sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ajai Wildlife Reserve, Antelope, Common eland, Echinochloa pyramidalis, Giant eland, Greater kudu

POPULATION, DISTRIBUTION AND OF ( SPEKEI) (SCLATER) IN SELECTED WETLANDS IN

Biological -Life history Biological -Ecologicl… Protection -Regulation of… 5 Biological -Dispersal Protection -Effectiveness… 4 Biological - tolerance Protection -proportion… 3 Status -National Distribtuion Incentive - … 2 Status -National Abundance Incentive - … 1 Status -National… Incentive - Effect of harvest 0 Status -National…

Monitoring - confidence in… Status -National Major…

Monitoring - methods used… Harvest Management -…

Control -Confidence in… Harvest Management -… Control - Open access… Harvest Management -… Control of Harvest-in… Harvest Management -Aim… Control of Harvest-in… Harvest Management -… Control of Harvest-in… Tragelaphus spekii (sitatunga) NonSubmitted Detrimental to Findings (NDF)

Research and Monitoring Unit Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) Plot 7 Kira Road Kamwokya, P.O. Box 3530 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 i January 2019 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 ...... 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 ...... 10 2. 3. Sport/Trophy and Conservation of Sitatunga ...... 11 2.3.1. Trophy/Sport hunting and its potential role in promoting conservation ...... 12 2.3.2 Sport/ 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 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 ii

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

iii

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 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 site...... 32 Figure 9 Distribution of sitatunga in site ...... 36 Figure 10 Sitatunga distribution around site ...... 36 Figure 11 Sitatunga distribution around Lugogo river system ...... 37 Figure 12 Sitatunga distribution along 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 at the periphery of Lake Bisina/Opeta ...... 41 Figure 20 Flood 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

iv

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

v

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.

vi

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 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

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tragelaphus spekii (Speke, 1863) (Sitatunga) is a highly valued trophy 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 , Luwero and , (iii) Mayanja wetland system in the districts of Nakaseke, and , (iv) Kafu River basin in , 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 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 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 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 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

viii 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 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) 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 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 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 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.

ix

(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 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 /wetlands which are the habitats for sitatunga.

x

1.0`INTRODUCTION 1.1Background Sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekii) is a spiral horned antelope endemic to sub-Saharan Africa. It belongs to the , order artiodactyla (even-toed), and the Tragelaphus. The genus also includes the (Tragelaphus derbianus), (Tragelaphus ), (Tragelaphus angasi), Bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus), (Tragelaphus buxtoni), Lesser (Tragelaphus imberbis) and (Tragelaphus strepsiceros). Its name “-kudu” refers to the ’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 (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 , riparian thickets and 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 , they are typically found in stands of papyrus and reeds ( species and pyramidalis). They share their habitat with the in the swamps in Southern and with the southern lechwe in , and (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 face constant threats due to hunting and 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.,

1

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 (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 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 2 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 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. 3

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.

4

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 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 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 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 buds of Sitatunga 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

5 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 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 south of the and parts of the . 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 systems in the zones of Central, East and (IUCN SSC, 2016). It is now rare and localized in West Africa, with a very small and limited range in , Gambia, and Guinea-Bissau. However, it still remains widespread elsewhere, from through Congo Basin forests and in swamp systems within the savannas of Central, East and Southern Africa as far as (May & Lindholm 2013). It was long extinct in and probably extinct in , but have recently been confirmed as still surviving in (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.

