenge of expanding
swamp rice growing are somne of the biggest challenges to sitaunga habitat throuhout Uganda.
50
Suitable wetland habitats for survival of sitatunga are currently disappearing rapidly due to
drainage and manipulation of water table, competition with domestic animals during period of
drought and the consequent effects of poaching (Brudels-Jamar et al. 1997). In the study sites there
were incidences of annexing of wetlands for expansion of agricultural crop and livestock
production which is currently increasing due to the challenges of climate change across Uganda.
This results in increased degradation and destruction of natural wetland habitats and increased
competition of livestock with sitatunga for water, grazing and other natural resources. Moreover
in addition to fragmentation of habitat and thus isolation of populations into small sizes makes the
future of the sitatunga populations to become very precarious. At the moment there are few
relatively less disturbed wetlands e.g. in Mayanja, Nakaseke, Kafu and Nakasongola areas but this
may change in the next 20-50 years if no action is taken to secure continuation of the current status
quo. Thus the future of sitatunga depends on the continuing existence of large and continuous
stretches of wetland. In spite of Uganda being one of the many countries that ratified the Ramsar
Convention, wetlands in Uganda continue to be under threat of being drained and reclaimed
(Verhoeven and Setter, 2009). The wide spread distribution of populations of sitatunga across
Uganda which are wetland- dependent may crash as the remaining population may occur only in
those fragments of wetlands which survive as part of the protected areas within a human-
dominated landscape e.g. in Katonga wildlife reserve.
This study identified that wildlife hunting was still persisting in all parts of study and possibly
throughout Uganda despite banning of hunting in 1970s. The magnitude of poaching recorded
from this study may be low and tolerable in case the suitable habitat is still sufficient. According
to Timberlake and Childes (2004) sitatunga copes well with high hunting pressure in much of its
range, but is most threatened by drying out of its aquatic habitat caused by changes in hydrology
(Ross et al., 1998). Kingdon (1997) similarly reported that sitatunga can persist in areas with high
human population provided their suitable habitat is available. In Uganda subsistence hunting in
areas with very low human densities may have little impact on sitatunga populations, but this can
change rapidly as human populations increase. A studies in delta area near Murchison falls N.P
(Ocen & Andama 2002) suggest that the communities do not invest a lot in sitatunga hunting
because it is difficult to hunt unlike other antelope species which are much easier to locate. This
suggests that hunting may not be a big threat to sitatunga within their areas of distribution but
habitat loss is the main challenge. Observations in this study suggests that during the dry season
51
wetland vegetation and riverine forest act as islands of green vegetation for the survival of wide
variety of animals including Sitatunga.
Habitat fragmentation is also a threat to the future persistence of sitatunga as there is an ever-
increasing loss of wetlands throughout their range which are cut off former routes of dispersal and
many sitatunga populations become isolated (IUCN, 2016). Sitatunga are reported to be vulnerable
to long-term changes in water level because it alters vegetation structure, which in turn largely
determines their distribution and abundance. Habitat fragmentation and fluctuations in water levels
make them more vulnerable to predation and hunting in many parts of its range (May & Lindholm
2013). There is need for wildlife corridors to enhance species survival through increasing food
sources, decreasing the chance of predation, providing suitable habitat, and provides opportunity
for reconnecting isolated populations (DFW 2004). Swamps are also extremely vulnerable to fire
for example vast areas of Bangweulu and Busanga are burnt each year (May & Lindholm 2013).
Swamp/wetland burning is common in Uganda for example during the time when Camille was
undertaking her study the vast areas of Mayanja swamp was completely burnt (Camille and Boyce,
2016). During this study the team also noted burning of swamp habitat in Katonga WR.
Nonetheless, the Sitatunga shows a remarkable ability to survive near human habitation, provided
suitable habitat remains.
Human activities around Lake Vitoria Basin (LVB) which hosts large wetlands system have
accelerated and the rate of ecological change is increased which threats conservation of wetland
dependent organisms and the ecosystems services they provide. About 80% of the human
population living in the LVB derives its livelihoods from subsistence agriculture (GIWA, 2006).
Thus, agriculture, which is intensifying on most catchments, will continue to have significant
impacts on the environment and especially the wetland ecosystems. The main driver of changes in
Lake Victoria ecosystem is human population pressure, especially its increasing size, rapid growth
rate and increasing urbanization and immigration. In the upper reaches of many rivers, the main
threats to wetlands are reclamation for agriculture, overgrazing, human settlement and
encroachment, siltation, pollution (mainly from agriculture and industrial sources), introduction of
exotic species such as blue gum trees (Eucalyptus spp.) and overharvesting of water dependent
plants. The weak legal and institutional frameworks have contributed towards unfavorable
environment for wetland conservation and sustainable use in Uganda. To mitigate wetland
degradation one of the government’s approaches to curb underlying and proximate national
52
environmental stresses on biodiversity has been through the delimitation and implementation of
in-situ protection strategies in protected areas (Tchigio 2007). The signing of the Ramsar
convention is one of the many ongoing strategies established to protect unique biodiversity
particularly the wetland biodiversity including sitatunga which is specialized for wetland
environment. Nonetheless, diverse land use and fragmentation from illegal hunting grazing,
agricultural extension, gathering for subsistence and complete conversion of areas to meet
settlement and other developmental needs, such as irrigation crop framing, livestock farming and
hydroelectricity dam construction are evident in the Ugandan wetland systems which negatively
affect populations of swam dwelling wildlife species.
5.1.3 Opportunities for conservation of sitatunga
In order to ensure the long-term conservation of sitatunga it is important to maintain as many viable
populations in different habitats which are connected as possible. For this to succeed
environmental and biodiversity conservation strategies need to be integrated with human
development needs (East, 1990). Conservation of sitatunga requires conservation of as many
wetland habitats with viable sitatunga populations as possible to support and enable healthy
populations to persist (East, 1999). This includes a range of wetland-use options, from strictly
protected national parks and reserves where consumptive use of wildlife is not permitted, to areas
of natural habitat which are managed for sustainable utilization, e.g., through trophy and/or meat
hunting, as part of multiple resource use systems. Establishment of national parks, wildlife reserves
and other categories of protected areas of natural habitat has been a major component of wildlife
conservation in both colonial and post-independence Africa and a network of protected areas
extends across the continent (IUCN, 1998). UWA manages 10 national parks 12 wildlife reserves,
5 community wildlife management areas and 13 wildlife sanctuaries which constitute protected
areas some of which are important in providing suitable habitats for conservation of sitatunga.
Few of the protected areas such as Murchison fall National Park, Lake Mburo N.P, Bwindi
Impenetrable National Park, Ajai wildlife reserve Katonga wildlife reserve and Semliki among
other have sitatunga. It is however, noted that much of the suitable habitats for sitatunga occur
outside the protected areas and are in public or private land which becomes constraint to their
conservation. This scenario calls for development of partnership with the privet business, persons
and adjacent communities to promote sustainable use of the wildlife habitats and resources
including sitatunga. Promoting incentives is key because wildlife conservation is unlikely to
succeed unless the economic value of biodiversity is recognized and the value of wildlife
53
utilization exceeds that of alternative land-use options (McNeely 1993; Lane et al., 1994; Adams
& Thomas, 1996). This calls for integrated strategies that will involve community wise use of
wetland resources, promoting community tourism and spots/trophy hunting opportunists among
others. For the option of promoting sport hunting the advantage is that Sitatunga is one of the
highly rated antelope species by the professional hunters due to its significance as a trophy animal
(Lindsey et al., 2006). This could provide the needed economic incentive for the conservation of
the wildlife species and their habitats (IUCN/SSC, 2016).
Based on high trophy value, sitatunga has the potential to generate funds for conservation work of
the species and its habitat. Trophy hunting can play a key role in conservation of species and
habitats, especially in non-protected areas which are not frequented by tourists. Sport hunting is
one of the ways the local communities benefit from the utilization of wildlife. Hunting revenue
can enhance economic development in the local area (WWF, 1997) and this can stimulates
conservation of the sitatunga habitat. To promote conservation of sitatunga it is important that
more wetland areas with viable populations of sitatunga be identified and brought on board of for
initiating and promoting sport hunting as a strategy for promoting conservation of the species.
5.1.4 Monitoring for healthy populations of Sitatunga
Uganda is signatory to Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and as such is required to
inventory and monitor status of biodiversity in the country. Regular monitoring of species’
occurrences in a given habitat/site is a necessary component of biodiversity monitoring.