6

Figure 1 Sitatunga distribution adopted from IUCN-SSC (2016)

Figure 2 Sitatunga distribution adopted from Furstenburg (2009)

7

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 , following the wet and humid regions of mainly tropical forests from Gambia to the Democratic (Furstenberg, 2009). The East African Sitatunga termed Tragelaphus spekei spekei is found in the Lake Victoria basin, covering Uganda, Western and Northern 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 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 , 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 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 sp. bordered by an ecotone of terrestrial thicket or . The reeds generally stand

8

3-6 m above the water surface which provide camouflage to the . 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 . 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 ( nigrescens) and -berry ( mespiliformis) trees. In common with the dik-dik (Madoqua kirkii) and the (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

9 agricultural 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 (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 10 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 , , python, , , 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, 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 , 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 —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 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 and ADMADE in Zambia. Wildlife conservation on private lands has also been deemed successful. For example, private land owners in and have converted 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

11 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- 12

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 $2,500 for a kudu, more than 10 times what the meat of one of these antelopes would bring. If you stop hunting, the market is going to change completely; it’ll go to meat value, really; less than 60 cents a pound”. As further reported by Gernhard (2015) that Vernon Booth, a Zimbabwe-based ecologist who worked in African wildlife management for 30 years, said that “ were now protected because of the high value attached to them [by hunters]. Locals tolerate wild animals because of the income that trickles down to them. Without the hunt money, locals would increasingly poison lions, which are considered dangerous to people and livestock. One of the successful innovations across African continent is the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) programme which is a long-term programmatic approach to rural development that uses wildlife and other natural resources as a mechanism for promoting devolved rural institutions and improved governance and livelihoods which is based on using the trophy hunting revenue. The cornerstone of CAMPFIRE is the right to manage, use, dispose of, and benefit from these resources in sustainable manner. Between 1989 and 2006, CAMPFIRE income, mostly from high valued safari hunting, totaled nearly USD$ 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

13 crocodile under 9 feet hunt may cost USD$6,000, a hunt may cost USD$1,000, a 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 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 14 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 , 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, 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, , 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

15 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 Ranches outside Lake Mburo National Park (, (GTL) Katonga Wildlife Reserve 2 Lake Albert Safaris Ltd Kalangala district, 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 Ajai wildlife reserve and Luwero, Nakaseke, Nakasongola and Ltd Amuru Nwoya districts 5 Karamoja Overlander Pian-Upe wildlife reserve and Amudat community wildlife area. Safaris Ltd.

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 2015 2016 2017 Average 2018 Client's Proposed quot Quota quota Quota Annual Quota Request hunting a utilize Utilized Utilized Quota 2019 quota by d Utilized 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 8 8 5 3 5 5 10 8 river basin) Kyakwanzi - 6 8 - 5 5 8 5 (Kafu/Mayanja) *Sitatunga is the only first prized animal or the only Species that sells a hunting safari in Katonga and Nakaseke blocks.

16

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)

2009 2010 US 2011 U 2012 2013 US 2014 US 2015 US 2016 US 2017 US Stakeholders US$ $ S$ 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- 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 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 17 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 , 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

18

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 19 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.

20

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 River Mayanja site

Lake Bisina-Opeta site Mayanja

Locations of the study sites within River Lugoogo site Uganda

Ssese Island site River Katonga site Mayanja site

Figure 3. Locations of the six study sites 21

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 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 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 () graduating into dry grassland savannas and the periphery is dominated by an association of acacia and . 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 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 22 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 , 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 () of the geologically active system, caused the swampy region to the southwest of 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 . 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 , 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 , , Leopard, Buffalo, , bushbuck and and . 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 . The river traverses or forms the borders of the following districts: , 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 amphibious),

23

Nile bush back (Tragelaphus scriptus), Defassa water buck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), (Ourebia ourebi), bohor reed buck (Redunca redunca), (Phacochoerus africanus), (Potamorchoes rus larvatus), and (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 District. It flows eastwards at first, then it turns north, to empty into the Victoria Nile, approximately 8 kilometres, upstream of the town of , in . On its course eastwards, northeastwards and northwards, the river traverses or forms the borders of the following districts: , District, Kyankwanzi District, Nakaseke 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 , Nile Bushbuck, Ugandan Defassa Waterbuck, Leopard, Common Oribi and Bush 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 24

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 25

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.

Figure 4. Periphery of Lake Bisina with human activities, including settlement (left and crop cultivation (right) very close to the shores

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.