Continuous monitoring of wildlife numbers is essential in order to detect trends so that we can re-
adjust our earlier management decisions. Having information about wildlife numbers, rainfall
patterns and fire outbreaks to help us understand why changes in the wildlife population are taking
place and this enables wildlife managers to maximize their production and revenue without
destroying the wildlife resource (WWF, 1999). According to Sparrow et al. (1994) no matter how
well documented population trends in a single taxonomic group such as butterflies are, they are
likely to provide only a partial picture of overall biological diversity. Long-term monitoring is
most effective when they include diverse taxa and accompanied by research into abiotic factors
such as macro and microclimate and habitat condition. A focused, multidisciplinary approach to
monitoring offers the best opportunity for obtaining biological information that is truly
useful in making informed management decisions . The communities in all study sites
demonstrated good knowledge of sitatunga ecology and behaviour which was correlated closely
54
with information reported in the literature. The community knowledge on the ecology of sitatunga
suggests that they can play significant role in conservation of natural resource. The community
knowledge on the sites can be used for monitoring the populations and challenges facing sitatunga
conservation in wetlands. The community can therefore be incorporated as part of the monitoring
team for this purpose. Benefits of involving communities been reported in Mabamba wetland
Ramsar site in southern Uganda (Nature Uganda, 2009) where communities are key protectors of
the wildlife species.
This preliminary study provided results that can be used as a technical baseline for establishing a
sitatunga monitoring programme in the wetland systems. Sampling frequency should be
determined by monitoring needs, logistic constraints and seasonal changes.
Regular monitoring of sitatunga can be done regularly as follows;
(i) Transect to runs through representative habitats to document large mammals focusing on
sitatunga, their use of the habitat e.g. feeding signs, dung pellets, track etc. to give insight
into indices of abundance and population trends while incorporating other wildlife species.
(ii) Similar sites including protected areas should be included to enhance comparisons.
(iii)Sites should be surveyed at least every 3-5 years depending on logistics;
(iv) The trophy quality measurements data and study reports can also be used to indicate that
the use of hunting indices over a long time. Consistency in trophy quality is vital indicator
of the status of wildlife population health and this approach is an effective way of setting
and monitoring Sitatunga quotas through an adaptive management approach.
5.2 Conclusions
The findings of this study indicate that sitatunga still occurs in relatively viable populations in the
study sites. The study also demonstrated the importance of sustainable use of wetlands as critical
for conservation of sitatunga in the country. The main threat that significantly impacts on
conservation of sitatunga include habitat loss due to human activities ranging from need for land
for farming due to climate change impacts, need to feed increasing human populations and
urbanization among others. Five categories of human threats were recorded from this study
and the intensity of each of these categories also varied in different wetland sites. The
abundance and distribution of sitatunga varied between habitats as a result of the presence of
human threat indicators as shown in this study. Sitatunga is an antelope species which is dependent
on wetland habitat and any development which negatively affect wetland status negatively affect
the survival of the species. Areas with intensive human activity registered low abundance of
sitatunga. This calls for urgent actions to mitigate human induced wetland habitats degradation
which are not only the help in securing sitatunga conservation but also other wildlife and other
ecosystem service that accrues from the conservation of the wetlands.
55
5.3 Recommendations
To promote sustainable future for sitatunga in the wetland ecosystems the following actions are
recommended. The roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders and government units in the
implementation of the recommendations are shown in the appendix 3 and the Non detrimental
Findings for Sitatunga in the appendix 4.
(i) Take landscape based approach to conservation actions and activities, recognizing the
three major habitat functions (a) the wetland landscape which provides habitat to wider
ecosystem services to the community, (b) being habitats for sitatunga and other wildlife
species, and (c) humans use of wetland habitat for extractive and consumptive
resources to advance wetland management objectives.
(ii) Develop sensitization and awareness campaign programmes that might improve
networking and collaboration between stakeholders and possibly attract their
interest in the protection of the wealth of biodiversity in the wetland ecosystem. In
this regard, sensitization and awareness campaigns addressing the wetland
management policies, risks and benefits that may accrue from successful participation
and conservation are recommended.
(iii) Develop integrated approach to conservation of wetland ecosystem through; Investing
in alternative livelihoods opportunities based on sustainable use of wildlife resources
and its habits such as bee keeping, monitored resources extraction. This would be
alongside sport hunting or ranching of wildlife for meat to provide financial incentives
for the local community to maintain wildlife in these corridor areas. The adjacent
communities in these wetland systems need to be sensitized on how to sustainably use
resources in their area while conserving them.
(iv) Continuous monitoring of sitatunga population and other wildlife species in the
wetland for remedial conservation action is proposed. In this regard, both scientific
and integrated (including stakeholders) long-term ecological monitoring programs
are suggested. This can be done through establishing a wildlife population and habitat
monitoring system with incorporation of community conservation initiative
programmes in wetland. Scientific monitoring of sitatunga and large mammal
population on the transects within wetlands that were surveyed during this study in the
study sites. Additional monitoring is proposed especially in Ssese islands which
contains endemic island sitatunga subspecies is recommended. Incorporate community
in the monitoring of sitatunga and wetland health for wider benefit such as ecosystem
service and conservation of sitatunga.
(v) Due to the increasing human pressure on wetland, there is need to demarcate wetland
boundaries to reduce encroachments. It is also important to ensuring connectivity
between different wetland systems through creating corridors to links two or more
larger wetlands habitats is vital to facilitate dispersal or allow undisturbed movement
of sitatunga within different populations/sites to avoid potential challenges of
inbreeding and promote healthy and viable populations.
56
(vi) Strengthen institutions responsible for wetland management at local government levels.
There is need to sensitize, train and strengthen local government at district and lower
levels (environment committee) to management the wetlands sustainably.
(vii) Initiate collaborative management of wildlife on private/public land for management
of wetland habitats. This is consistent with the Uganda Wildlife Act (2000) and the
Local Government Act (1997) and other laws and guidelines that may supplement
implementation of such imitative.
(viii) Develop Conservation Actions and species management plan for Sitatunga. This will
help in regulating and management of harvest and Trade in the species by the local
community and general public.
(ix) Development of enabling policy framework for wetland management, including:
f. Design and implement Ramsar sites and Framework wetland management plans.
g. Design and implementation of Ramsar site wetland research, eco-tourism and
education centers.
h. Design and implement District wetland action plans, with biodiversity and carbon
sink potential.
i. Promote wetlands law enforcement and governance.
j. Restore, regenerate, restock and gazette degraded wetlands in urban areas so as to
conserve biodiversity and promote increased ecosystem serves provision.
(xiv) Create an Island National Park in Lake Victoria Islands with Island Sitatunga
(T.s.sylvestris) as a Flagship Species for promoting Tourism in the Ssese Island. It has been
identified as potential endemic in Africa due to restricted occurrence in Ssese Island.
(xv) To institute byelaws on sustainable use of wetland and to ban burning of the swamps
/wetlands which are the habitats for sitatunga.
57
REFERENCES
Abila, R. (2002). Utilization and Economic Valuation of the Yala Swamp Wetland, Kenya.
In: Gawler, M. (Ed.). Best practices in participatory management. Proceedings of a workshop
held at the 2nd International Conference on Wetlands and Development, Dakar, Senegal.
Wetlands International. Pp. 96–104 IUCN –WWF Publications No 65 Wageningen. The
Netherlands.
Yasuda Akito, 2012. Is sport hunting a breakthrough wildlife conservation strategy for Africa?
Field Actions Science Reports [Online], Vol. 6 |, Online since 27 March 2012, connection on 01
October 2016. URL: http://factsreports.revues.org/1362.
Amin R, Bowkett AE, Wacher 2016. The use of camera traps to monitor forest antelope s[ecies .
ntelop conservation . Joh Wiley & Sons , Ltd, Chichester, UK, pp 190-216.
Ayorekire, J., Ahebwa, M. W., & Ochieng, A. (2011). managing conservation anddevelopment
on private land: An assessment of the sport hunting approach around Lake Mburo National Park,
Uganda. In V. R. Van der Duim, D. Meyer, J. Saarinen, & K. Zellmer (Eds.), new alliances for
tourism, conservation and development in eastern and southern Africa (pp. 185–207). Delft:
Eburon.
Bakuneeta C. 2003. Ground counts of medium –large mammals in lake Mburo Conservation
area. Final report to Uganda Wildlife authority (UWA)
Barnes, J. and B. Jones. 2009. Game ranching in Namibia. In Evolution and Innovation in
Wildlife Conservation, eds. H. Suich, B. Child and A. Spencely, 113-126. UK: Earth scan
Beudels –Jamar R.C, Devilers, P and Harwood, J 1997. Estimating the size of the population of
Sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekei) in the Parc National del’ Akagera, Rwanda. J.Afr. zool 111:345-
354.
58
Camille W, Boyce M.S. 2016. Ecology, density and distribution of sitatunga in central Uganda.
Annual report 2016 University of Alberta.
Camille W, and Nark S. Boyce 2017. Ecology density and distribution of Sitatunga in central
Uganda. Research project report University of Alberta .
Carpenter G. D. H.1929. Notes on the Fauna of Nkosi Island, Lake Victoria, Uganda, Africa.
Cassey, P. (1999). Estimating animal abundance by distance sampling techniques. Wellington,
New Zealand: Department of Conservation, 12p.
Child, B. 2009. Recent Innovation in Conservation. In Evolution and Innovation in Wildlife
Conservation, eds. H. Suich, B. Child and A. Spencely, 277-288. UK: Earthscan.
Clive, W.1996. Sign of the wild; a field guides to the mammals of South Africa. New Edition,
Tien Wah Press ltd. Singapore, Cape Town.