26

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

27 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, , medicinal plants among others. Additional information was obtained from non-formal interactions with the communities members during visits to the study sites.

28

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.

29

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.

. 30

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). 14 12 10 8 6 4 2

0 INVIDIUAL IS VISIBLE IS INVIDIUAL

6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 PERCENTAGE OF TIME EACH TIME OF PERCENTAGE HOURS OF THE DAY

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

31 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.

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 Density Density (individulsa /kmsquer) 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350

Density (/individula/km2)

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 32 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. n Dt =Ar + (1-Ar)Nr 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 No. No. of Activi Period Detectab Corrected No Corrected Corrected no. Corrected no. day and of animals ty of ility of Sitatunga no. of of Sitatunga of Sitatunga for observ obser seen levels activity for Mayanja Sitatunga for Opeta. Ssese islet. v. /hour for Kafu.

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 - - - - - 2 1.5 2 1 Effective area (Km2)

33

Table 5 Projection of Sitatunga population in the study sites based on estimated suitable habitat.

Site Average density Estimated suitable area Projected population Comment of sitatunga (km2) square kilometers for the site 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 Observations Foot prints Carcass Dung Resting site/ Total covered (km) pellet tunnel 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 8 3 13 0 2 5 23 (Bugala) 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 Number of Dung Number of Feeding Track Average encounter rates length dung Encounter tracks signs Encounter rate of dung and tracks per km (km) rate 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 8 2 0.25 13 19 1.625 1.875 (Bugala)

34

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.

35

Figure 9 Distribution of sitatunga in Katonga wildlife reserve site

Figure 10 Sitatunga distribution around Lake Opeta site 36

Figure 11 Sitatunga distribution around Lugogo river system

Figure 12 Sitatunga distribution along River Kafu system

37

Figure 13 Sitatunga distribution along River Mayanja system

Figure 14 Distribution of Sitatunga in Ssese Island (Bugala)

38

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 39 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

40

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, africana, and Khaya senegalensis.

Figure 19 Gallery forest at the periphery of Lake Bisina/Opeta

41

(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 , Balanities aegyptiaca, Acacia species and 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, 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.

42

Table 8 Incidences of illegal human activities in the study sites

Site/activity Mayanja Kafu Lugogo Opeta Ssese island Katonga Total (Bugala) Collection of 3 8 15 26 1 4 57 grass/papyrus Tree cutting for fire 17 19 2 13 12 0 63 wood/poles/ Charcoal clearing areas for 1 2 6 2 14 2 27 crop cultivation livestock farming 9 14 1 24 0 5 53 Sand mining/ 0 1 12 0 0 0 13 bricklaying Total 30 44 36 63 27 11

Figure 21 Farming, settlement and charcoal burning in Lake Bisina and Opeta sites

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

70 60 50 40 30

Occurance 20 10 0 Kayanja Kafu Lugogo Opeta Ssese Katonga island (Bugala) Study sites

Figure 24 Incidence of human activities in various study sites

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Collection of Tree cutting clearing areas livestock Sand mining/ grass/papyrus for fire for crop farming bricklaying

wood/poles/ cultivation incidence human of activties Charcoal Human activities

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.

44

Table 9 List of threats and possible consequences for the conservation of sitatunga

Threat Some consequences 1 Clearing habitat for crop and Habitat destruction livestock farming Increase plant diversity 2 Livestock grazing Seasonal burnings , Opportunity for bush-meat hunting Habitat destruction 3 Tree cutting for fire wood/poles/ Habitat destruction Charcoal 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, , and signs of livestock presence including dung and tracks. 4 Sand and soil Includes signs associated with removal of resources such as sand for mining/ Extraction construction, clay soil for brick making. 5 Hunting and Includes signs of hunting such as presence of dogs, burning 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 45 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 , 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 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.

46

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).

47

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 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 . In Kenya sitatunga was reported to migrate when the conditions become unfavorable as

48 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 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.