Chris T & Tilde S. 2008. Filed guide to larger mammals of Africa. Revised edition. Struik
Publishers.
Craigie, I., Baillie, J., Balmford, A. C., Collen, B. And Green, R. (2010). Large mammal
Population declines in Africa's protected areas. Biological conservation, 143, 2221-2228.
Eggling W. 1951. The indigenous Plants of the Uganda protectorate. Uganda government
printers Entebbe.
Ferry, C and Frochol, B 1958. Unemethode pou denombrer les oiseaux nicheurs. Terre et Vie,
12:85-102.
Furstenburg D. 2018. Focus on Sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekii) Geowild Consult ltd.
November 2018.
Games I 1983. Observations on the Sitatunga Tragelaphus in the Okavango Delta of Botswana.
Biological Conservation 27 (1983) 157-170.
59
Gerhard R Damm 2015. The Aftermath of the Notorious Zimbabwean Lion Hunt. African
Indaba e-Newsletter (2015). Volume 13, Issue No 4.September 2015.
Groves, C. andGrubb, P. (2011) Ungulate Taxonomy. The John Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore University.
Hachigonta S, Nelson GC, Thomas TS, Sibanda LM (eds) (2013) Southern African
Agriculture and Climate Change—a comprehensive analysis. International FoodPolicy Research
Institute, Washington DC. doi:http://dx. doi.org/10.2499/9780896292086.
Humane Society of the United States, 2016. Torphy hunting by the numbers. The united states role
in global trophy hunting. Report.
Jones, B. T. B. 2009. Community benefits from safari hunting and related activities in Southern
Africa. In Recreational hunting, conservation and rural livelihoods: science and practice, eds.
B. Dickson, J. Hutton and W. M. Adams, 157-177. UK: Wiley-Black Well.
IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group (2008). "Tragelaphus spekii". IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. IUCN. 2008
IUCN 1974. The Behaviour of Ungulates and its relation to management. Edited by V. Geist & F.
Walther.
IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group. 2016. Tragelaphus spekii. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2016: e.T22050A115164901. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-
3.RLTS.T22050A50195827.en.
Kamugisha, J. R., Ogutu, Z. A., & Stahl, M. (1997). Parks and people: Conservation and liveli-
hoods at crossroads. Four case histories . Nairobi: Regional Soil Conservation Unit African
Centre for Technology Studies.
Katende A. B. A. Birnie, B. O. Tegris. 1995. Useful trees and Shrubs for Uganda. Identification,
propagation and management for agriculture and pastorals communities. Regional Soil
conservation unit. RSCU Nairobi.
Kinaro ZO (2008) Wetland conversion to large-scale agricul- tural production; implications
60
on the livelihoods of rural communities, Yala Swamp, Lake Victoria basin, Depart-
ment of Water and Environmental Studies. University of Lingko¨ ping, Sweden
Kingdon, J. 1997. The Kingdon field guide to African mammals. Academic Press, London.
Kipkemboi J, van Dam AA, Ikiara MM, Denny P (2007) Inte- gration of smallholder wetland
Lindsey, P. A., P. A. Roulet, and S. S. Romanache. 2007. Economic and conservation Significance
of trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conservation 134:455-469.
Lindsey P. A. R. Alexander, L. G. Frank, A. Mathieson, S. S. Romanache 2006. Potential of
trophy hunting to create incentives for wildlife conservation in Africa where alternative wildlife-
based land uses may not be viable Animal Conservation. Print ISSN 1367-9430.
Lovelock, B. eds. 2008. Tourism and the consumption of wildlife hunting, shooting and sport
fishing. Rout ledge. New York.
Morrison, M., Marcot, B. and Mannan, W. (2006). Wildlife-Habitat Relationships: Concepts and
Applications. Washington DC: Island Press, 520p.
MWE 2017. Ministry of Water and Environment: Water and environment Sector performance
report 2017. Government of Uganda.
MEMA 2012.Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources (MEMR), Kenya. Kenya Wetlands
Atlas.
National Environment (Wetlands; River Banks and Lake Shores Management) Regulations,
2000.
Nature Uganda 2009 The East Africa Natural History Society Plot 83 Tufnell Drive, Kamwokya
- Kampala. O. Box 27034, Kampala - Uganda
NEMA 2007. The State of Environment Report for Uganda, 2006/2007.
61
Magliocca, F.; Quérouil, S.; Gautier-Hion, A. (February 2002). "Grouping patterns, reproduction,
and dispersal in a population of Sitatunga". Canadian Journal of Zoology. 80(2): 245–50.
NEMA 2009. National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) Uganda; Fourth National
Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ministry of Water and Environment GoU.
Ndawula, J. M. Tweheyo, D. M. Tumusiie and G. Eilu 2011. Undertstanding siatunga (tragelaphs
spekii) habutas through diet analysis in Rushebeya-Kanyababa wetland Uganda. Africa journal of
ecology 49;481-489.
Nelson1 M. P Jeremy T. Bruskotter, John A. Vucetich, & Guillaume Chapron, 2016. Emotions
and the Ethics of Consequence in Conservation : Decisions: Lessons from Cecil the Lion.
Conservation Let 9:302-306.
NEMA(2016), National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan II (2015-2025.
Norton-Griffiths, M 1978. Counting Animals 2nd Edition. African Wildlife Leadership
Foundation, Nairobi.
Noss a. J. Gardeenr .B Maffel L. et al., 2012. Comparison of density estimattion methods for
mammal populations with camera traps in the Kaa-lya Gran chaco landscape. Anim Conserva.
15:527-535.
Nsabagasani, C., Nsengimana, S. and Hakizimana, E. 2008. Biodiversity survey in Akanyaru
Wetlands, unprotected important bird areas in Rwanda. Report. Accessed 2nd November 2018.
Ochieng Amos 2011. Linking Tourism, Conservation and Livelihoods: An analysis of Sport
Hunting around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda Msc Thesis Wageningen University and
Research Centre (WUR).
Owen, R. E.A. 1970. Some observations on the Sitatunga in Kenya. E. Afr. Wildl. J.8:181-95.
Owen 1983, Observations on the sitatunga Tragelaphus spekei selousi in the Okavango Delta of
Botswana. Biological conservation December 1983.
62
Palazy L. 1, C. Bonenfant J. M. Gaillard1& F. Courchamp2 2011. Rarity, trophy hunting and
ungulates Animal Conservation. Animal Conservation. The Zoological Society of London
Peters F edit 2015. Hunting the Spiral Horns – Sitatunga, the Sly, Shy, Secretive One. Rebelo LM,
McCartney MP, Finlayson CM (2010) Wetlands of sub-Saharan Africa: distribution and
contribution of agriculture to livelihoods. Wetl .Ecol Manage 18:557–572.
Ross, K., Thouless, C., Gibson, D.St C., Masogo, R. & Dooley, B. (1998). Botswana. In: Antelope
Survey Update. Number 7: January 1998 (complied by R. East). IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist
Group, Gland.
Rossi, A. (1999). Uganda Wildlife Trafficking Assessment. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge,
United Kingdom.
Saundry, P. 2013.Majorrievrs, lakes, mounains and other terrestrial features of Uganda. Retrived
from http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/154364.2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayanja_River
Sinibaldi, I., K. Schmidt, P. Scholte, I. van Duren, F. Corsi, J. Brouwer and H.H.T. Prins 2004.
Dependence of large mammals in sub-Saharan Africa on water and water management. Report to
WWF- the Netherlands. ITC, Enschede, the Netherlands, and Resource Ecology Group,
Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Thome W.H. 2010 Uganda wildlife confirms sitatunga hunting. E-Turbo news.
https://www.eturbonews.com/31000/uganda-wildlife-authority-confirms-sitatunga-hunting.
Timberlake, J.R. & Childes, S.L. 2004. Biodiversity of the Four Corners Area: Technical Reviews
Volume Two (Chapters 5-15). Occasional Publications in Biodiversity No 15, Biodiversity
Foundation for Africa, Bulawayo/Zambezi Society, Harare, Zimbabwe.
UNECA (2013) Making the most of Africa’s commodities: industrializing for growth, jobs
and economic transformation. Economic Report on Africa, United Nations Economic
Commission for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. http://
www.uneca.org/publications/economic-report-africa-2013\
63
U.S. EPA 2002. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: study design for monitoring wetlands.
Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 2002.
Van Dam, A.A. J. Kipkemboi, D. Mazvimavi and K. Irvine. 2014. A synthesis of past, current and
future research for protection and management of papyrus (Cyperus papyrus L.) wetlands in
Africa. Wetlands, Ecology and Management, 22: 99 – 114.
Varman, K. and Sukumar, R. (1995). The line transect method for estimating densities of large
mammals in a tropical deciduous forest: An evaluation of models and field experiments. Journal
of Biosciences, 20(2), 273-287.
Wunderle Jr, J. (1997). The role of animal seed dispersal in accelerating native forest
regeneration on degraded tropical lands. Forest Ecology and Management, 1-2, 223-235.