49

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 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 50 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 51 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

52 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

53 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. 54

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. 55

(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.

56

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.

57

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 .

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.

58

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) . 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 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

59 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.

60

Magliocca, F.; Quérouil, S.; Gautier-Hion, A. (February 2002). "Grouping patterns, reproduction, and dispersal in a population of Sitatunga". Canadian Journal of . 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.

61

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, . http:// www.uneca.org/publications/economic-report-africa-2013\

62

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.

63

APPENDICES Appendix 1. Survey data sheet Survey data sheet Observers………………………………………………………………………….. Date……………………………………… Transect / recee no…………………………………………………………….Transect length …………………………

Time Animal Age Perp Group GPS W GPS N EPE Habitat species .distance size

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

64

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 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? ......

65

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

66

Appendix 3: Stakeholder roles in conservation of sitatunga Table. Stakeholder roles in conservation of sitatunga. s/n Recommendations/ Responsible leading Comments/ proposed intervention agency stakeholders 1 Focused on conservation of  Ministry of water NEMA wetlands and environment.  Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urban Development

2 Sensitization and awareness • Ministry of water NEMA. campaign programmes to and environment. Nature Uganda improve networking and collaboration between stakeholders and attract their interest in the protection of the wealth of biodiversity in the wetland ecosystem 3 Investing in alternative • Ministry of water Nature Uganda, livelihoods opportunities based and environment. NEMA on sustainable use of wildlife resources in wetlands 4 Continuous monitoring of Uganda Wildlife authority sitatunga population and other wildlife species in the wetlands for remedial conservation action is proposed 5 Demarcate wetland boundaries • Ministry of Lands, to reduce encroachments. Housing & Urban Development. 6 Strengthen institutions Ministry of water and NEMA responsible for wetland environment. management at local government levels 7 Collaborative management of UWA District Local wildlife on private/public land governments for management of wetland habitats. 8 Develop Conservation Actions UWA, NEMA, and species management plan Nature Uganda, for Sitatunga District Local governments 9 Development of enabling policy  Ministry of Water UWA, framework for wetland and Environment. management, including design  Ministry of and implement Ramsar Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities 67

sites and Framework wetland management plan. 10 Design and implement District Local With support from District wetland action plans governments NEMA and Promote wetlands law enforcement and governance. 11 Restore, regenerate, restock District Local governments With support from and gazette degraded wetlands NEMA in urban areas so as to conserve biodiversity and promote increased ecosystem serves provision. 12 (a) Create an Island protected •Ministry of Tourism, area in Lake Victoria Wildlife and Antiquities. Islands with Island •Ministry of Water and Sitatunga (T.s.sylvestris) as Environment. a Flagship Species for  UWA promoting Tourism. (b) Create other protected areas within the country which target wetlands with viable sitatunga populations 13 To institute byelaws on District Local governments NEMA sustainable use of wetland and to ban burning of the swamps /wetlands which are the habitats for sitatunga

68

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

69

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 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 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 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 70 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 (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). .

71

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 72 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 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.

73

(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.

74

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.

Biological -Life history Biological -Ecologicl adaptability Protection -Regulation of harvest 5 Biological -Dispersal effort Protection -Effectiveness of Biological -Human tolerance protection 4 Protection -proportion restrited from Status -National Distribtuion harvest 3 Incentive - habitat conservation Status -National Abundance initiatives 2

Incentive - species conservation Status -National population trend initaitives 1

Incentive - Effect of harvest 0 Status -National Information Quality

Monitoring - confidence in Status -National Major threat monitoring Monitoring - methods used to Harvest Management -Illegal off-take monitor

Control -Confidence in harvest Harvest Management -History management Harvest Management -Management Control - Open access harvest plan Control of Harvest-in strong tenure Harvest Management -Aim of harvest Control of Harvest-in Protected Areas Harvest Management -Quotas Control of Harvest-in Protected Areas

Tragelaphus spekii (sitatunga) Non Detrimental Findings (NDF)

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.