WCS, UWA, Makerere University, NEMA, Tallow Uganda Oil Pty 2016. Nationally
threatened Species for Uganda National Red List for Uganda for the
following Taxa: Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Butterflies, Dragon
flies and Vascular Plants.
WWF 1999. Managing Safari hunting. Wildlife Management Series
Zahir ILM and Nijamir K 2018. Application of Geospatial Technology for Wetlands’ Mapping
and Change-Detection: A Case Study in Selected Areas of South Easte Coast in Ampara District,
Sri Lanka. Sustainable Geoscience and Geotourism Journal Vol. 1, pp 25-32.
64
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Survey data sheet
Survey data sheet
Observers…………………………………………………………………………..
Date………………………………………
Transect / recee no…………………………………………………………….Transect length
…………………………
Time Animal
species
Age Perp
.distance
Group
size
GPS W GPS N EPE Habitat
Age: V- Very old; D; dry; F; Fresh
Habitat: FP: Flood plains: RF: Riverine/Gallery forest; SW: Swamp vegetation
The following information was recorded for each survey site:
* Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) system coordinates and/or latitude and longitude (found
in plant report) . * Place name * Habitat type
* Time of survey and number of hours spent surveying
* Number of sample points * Occurrence and frequency by sample point for each species observed
65
Appendix 2: survey questionnaire:
Survey of ecological and behavioural knowledge on Sitatunga The interviewer started with the
following remark: We would like to get some local knowledge on Sitatunga, which is said to occur
in this area. We therefore kindly request you to spare time to answer these questions. The
information you provide is confidential and your contribution on this will be acknowledged.
1. Name of the respondent……………………………………...Age…… Sex………… Position in
the household (father, mother, daughter, son etc)………………………………
2. Village………………………………………..Parish…………………………………………
Sub-county………………………………………..
3. Tribe……………………………………………..
4. How long have you been resident in this parish? .................................................
5. What is the size of your family? ............................................................................
6. What work does your family do for a living? ....................................................................
7. Do you have goats and cows (if so how many? ..............................................................
8. Do you know an animal called sitatunga (Njobe/Njebe?) Have you ever seen it?
…………………………………………………………………………
9. What does it look like? (for male and female) and how does it differ from other animals?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
10. Where does it live, and in which places have you seen them of recent?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
11. At what time do you see it often? ……………………………………………………………
12. How many do you usually see at a time? …………………………………………………
13. What do they do at different hours of the day? ............................................................
66
14. In which months of the year do they produce their young, and how many young born at a time?
…………………………………………………………………………………….
15. Which other animals occur in the same places where sitatunga lives?
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
16. Which animals eat sitatunga? ………………………………………………………..
17. What is the importance of sitatunga in this area and to the local tradition?
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
18. How often do you encounter sitatunga these days compared to 10 years ago? (more frequently/
less /frequently or none) ……………………….
19. According to your observation is the population of Sitatunga increasing, stable or decreasing?
And …………………………………………….
Why?
………………………………………………………………………………………………...
20. Dou you have questions or other contributions?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Thanks very much for your contribution and participation
67
Appendix 3: Stakeholder roles in conservation of sitatunga
Table. Stakeholder roles in conservation of sitatunga.
s/n Recommendations/ proposed intervention
Responsible leading agency
Comments/ stakeholders
1 Focused on conservation of wetlands
Ministry of water and environment.
Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urban Development
NEMA
2 Sensitization and awareness campaign programmes to improve networking and collaboration between stakeholders and attract their interest in the protection of the wealth of biodiversity in the wetland ecosystem
• Ministry of water and environment.
NEMA. Nature Uganda
3 Investing in alternative livelihoods opportunities based on sustainable use of wildlife resources in wetlands
• Ministry of water and environment.
Nature Uganda, NEMA
4 Continuous monitoring of sitatunga population and other wildlife species in the wetlands for remedial conservation action is proposed
Uganda Wildlife authority
5 Demarcate wetland boundaries to reduce encroachments.
• Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urban Development.
6 Strengthen institutions responsible for wetland management at local government levels
Ministry of water and environment.
NEMA
7 Collaborative management of wildlife on private/public land for management of wetland habitats.
UWA District Local governments
8 Develop Conservation Actions and species management plan for Sitatunga
UWA, NEMA, Nature Uganda, District Local governments
9 Development of enabling policy framework for wetland management, including design and implement Ramsar
Ministry of Water and Environment.
Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities
UWA,
68
sites and Framework wetland management plan.
10 Design and implement District wetland action plans and Promote wetlands law
enforcement and governance.
District Local governments
With support from NEMA
11 Restore, regenerate, restock and gazette degraded wetlands in urban areas so as to conserve biodiversity and promote increased ecosystem serves provision.
District Local governments With support from
NEMA
12 (a) Create an Island protected area in Lake Victoria Islands with Island Sitatunga (T.s.sylvestris) as a Flagship Species for promoting Tourism.
(b) Create other protected areas within the country which target wetlands with viable sitatunga populations
•Ministry of Tourism,
Wildlife and Antiquities.
•Ministry of Water and
Environment.
UWA
13 To institute byelaws on sustainable use of wetland and to ban burning of the swamps /wetlands which are the habitats for sitatunga
District Local governments NEMA
69
Appendix 4: Non-detrimental finding for Sitatunga Tragelaphus spekii (Speke, 1863)
Submitted to
Research and Monitoring Unit
Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)
Plot 7 Kira Road Kamwokya, P.O. Box 3530 Kampala Uganda
Email/Web - [email protected]/ www.ugandawildlife.org
Prepared By
Dr. Edward Andama (PhD) Lead consultant
Busitema University,
P. O. Box 236, Tororo Uganda
Telephone: 0772464279 or 0704281806
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected], [email protected]
January 2019
70
Non-detrimental finding for Sitatunga Tragelaphus spekii (Speke, 1863)
Summary of the NDF findings
Tragelaphus spekii (Speke1863) (Sitatunga) is currently included on IUCN Conservation Status
of least concern category (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group, 2016). This document
summarizes the details of a non-detrimental finding (NDF) assessment for Tragelaphus spekii and
is based on the best available information as current as of October 2018. The report is further
strengthened by an expert consultation and the report of a scientific research commissioned by
UWA to determine the population, distribution and conservation status of Sitatunga (Tragelaphus
spekii) (Sclater) in selected wetlands in Uganda and data published in the refereed scientific
literature.
Sitatunga are long-lived with high reproductive rates of 80-100% in adult ewes and up to 45% of
ewes can reproduce twice a year (Furstenburg, 2018). Reproduction in Sitatunga is generally
continuous and not synchronized. The young Sitatunga have a survival rate of up to 80% before
weaning. Adult life expectancy in females averages 16 years while males reach approximately
10 years of age. Sitatunga are restricted to wetlands with permanent water source. Sitatunga are
semi-aquatic and their key habitats are marshes, swamps and floodplains bordering lakes and rivers
with permanent water source and an evergreen vegetation cover. This habitat is mostly restricted
to tropical and subtropical regions between 13°N around Lake Chad and 20°S, and from the
western coastline of Africa, eastwards to 35°E (May and Lindholm, 2013). In Uganda the species
is restricted to swamps with dense stands of papyrus Cyperus papyrus, reed beds of Phragmites
mauritianus and Echinochloa sp and beds of bulrush Typha sp bordered by an ecotone of terrestrial
thicket or woodland which are common along permanent rivers and lakes throughout the country.
Habitats with shrubby growth, herbs, sedges, tall grasses that border waterways are favoured due
to availability of lush herbage. Sitatunga enter forest clearings, gallery forests and forest islands
in savannahs if permanent and open water is present. Sitatunga also use wetland edges as well as
natural openings in the forest during the dark hours around sunrise and sunset (Flack, 2015,
Gessner et al. 2014) which expands its habitat ranges (Andama, 2019). They are selective mixed
feeders taking a range of grasses, sedges and browse (May and Lindholm, 2013). Information
presented in Delany and Happold (1979) and Kingdon (1982) indicate that Sitatunga prefers
to browse in low-growing thicket in and around marshy areas, as well as entering deeper water
to consume vegetation. Owen (1970) details foraging patterns with Sitatunga consuming a
wide variety of wetland plants, and again, Kingdon’s (1982) review of Sitatunga grazing
behaviour in wetland areas indicates that the animal regularly leaves resting areas of dense
cover to forage on new-growth grass. In areas surrounded with farm lands Sitatunga was
reported to graze on crops e.g. Zea mays L. (Ndawula, et al., 2011). Sitatunga inhabits
hydromorphic forests, swamps, and marshes; they enter forest clearings, gallery forests, and forest
islands in savannahs when permanent pools of water are present (Owen, 1970; Manning, 1983;
Starin, 2000). Sitatunga mainly feeds at the wetland edge habitat where most of its food was
located.
. Like most traglephini genus, Sitatunga are relatively poor dispersers and the degree of
connectivity between populations, within and outside of Uganda is unknown. Sitatunga is sensitive
71
to human disturbance and have been eradicated from some historic sites of its occurrence in Africa
such as Niger and Togo. It has recently been confirmed as still surviving in Ghana (May &
Lindholm, 2013). This is because Sitatunga is among antelope species which is dependent on
floodplain and wetland habitats for its survival. Thus any attempts to drain water and change the
natural habitat significantly reduces or eliminates the species in such areas. Sinibald et al. (2004)
suggested that natural vegetation such as papyrus was important for the survival of sitatunga and
the dependence of the species on papyrus as habitat could have been responsible for its extirpation
in some areas in Rwanda as was resported by Ndimukaga (2009) and and Kanyamibwa et
al.(2013). In this case the wetland habitat was affacted by drainage for hydropower, agriculture
and over exploitation of non timber wetland forest products which resulted in permanent loss of
the sitatunga habitat. Similarly, Nsabagasani et al. (2008) reported in Akanyaru wetlands of
Rwanda that human activities that destroyed wetland habitat led to the disappearance of
Sitatunga, resulting in their local extinctions.
The greatest enemies of Sitatunga are Nile crocodiles (Crocodylus niloticus), leopard (Panthera
pardus), python, hyena, lion, feral dogs and human as source of wild meat for man (Cott, 1961;
Henschel et al., 2005; Furstenburg, 2009 ).
Uganda’s 1995 Constitution provides for wildlife conservation as well as biodiversity and the
natural environment; thus creating an enabling environment for policy formulation, planning and
programme development. Under Objective XIII, the Constitution obliges the state to protect
important natural resources, and also provides for creation and development of Parks, Reserves,
and recreation areas (. Out of a total surface area of Uganda (241,551sqkm (both land and water),
25,981.57sqkm (10%) is gazetted as wildlife conservation areas, 24% is gazetted as forest reserves
and 13% is wetlands (. Uganda has 10 National Parks, 12 Wildlife Reserves, 10 wildlife
sanctuaries, 5 community wildlife areas 506 central forest reserves and 191 local forest reserves.
It is however estimated that over 50% of Uganda’s wildlife resources still remain outside
designated protected areas, mostly on privately owned land; and is of most urgent concern for
protection and development.
Uganda’s wetlands cover about, 29,000 sq. km, about 13% of the total area of the country which
is ideally suitable Sitatunga habitat. However, much of the total area is currently highly fragmented
due to agricultural expansions and developments, human settlement and human encroachment
among other human induced developments. Today Sitatunga are mainly found in the remote
wetlands far from urban setting and human developments. The main challenge to Sitatunga
conservation is the fact that most wetlands in Uganda occur outside of protected areas. The habitat
related threats to wetland biodiversity in general within Uganda include, unsustainable resource
harvesting (Pypyrus and other grasess) habitat loss through agricultural conversion, industrial
development and burning (NEMA (2009). There is also inadequate enforcement of legislation,
regulations and compliance in wetlands use as stipulated in the wetland act. As lready noted the
negative impacts associated with wetland drainage include reduced and/or loss of biodiversity such
as the population reduction of grey Crowned Cranes (Uganda’s symbol) and Sitatunga (Pomeroy
et al., 2017). The fragile wetlands are under threat from drainage, overgrazing, sand harvestng,
overharvestng of plants and many other human actvites. Other threats include invasive species
such as Elephant grass, Mauritus thorn and Lantana camara, three plant species that grow
rapidly in wetlands and suppress wetland plants (Wanjala, 2014). .
72
Conservation approach historically promoted preservation rather than utilization and community
Participation (MTWA, 2014). It was not until 1994 that the Wildlife Policy for Uganda gave
recognition to community participation in wildlife management. The paradigm shift to
involvement of local people in conservation has created opportunities for communities to directly
engage and benefit from wildlife conservation. According to estimates by the Uganda Wildlife
Authority (UWA 2005) over 50 % of wildlife lives and/or feeds outside protected areas. This
exposes them to the risk of illegal hunting, and intensifies human-wildlife conflicts. In order to
address these issues, the government extended conservation efforts outside protected areas (PAs),
which led to the enactment of the Wildlife User Rights (WURs) by UWA in 2000 (Ayorekire et
al., 2011). One of the key elements of these WURs is the reintroduction of sport hunting or trophy
hunting. In 2001 sport hunting was reintroduced in Uganda around Lake Mburo National Park,
and in 2008 at Kabwoya and Kaiso-Tonya Game Management Area, to derive economic benefits
for communities and thus reduce human–wildlife conflict and change communities’ attitudes
towards wildlife (Ochieng et al., 2017). Nationally, monitoring of trophy hunting of Sitatunga is
limited to records of the numbers of removed/allocated per quota of Sitatunga each year in different
concession sites. While other forms of harvest are illegal and therefore unregulated. There is no
monitoring and thus reliable estimates of the extent of illegal off-take of Sitatunga in Uganda. As
such it is not possible to speculate if levels of illegal off-take exceed the levels of legal off-take
through trophy hunting. There are is effective incentives for habitat conservation arising from the
harvest of Sitatunga since there is a report indicating that trophy hunting can foster community
tolerance towards the species and its habitat. At the moment a relatively smaller proportion of the
species are included in areas allocated for concession. There are many habitats in Uganda which
are found outside concession areas and protected areas where wild mammals occur. The Sitatunga
populations in unprotected areas and area with no concession probably continue to be reduced by
illegal hunting since there are no incentive for the community in such sites to conserve the habitat
and the species. The imposition of a CITES quota also limits the numbers of Sitatunga trophy
hunted each year. Additionally there are restrictions on the sex, age/size of Sitatunga that can be
hunted. Only adult males are allowed to be removed. Research has shown that polygynous
traglephini such as Sitatunga are resilient to disturbance if the prime reproductive female life-stage
remains intact. There is need to conduct population viability analysis for Ugandan Sitatunga
population to assess the level of risk of females being were included on trophy quota.
Any action plans to conserve wetland habitats equally benefits Sitatunga conservation. The Ramsar
Convention of 1971 was the first international treaty that promotes conservation and wise use of
wetlands on a global scale (Farrier et al., 2000). Uganda is a signatory to Ramsar convention and
joined the Convention in 1988 and now has 11 Ramsar sites covering a surface area of 354,803
hectares. The National Policy for the Conservation and Management of Wetland Resources
(MWE, 1995). The policy aims at curtailing the rampant loss of wetland resources and ensuring
that benefits from wetlands are sustainable and equitably distributed to all people of Uganda. In
this respect, therefore, the wetlands policy calls for: (i) no drainage of wetlands unless more
important environmental management , (ii) requirements supersede, (iii) sustainable use to ensure
that benefits of wetlands are maintained for the foreseeable future; (iv) environmentally sound
management of wetlands to ensure that other aspects of the environment are not adversely affected;
(v) equitable distribution of wetland benefits; and (vi) the application of environmental impact
assessment procedures on all activities to be carried out in a wetland to ensure that wetland
development is well planned and managed. In order to put the policy goals and objectives into
73
practice and to provide a legal framework for implementing the policy, wetland related issues have
been adequately incorporated into the National Environmental Statute 1995. One of the important
Regulation is the National Environment (Wetlands; River Banks and Lake Shores Management)
Regulations, 2000 which provide for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources
in Uganda and this was strengthened in the National Environment Bill 2017 (GoU, 2017). Based
on the Ramsar convention several of the wetland sites for example Lake Nabugabo wetlands
system Ramsar site Management Plan (2017- 2027). Uganda has also developed an Action Plan
for cranes, which proposes that more effort be made to reduce or even prevent illegal draining or
conversion of the seasonal swamps. These and other measures are very elaborate to promote
sustainable use of wetland habitats and resource which are directly linked to conservations of
sitatunga. Despite the elaborate framework, wetlands have declined from an estimated 13% of the
total land area in 1994 to 10.9% in 2008 (Nsubuga et al., 2014). Out of a population of 34.6 million,
80% of Ugandans are involved in agriculture and 69% rely on subsistence farming and are heavily
dependent on wetlands (UBoS, 2016). This means the trend in wetland degradation will continue
if no drastic measure are taken to halt the decline. As a result of the increased use of wetland
areas, there has been an increase in the frequency of vegetation clearance, draining and
diversion of water flow, crop cultivation, overgrazing, sand mining and exposing the soil surface
to erosion (MWE, 2013). All these directly or indirectly affect the survival of sitatunga and its
conservation status.
Radar chart summarizing the non-detrimental finding assessment for Tragelaphus spekii
(Sitatunga) (figure1) in accordance with the CITE NDF checklist. The non-detriment finding
assessment (Figure 1) demonstrates that hunting trophies at present does not poses risk to the
survival of this species in Uganda (Figure 2). This is mostly due to the indication that the local
communities and land owners and the local district are building positive attitudes towards benefit
that accrues form the trophy harvest practices which have recently been introduced in the country.
However there is lack of reliable monitoring of Sitatunga populations especially outside the
concession areas. There is need to develop a monitoring frameworks for Sitatunga population
monitoring outside the community concessions areas and the protected areas. This will facilitate
adaptive management of the harvest of the species, as well as provide insight on the effects of the
illegal off-take of Sitatunga.