75

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 High reproductive rate, long-lived 1 life history? 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 76

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 Extreme generalist 1 what extent is the species Generalist adaptable (habitat, diet, 2 environmental tolerance etc.)? 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. Very good 1 3. Dispersal efficiency: How Good 2 efficient is the species dispersal Medium 3 mechanism at key life stages? 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. No interaction 1 4. Interaction with humans: the Pest / Commensal 2 species tolerant to human activity Tolerant 3 other than harvest? 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 77 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 Widespread, contiguous in country 1 5. National distribution: How is Widespread, fragmented in country 2 the species distributed nationally? 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 Very abundant 1 the abundance nationally? 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: Increasing 1 What is the recent national Stable 2 population trend? 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.

78

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 Quantitative data, recent 1 type of information is available to Good local knowledge 2 describe abundance and trend in the Quantitative data, outdated 3 national population? 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 None 1 threat is the species facing Limited/Reversible 2 (underline following: overuse/ Substantial 3 Habitat loss and alteration/ invasive Severe/Irreversible 4 species/ other :) and how severe is Uncertain 5 it? 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 Non 1 significant is the national problem of Small 2 illegal or unmanaged off-take or Medium 3 trade? Large 4 Uncertain 5

79

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 Managed harvest: ongoing with adaptive 1 the history of harvest? framework 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 Approved and coordinated local and 1 Equivalent: Is there a management national plan related to the harvest of the management plans species? Approved national/state/provincial 2 management plan(s) Approved local management plan 3 No approved plan: informal unplanned 4 management 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 Generate conservation benefit 1 management planning: What is Population management/control 2 harvest aiming to achieve? 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 Ongoing national quota: based on 1 a system of quotas? biologically derived local quotas

80

Ongoing quotas: “cautious” national or 2 local Untried quota: recent and based on 3 biologically derived local quotas Market-driven quota(s), arbitrary quota(s), 4 or no quotas 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 High 1 Areas: What percentage of the Medium 2 legal national harvest occurs in Low 3 State-controlled Protected Areas? 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 High 1 strong resource tenure or Medium 2 ownership: What percentage of the Low 3 legal national harvest occurs outside none 4 Protected Areas, in areas with strong Uncertain 5 local control over resource use? Most trophy hunting of Sitatunga occurs on private land and community controlled areas. 17. Harvesting in areas with open None 1 access: What percentage of the Low 2 legal national harvest occurs in areas Medium 3 where there is no strong local high 4 control, giving de facto or actual Uncertain 5 open access? 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 High confidence 1 Management: Do budgetary and Medium confidence 2 other factors allow effective Low confidence 3 implementation of management No confidence 4 plan(s) and harvest controls? 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 81

19. Methods used to monitor the Direct population estimates 1 harvest: What is the principal Quantitative indices 2 method used to monitor the effects Qualitative indices 3 of the harvest? 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 High confidence 1 monitoring: Do budgetary and Medium confidence 2 other factors allow effective harvest Low confidence 3 monitoring? 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 Beneficial 1 threats: What is the effect of the neutral 2 harvest when taken together with the Harmful 3 major threat that has been identified Highly negative 4 for this species? 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 High 1 conservation: At the national level, Medium 2 how much conservation benefit to low 3 this species accrues from None 4 harvesting? 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 High 1 conservation: At the national Medium 2 level, how much habitat low 3 None 4 82 conservation benefit is derived from Uncertain 5 harvesting 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: >15% 1 What percentage of the species 5-15% 2 natural range or population is legally <15% 3 excluded from harvest? 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 High confidence 1 protection measures: Do Medium confidence 2 budgetary and other factors give low confidence 3 confidence in the effectiveness of No confidence 4 measures taken to afford strict Uncertain 5 protection? 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: Very effective 1 How effective are any restrictions Effective 2 on harvesting (such as age or size, Ineffective 3 season or equipment) for preventing None 4 overuse)? 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.

83

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 (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, , 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. 84

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.

85