The main human threats that negatively impacts on conservation of sitatunga included habitat
loss due to human activities, ranging from increased need for wetland for farming due to climate
change impacts, expansion of agricultural land in wetlands to produce food to feed the increasing
human populations. Areas with intensive human activity held low abundance of sitatunga
population. For these reasons, it is recommended to implement conservation actions and activities
focusing on the following actions:
(x) Take landscape based approach to conservation actions and activities, recognizing the
three major habitat functions (a) the wetland landscape which provides habitat to wider
ecosystem services to the community, (b) being habitats for sitatunga and other wildlife
species, and (c) humans use of wetland habitat for extractive and consumptive
resources to advance wetland management objectives.
74
(xi) Develop sensitization and awareness campaign programmes that might improve
networking and collaboration between stakeholders and possibly attract their
interest in the protection of the wealth of biodiversity in the wetland ecosystem. In
this regard, sensitization and awareness campaigns addressing the wetland
management policies, risks and benefits that may accrue from successful participation
and conservation are recommended.
(xii) Develop integrated approach to conservation of wetland ecosystem through; Investing
in alternative livelihoods opportunities based on sustainable use of wildlife resources
and its habits such as bee keeping, monitored resources extraction. This would be
alongside sport hunting or ranching of wildlife for meat to provide financial incentives
for the local community to maintain wildlife in these corridor areas. The adjacent
communities in these wetland systems need to be sensitized on how to sustainably use
resources in their area while conserving them.
(xiii) Continuous monitoring of sitatunga population and other wildlife species in the
wetland for remedial conservation action is proposed. In this regard, both scientific
and integrated (including stakeholders) long-term ecological monitoring programs
are suggested. This can be done through establishing a wildlife population and habitat
monitoring system with incorporation of community conservation initiative
programmes in wetland. Scientific monitoring of sitatunga and large mammal
population on the transects within wetlands that were surveyed during this study in the
study sites.
(xiv) Due to the increasing human pressure on wetland, there is need to demarcate wetland
boundaries to reduce encroachments. It is also important to ensuring connectivity
between different wetland systems through creating corridors to links two or more
larger wetlands habitats is vital to facilitate dispersal or allow undisturbed movement
of sitatunga within different populations/sites to avoid potential challenges of
inbreeding and promote healthy and viable populations.
(xv) Strengthen institutions responsible for wetland management at local government levels.
There is need to sensitize, train and strengthen local government at district and lower
levels (environment committee) to management the wetlands sustainably.
(xvi) Initiate collaborative management of wildlife on private/public land for management
of wetland habitats. This is consistent with the Uganda Wildlife Act (2000) and the
Local Government Act (1997) and other laws and guidelines that may supplement
implementation of such imitative.
(xvii) Develop Conservation Actions and species management plan for Sitatunga. This will
help in regulating and management of harvest and Trade in the species by the local
community and general public.
(xviii) Development of enabling policy framework for wetland management, including:
k. Design and implement Ramsar sites and Framework wetland management plans.
l. Design and implementation of Ramsar site wetland research, eco-tourism and
education centers.
75
m. Design and implement District wetland action plans, with biodiversity and carbon
sink potential.
n. Promote wetlands law enforcement and governance.
o. Restore, regenerate, restock and gazette degraded wetlands in urban areas so as to
conserve biodiversity and promote increased ecosystem serves provision.
(xvi) Create an Island National Park in Lake Victoria Islands with Island Sitatunga
(T.s.sylvestris) as a Flagship Species for promoting Tourism in the Ssese Island. It has been
identified as potential endemic in Africa due to restricted occurrence in Ssese Island.
(xvii) To institute byelaws on sustainable use of wetland and to ban burning of the swamps
/wetlands which are the habitats for sitatunga.
Figure1. Radar chart summarizing the non-detrimental finding assessment for Tragelaphus spekii
(Sitatunga) in accordance with the CITE NDF checklist. Lower scores are indicative of lower risk
while higher scores are indicative of higher risks. The smaller shaded area coverage in the radar
chart demonstrates an overall lower risk to the species.
0
1
2
3
4
5Biological -Life history
Biological -Ecologicl adaptability
Biological -Dispersal
Biological -Human tolerance
Status -National Distribtuion
Status -National Abundance
Status -National population trend
Status -National Information Quality
Status -National Major threat
Harvest Management -Illegal off-take
Harvest Management -History
Harvest Management -Managementplan
Harvest Management -Aim of harvest
Harvest Management -QuotasControl of Harvest-in Protected Areas
Control of Harvest-in Protected Areas
Control of Harvest-in strong tenure
Control - Open access harvest
Control -Confidence in harvestmanagement
Monitoring - methods used tomonitor
Monitoring - confidence inmonitoring
Incentive - Effect of harvest
Incentive - species conservationinitaitives
Incentive - habitat conservationinitiatives
Protection -proportion restrited fromharvest
Protection -Effectiveness ofprotection
Protection -Regulation of harvesteffort
Tragelaphus spekii (sitatunga)
Non Detrimental Findings (NDF)
76
Figure 2. Figure indicates the potential risk to the species with improved monitoring of the species
and harvest, and the development of national action plan for the management and monitoring of
Sitatunga trophy hunting in Uganda. Under this scenario the species is at low risk and trophy
hunting is not detrimental.
Table 1: Detailed Non-detriment finding (NDF) assessment for Tragelaphus spekii (Sitatunga)
conducted in accordance with the CITES NDF checklist. Scores assigned to each question are
indicated (bold text in shaded blocks) along with detailed explanations/justifications. Higher
scores are indicative of higher risks.
Biological characteristics
1. Life history: what is the species
life history? High reproductive rate, long-lived 1
High reproductive rate, short-lived 2
Low reproductive rate, long-lived 3
Low reproductive rate, short-lived 4
Uncertain 5
Sitatunga of both sexes reach sexual maturity at 18 -24 months (Furstenburg 2018). They start
breeding at 2-2.5 years for ewes and 3-3.5 years for bulls. First Lamb is born at the age of 2.5
years and after gestation period of 165 days. Breeding is throughout the year. Lambing interval
of 5.5 -9 months and any time of the year. The young reach independence at 4 -6 months. Life
expectancy/ Longevity of wild Sitatunga varies from 11–12 years (Quérouil et al, 2002). The
77
Sitatunga has a high reproductive rate of 80-100% in adult ewes and up to 45% can reproduce
twice a year. The young Sitatunga have a survival rate of up to 80% before weaning.
Estimated annual population growth rate of 55% (Furstenburg 2018).
2. Ecological adaptability: To
what extent is the species
adaptable (habitat, diet,
environmental tolerance etc.)?
Extreme generalist 1
Generalist 2
Specialist 3
Extreme specialist 4
Uncertain 5
Sitatunga are semi-aquatic and spend their entire lives in the close vicinity of open water
habitats, especially of marshes, swamps and floodplains bordering lakes and rivers with
permanent water. Sitatunga usually avoid open water devoid of vegetation. They are selective
mixed feeders taking a range of grasses, sedges and browse (May and Lindholm 2013). The
most essential requirement is permanent, open water and an evergreen vegetation cover for
feeding and camouflage. The species is thus Water dependent. This habitat is mostly restricted
to tropical and subtropical regions between 13°N around Lake Chad and 20°S, and from the
western coastline of Africa, eastwards to 35°E. The optimal habitat is swamp with a water depth
of up to 1 m with dense stands of papyrus Cyperus papyrus, reed beds of Phragmites
mauritianus and Echinochloa sp and beds of bulrush Typha sp bordered by an ecotone of
terrestrial thicket or woodland.
3. Dispersal efficiency: How
efficient is the species dispersal
mechanism at key life stages?
Very good 1
Good 2
Medium 3
Poor 4
Uncertain 5
Sitatunga is rather moderate disperser and within the optimum habitat. Immigrations and
emigrations do occur over time (Magliocca, et al, 2002). In the long term, avoidance of
inbreeding could be the ultimate factor that would induce young females to emigrate (e.g.,
Harcourt 1978; Rutberg and Keiper1993; Monard and Duncan 1996). The main challenge to
dispersal of Sitatunga is the ever-increasing loss of wetlands throughout their range which cuts
off their former routes of dispersal and as such many populations are becoming isolated. Genetic
data are required to further assess connectivity between different Sitatunga populations in
Uganda.
4. Interaction with humans: the
species tolerant to human activity
other than harvest?
No interaction 1
Pest / Commensal 2
Tolerant 3
Sensitive 4
Uncertain 5 5
Loss of habitat is the main threat to the future persistence of Sitatunga. Cultivation in wetland
in time of dry season (during food stress) is on increase especially in eastern and central
Uganda and is the biggest threat to the Sitatunga system. Most of farmers who cultivate at the
wetland burn their lands. They also engage in draining excess water by digging trenches
thus destroying the habitat and leading to loss of biodiversity. The use of fertilizer and
chemicals cause water pollution and endanger the species within the wetland and especially
78
the Sitatunga Animal. Another increasing threat is planting of Eucalyptus trees in the
wetland which lowers the water table. The growing urban market opportunities do also
encourage wetland drainage for vegetation growing. Wetlands are upheld highly in the
community as an important pasture during dry season and this communal grazing for
animals. Encroachment of the wetland by brick makers threaten wetland area, plants and
wildlife which are of social-economic importance to the riparian communities.
National status
5. National distribution: How is
the species distributed nationally?
Widespread, contiguous in country 1
Widespread, fragmented in country 2
Restricted ad fragmented 3
Localized 4
Uncertain 5
The potential habitat for Sitatunga, the wetland covered by wetlands is estimated to cover about
10.9% of Uganda’s total area (MWE, 2017), resulting about 30,000 km2 of the land surface
area. However, only a small area which are not yet degraded still provide suitable habitat for the
species. Acording to NEMA (2009) most wetlands in Uganda occur outside of protected areas.
The Protected Areas in Uganda where Sitatunga has been recorded include Murchison Falls
National Park (MFNP) (Andama and Ocen, 2002), Kibale NP, Lake Mburo NP and Katonga
Wildlife Reserve (WR) (Wilson, 1995), Semliki National Park, Ajai wildlife reserve and Pian-
Upe Wildlife Reserve and Ssese islands wildlife reserve (Ochieng et al., 2015).
The key threats to wetland biodiversity in Uganda include, unsustainable resource harvesting,
Habitat loss through agricultural conversion, industrial development and burning which reduces
national distribution pattern.
6. National abundance: What is
the abundance nationally?
Very abundant 1
Common 2
Uncommon 3
Rare 4
Uncertain 5
Precise estimates of the Uganda Sitatunga population has been done recently, In suitable habitats
Sitatunga densities of 55-200 animals per 100 ha optimal habitat have been reported, although
their long-term sustainability has not been established. A conservative population estimate of
4025 is estimated in the key concession areas. However, none of these estimates are not based
on rigorous population counts and do provide picture of a national population status.
7. National population trend:
What is the recent national
population trend?
Increasing 1
Stable 2
Reduced, but stable 3
Reduced and still decreasing 4
Uncertain 5
Published longitudinal data exist only for 6 sites under concession in various parts of Uganda.
These population seem stable although some sites may need conservation interventions in order
to
Increased and then stabilized the populations at capacity set by prey availability habitat
requirements.
79
Populations in large protected areas such as Murchison falls N.P, Katonga W.R, Ajai W.R
among others are probably stable. Sitatunga range has likely decreased in Kalangala following
instruction of commercial palm oil plantations. Observations suggest that there is currently more
encroachment of the Sitatunga habitat in most sites including Ssese Island. In Kyankwanzi,
Nakaseke and Kafu the livestock farmers seem to be more tolerant of Sitatunga. The rates of
illegal off-take due to poaching may not be high as the habitat is difficult to access and the
elusive behaviour of the species. Trophy outa hunting which is set is still at a sustainable level.
8. Quality of information: What
type of information is available to
describe abundance and trend in the
national population?
Quantitative data, recent 1
Good local knowledge 2
Quantitative data, outdated 3
Anecdotal information 4
None 5
Reliable information on Sitatunga population sizes and trends at a national scale is based on
estimates. Recent rigorous population estimates was undertaken by Camille and Boyce (2017).
Detailed estimates of abundance are available for only a very small fraction of the population in
the four of the concession sites, A monitoring frameworks that is being developed still underway
to provide quantitative data to track Sitatunga population trends at a concessional level.
9. Major threats: What major
threat is the species facing
(underline following: overuse/
Habitat loss and alteration/ invasive
species/ other :) and how severe is
it?
None 1
Limited/Reversible 2
Substantial 3
Severe/Irreversible 4
Uncertain 5
Loss of habitat is the main threat to the future persistence of Sitatunga. Cultivation in wetland
in time of dry season (during food stress) is on increase especially in eastern and central
Uganda and is the biggest threat to the Sitatunga system. Most of farmers who cultivate at the
wetland burn their lands. Other key documented threats to Sitatunga populations in Uganda
include illegal hunting for meat .Habitat loss and fragmentation is also an increasing problem in
some parts of Uganda, due to the development of urban areas, and agriculture. In the central and
eastern Uganda, the loss of wilderness areas is resulting in reduced habitat for Sitatunga.
However, at this stage, the relative severity of threats is unknown, due mainly to lack of reliable
data on the extent of illegal off-take of Sitatunga in Uganda.
They also engage in draining excess water by digging trenches thus destroying the habitat
and leading to loss of biodiversity. Encroachment of the wetland by brick makers threaten
wetland area, plants and wildlife which are of social-economic importance to the riparian
communities. Fires are frequently and deliberately started by people throughout the wetlands
across Uganda on annual basis during dry season. I is aimed at (1) stimulate new growth for
livestock grazing (2) improve stands of reeds and thatching grass, (3) clear access routes through
the wetlands to fishing sites, and (4) clear agricultural land around the margins of the wetlands.
Therefore vast areas of wetlands are subjected to burning every year. The fire damage to their
habitat exposes them to predation by various animals and humans. Nonetheless, the Sitatunga
shows a remarkable ability to survive near human habitation, provided suitable habitat remains.
Harvest management
10. Illegal off-take or trade: How
significant is the national problem of
illegal or unmanaged off-take or
trade?
Non 1
Small 2
Medium 3
Large 4
Uncertain 5
80
Little is known about the extent of illegal off-take and trade of Sitatunga and their body parts
in Uganda, although anecdotal information suggests it is small (particularly the illegal harvest
for meat). Traditional hunting is officially burned in Uganda although animals illegally hunted
are not recorded. Recent observation (per, communication Dr. Adoonia 2018) indicates that for
hunting blocks which are outside PAs sport hunting has generally assisted to reduce massive
illegal killing of wildlife. E.g. areas like Kafu Basin/rangeland.
11. Management history: What is
the history of harvest? Managed harvest: ongoing with adaptive
framework
1
Managed harvest: ongoing but informal 2
Managed harvest: new 3
Unmanaged harvest: ongoing or new 4
Uncertain 5
Trophy hunting was introduced and Sitatunga is one of the favored animal species by the
concessionaires (UWA, 2018). The trophy hunting Quota is controlled by UWA on annual basis.
The quota was set largely based on available census estimates carried out in various sport
hunting areas. Traditional threshold of 2% of the species’ population was used in setting the
quota.
12. Management plan or
Equivalent: Is there a management
plan related to the harvest of the
species?
Approved and coordinated local and
national
management plans
1
Approved national/state/provincial
management
plan(s)
2
Approved local management plan 3
No approved plan: informal unplanned
management
4
Uncertain 5
There is no specific plan in relation to harvest of Sitatunga. However, there is a coordinated
national approach or holistic management plan for Sitatunga species through allocation for
various concession areas. This provides standardized guidelines for the management of the
species - particularly for managing trophy hunting and monitoring of the populations - is
required.
13. Aim of harvest regime in
management planning: What is
harvest aiming to achieve?
Generate conservation benefit 1
Population management/control 2
Maximize economic yield 3
Opportunistic, unselective harvest, or none 4
Uncertain 5
Trophy hunting is practiced to generate conservation benefits. As provided under Section 29 of
the Uganda Wildlife Act Cap. 200, UWA adopted wildlife use rights (Class A –E) as a tool of
sustainable management of wildlife outside protected areas. Sustainable extractive utilization of
wildlife can provide cultural, customary, and socio-economic benefits at the local, district and
national levels. Approx. US$750,000, US$ 390,000 and US$250,000 has been generated over
time by Community Wildlife Association, Land owners and local governments respectively
(UGX. 5 billion).
14. Quotas: Is the harvest based on
a system of quotas? Ongoing national quota: based on
biologically
derived local quotas
1
81
Ongoing quotas: “cautious” national or
local
2
Untried quota: recent and based on
biologically
derived local quotas
3
Market-driven quota(s), arbitrary quota(s),
or no
quotas
4
Uncertain 5
Recent research suggests hunting quotas in various concession areas is set precautionary and
based on population estimates which is within the 2 off take principal. In general the number
set for annual quotas are within the sustainable limit which is aimed at reducing illegal harvest
by land owners and community so that they received benefits from trophy and actively
participate in preventing illegal
Off-take.
Control of harvest
15. Harvesting in Protected
Areas: What percentage of the
legal national harvest occurs in
State-controlled Protected Areas?
High 1
Medium 2
Low 3
none 4
Uncertain 5
No trophy hunting or illegal off take of Sitatunga is allowed in state protected National parks.
Trophy hunting only allowed in three wildlife reserve areas of Katonga, Ajai and Karenga/Pian-
Upe. The rest of concession quota are located in the private, community hunting areas.
16. Harvesting in areas with
strong resource tenure or
ownership: What percentage of the
legal national harvest occurs outside
Protected Areas, in areas with strong
local control over resource use?
High 1
Medium 2
Low 3
none 4
Uncertain 5
Most trophy hunting of Sitatunga occurs on private land and community controlled areas.
17. Harvesting in areas with open
access: What percentage of the
legal national harvest occurs in areas
where there is no strong local
control, giving de facto or actual
open access?
None 1
Low 2
Medium 3
high 4
Uncertain 5
Most trophy hunting of Sitatunga occurs on communal lands and private farms in Uganda but
access is still generally controlled by communal authorities and Uganda wildlife authority.
18. Confidence in harvest
Management: Do budgetary and
other factors allow effective
implementation of management
plan(s) and harvest controls?
High confidence 1
Medium confidence 2
Low confidence 3
No confidence 4
Uncertain 5
UWA has the resources allocated to implement management of quotas for various concession
areas.
However, none of the districts is likely have the capacity to curb the illegal off take of Sitatunga
effectively.
Monitoring of harvest
82
19. Methods used to monitor the
harvest: What is the principal
method used to monitor the effects
of the harvest?
Direct population estimates 1
Quantitative indices 2
Qualitative indices 3
National monitoring of exports 4
No monitoring or uncertain 5
The Department of Community conservation at UWA records the numbers of CITES export
permits allocated to, and the numbers of Sitatunga hunting trophies on annual basis. Record
keeping is generally consistent among the concessionaires and UWA on harvest. There is
however no district based monitoring framework to track leopard population trends. A
community based monitoring framework should be developed at district level to monitor legal
and illegal off takes.
20. Confidence in harvest
monitoring: Do budgetary and
other factors allow effective harvest
monitoring?
High confidence 1
Medium confidence 2
Low confidence 3
No confidence 4
Uncertain 5
Confidence in monitoring the impacts of legal Sitatunga off-take (trophy hunting) at a national
level is generally undertaken by UWA. Monitoring of illegal off-take of Sitatunga is poor or
non-existent.
Incentives and benefits from harvesting
21. Utilization compared to other
threats: What is the effect of the
harvest when taken together with the
major threat that has been identified
for this species?
Beneficial 1
neutral 2
Harmful 3
Highly negative 4
Uncertain 5
Evidence suggests that legal off-take of Sitatunga through trophy hunting is likely to offsets
illegal off-take, but more research is required. In general questionnaire data suggest that
landowners were more tolerant of wildlife if they received benefit financially from sport hunting
of the species.
22. Incentives for species
conservation: At the national level,
how much conservation benefit to
this species accrues from
harvesting?
High 1
Medium 2
low 3
None 4
Uncertain 5
Accordingly UWA records between 2008-2016 the sport hunting programme generated over
UGX 3.5bn for UWA and UGX 1,646,093,726= for the District Local Governments, Land
owners, Community Wildlife Associations. For the case of Uganda Wildlife Safaris ltd. over the
8 year period a total of 1174,016.7 US$ was generated which was distributed to various
stakeholders concerned with wildlife conservation. This is one of the first benefit accruing which
had never been before sport hunting was introduced in Uganda. Trophy hunting has the potential
to increase tolerance towards wildlife in general and conservation of Sitatunga habitats in
Uganda. Clearly, research is required to understand the complex relationship between trophy
hunting and tolerance of landowners towards wild animals in general.
23. Incentives for habitat
conservation: At the national
level, how much habitat
High 1
Medium 2
low 3
None 4
83
conservation benefit is derived from
harvesting
Uncertain 5
Sitatunga, on their own, have the potential to influence land-use decisions by landowners. At
national level there is legal protection of the wetlands and this can be implemented at local level
by the districts and local council environment committees.
Protection from harvest
24. Proportion strictly protected:
What percentage of the species
natural range or population is legally
excluded from harvest?
>15% 1
5-15% 2
<15% 3
None 4
Uncertain 5
Most of the wetlands occur outside protect areas in Uganda. And protected areas under the
jurisdiction of UWA where Sitatunga occurs are limited to Murchison Falls National Park
(MFNP) (Andama and Ocen, 2002), Kibale NP, Lake Mburo NP and Katonga Wildlife Reserve
(WR) (Wilson, 1995), Semliki National Park, Ajai wildlife reserve and Pian- Upe Wildlife
Reserve and these constitute long term refuge for the Sitatunga.
25. Effectiveness of strict
protection measures: Do
budgetary and other factors give
confidence in the effectiveness of
measures taken to afford strict
protection?
High confidence 1
Medium confidence 2
low confidence 3
No confidence 4
Uncertain 5
There is a medium confidence in the effectiveness of strict protection measures implemented.
Even though Sitatunga within some protected areas might be exposed to strong edge effects, the
cores of larger protected areas such as the delta area of Murchison fall Parks, Katonga W.R
likely constitute inviolate refuges for Sitatunga. The imposition of a CITES quota on the number
of trophies that can be exported limits the number of Sitatunga legally hunted in Uganda each
year. No trophy hunting are allowed within any of the National park areas except illegal hunting
in vast swamps that fall within local government jurisdiction..
26. Regulation of harvest effort:
How effective are any restrictions
on harvesting (such as age or size,
season or equipment) for preventing
overuse)?
Very effective 1
Effective 2
Ineffective 3
None 4
Uncertain 5
The numbers of Sitatunga trophy hunted in Uganda each year is regulated by UWA and ministry.
There is further restrictions on the age, sex or size of Sitatunga removed, where only adult males
are allowed to be killed (UWA). Illegal off take is typically indiscriminate and not documented
in the country. Research has shown that polygynous bovids such as Sitatunga are resilient to
disturbance if the prime reproductive female life stage remains intact (Ref). Since one male can
mate with numerous females, fewer males are required to maintain the same levels of
reproduction and yet the trophy hunters favor the males due to the antlers which is the main
trophy of interest.
84
Reference
Andama E. 2018. Population, Distribution and Conservation Status of Sitatunga (Tragelaphus
Spekei) (Sclater) in Selected Wetlands in Uganda. Draft report to UWA.
Beudels, RC Devillers, P Harwood J 1997. Estimating the size of the population of sitatunga
(Tragelaphus spekii) in the "Parc National de lAkagera", Rwanda. Journal of African Ecology Vol.
111.
Cott, H.B. 1961. Scientific results of an inquiry into the ecology and economic status of the Nile
crocodile (Crocodilus nilotica) in Uganda and Northern Rhodesia. Transactions of the
Zoological Society of London, 29:211-356.
Furstenburg D. 2018. Focus on Sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekii) Geowild Consult ltd
Gessener J. R. Buchwald, and G. Wittemyer, 2014. Assessing species occurrence and species –
specific use patterns of bais (Forest clearings) in central Africa with camera traps. African Journal
of Ecology. 52:59-68.
Henschel, P. K. A. Abernethy, and L. J. T. White. 2005. Leopard food habits in the Lope National
park, Gabon, Central Africa. African Journal of ecology 43:21-28.
IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group. 2016. Tragelaphus spekii. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2016: e.T22050A115164901. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-
3.RLTS.T22050A50195827.
Lack, P. 2015. Hunting the spiral horns Sitatunga. The Sly, shy, secretive One. First Peter Flack
Productions, Liandudno
Magliocca, F Quérouil, S and Gautier-Hion. A 2002. Grouping patterns, reproduction, and
dispersal in a population of Sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekii gratus). Can. J. Zool. 80: 245–250.
Mwanikah, M., 2006. Sustainable Use of Papyrus Cyperus papyrus at Lake Victoria wetlands in
Kenya: A case study of Dunga and Kusa swamps. Kenya.
Ndawula, J Tweheyo M and, Tumusiime D M. and G Eilu. 2011. 1Understanding Sitatunga
(Tragelaphus spekii) habitats through diet analysis in Rushebeya-Kanyabaha wetland, Uganda
African Journal of Ecology.
Ndimukaga, M., 2009. Non timber wetland products and their sustainable use: case of Rugezi
wetland, Rwanda. Report.
Nsabagasani, C., Nsengimana, S. and Hakizimana, E. 2008. Biodiversity survey in Akanyaru
Wetlands, unprotected important bird areas in Rwanda. Report. Accessed 2nd November 2018
MTWA 2014. Uganda Wildlife Policy. Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities (MTWA).
GoU.
85
MWE, 1995. Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) National Policy for the conservation
and Management of Wetland Resources.
Ochieng A, Ingrid J. Visseren-Hamakers, René van der D 2017. The battle over
the benefits: analysing two sport hunting policy arrangements in Uganda.
Ochieng A, Manyisa W Ahebwa , and Ingrid J. Visseren-Hamakers, 2015.
Hunting for Conservation? The Re-introduction of Sport Hunting in Uganda Examined In
Institutional Arrangements for Conservation, Development and Tourism in Eastern and Southern
Africa. A Dynamic Perspective. Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London
Sinibaldi, I., K. Schmidt, P. Scholte, I. van Duren, F. Corsi, J. Brouwer and H.H.T. Prins 2004.
Dependence of large mammals in sub-Saharan Africa on water and water management. A
literature review. Report to WWF-the Netherlands. ITC, Enschede, the Netherlands, and
Resource Ecology Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, the
Netherlands.
UWA (Uganda Wildlife Authority). 2005. Annual Report. Kampala, Uganda.
Wanjala 2014. Working to ensure conservation becomes a way of life.
Crane and wetland conservation in Kenya in African cranes, wetlands and Communities
Newsletter 12.