GROUND SURVEY OF LARGE TO MEDIUM MAMMALS IN LUWERO DISTRICT CONCESSION AREA

Report prepared by

F. Wanyama, F. E, Kisame I. Bwire and A. Rwetsiba,

UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

December 2017 Table of Contents Table of Contents ------i Acknowledgements ------iii Summary ------iv CHAPTER 1 ------1 Survey of Wild Animals in Luwero District ------1 Introduction------1 Objective of the survey ------4 CHAPTER 2 ------5 Census Method ------5 Survey design ------5 Method used to count animals------6 Data collection------6 Animal sightings------7 Dung/Fecal surveys ------7 Foot print/spoors surveys ------7 Human activity------7 CHAPTER 3: ------8 Data Analysis ------8 Results of wild mammal sightings ------8 Wild animal distribution maps------10 Human impacts------13 Charcoal burning------13 Poaching------14 Vegetation change------15 CHAPTER 4: Discussions and Conclusion ------19 Economics of wildlife------19 Mammal population and occurrence ------19 Sustainability of the wildlife enterprise program ------19 Conclusion------19 REFERENCES ------21 Appendix I: GPS start and end points (survey coordinates) for transects ------22 Appendix II: Ground Survey Data Sheet ------24 Appendix III: Ground Survey Crew ------25

List of table

Table 3.1: Population of wild mammal encounters in Luwero district, October 2017 ...... 8 Table 3.2: Record of animal evidence from spoors (dung and footprints) in Luwero district...... 9 Table 3.3: Comparison of 2005 and 2015 Class areas...... 17

List of Figure

Figure 1.1: Location of Luwero district------2 Figure 2.1: Location of transects in Luwero concession survey zone ------5 Figure 3.1: Dung and footprints of some of the animals recorded in Luwero survey zone ------9 Figure 3.4: Locations of charcoal making sites in the district------13 i Figure 3.5: Charcoal burning activities------14 Figure 3.6: Arrested poachers with their hunting gear ------15 Figure 3.7: Land cover map of Luwero district survey area for 2005 and 2015------16 Figure 3.8: Area in Luwero district cleared and under cultivation ------18

ii Acknowledgements

Uganda Wildlife Authority organized and carried out the survey of large to medium mammals in Luwero District. The Resident District Commissioner, Luwero District gave the exercise a green light and we are grateful to him. We thank the Chief Wardens of KCA, MECA, LMNP, MFCA, QECA, in charges of UWEC, and ZIWA who timely provided the staff that undertook the survey. We thank the Ministry of Tourism Wildlife and Antiquities that seconded two staff (Mr. Tumusime Boaz and Mr. Baluku Joward) who participated in the survey. We take this opportunity to also thank the Chairman Luwero Wildlife Association, Mr. Mulwana Sam for his incite during the survey exercise. We are also grateful for the District Police Commander Luwero who made sure that our fire arms were kept well and in good working condition.

Finally gratitude goes to the UWA field staff for their dedicated support during the entire field data collection exercise. The public relations they exhibited during the fieldwork helped enlighten the communities on their role in wildlife management.

iii Summary

The survey targeted medium to large mammal in Luwero district. It started with notification of the security and political leaders at the district and sub county level. Mobilization of resources and personnel, was then done to enable a smooth flow of the exercise.

The staff who participated in the survey were drawn from the different UWA protected areas of Uganda. The survey crew camped in Luwero town for easy accessibility to the different transects in survey zone.

The survey team was trained on the use of field equipment and the general ground survey procedures. The survey team was divided into 8 groups comprising of UWA staff and local communities from sub counties of Luwero. A total of 90 transects were traversed during the data collection period.

During the exercise, three wardens were attached to administer the data collection thereby ensuring that good quality data was being collected. This helped to train the participants in collecting quality data hence continually building a reliable ground survey team for UWA.

In Luwero district, the wild animal population have significantly reduced due to land use change and poaching activities. Animals were sighted but in very low numbers and these included; bushbucks, vervet monkeys, and duikers. Poaching for wild meat in the area was evident through arrests made during the exercise.

There was notable land use change in the district were subsistence farmland increased by 22 percent from what it used to be in year 2005. This increase was as per 2015 and in the survey year, 2017, it could have doubled. Bushland vegetation has also substantially reduced from its original status of 2005. It’s therefore noticeable that charcoal burning and land conversion for agriculture have caused habitat alteration of the area. All the areas have heavy agriculture activities and settlement especially Kikyusa and Zirobwe where animals have completely disappeared either through hunting of shifting due to loss of habitat.

It is definite that the sport hunting activity cannot go on in Luwero district due to the alternate land use activities by the land owners.

iv CHAPTER 1

Survey of Wild Animals in Luwero District

Introduction

Luwero District is found in Central Uganda, bordered by District to the north, to the east, to the southeast, to the south, and to the west (Figure 1.1). Luwero district covers an area of approximately 2,217 square kilometers.

Luwero District is divided into thirteen (13) administrative units Bombo town council , Luwero town council , Wobulenzi town council, and sub counties of Bamunanika, Kalagala, Kamira, Kikyusa, Zirobwe, Butuntumula, Katikamu, Luwero, Makulubita, and Nyimbwa (Figure 1.1). Of the 13 administrative units, only four (04) Butuntumula, Kamira, Kikyusa and Zirobwe sub counties (Figure 1.2) were viable for wildlife conservation due to the then suitable vegetation.

Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) has the statutory obligation to manage and conserve wildlife outside Protected Areas for the benefit of all the stakeholders and the local communities. UWA therefore revived management of wildlife outside protected areas and one such area was Luwero District. The concessionaire who took management of this area has one of his activities as sport hunting, which is one of the ways that local communities and stake holders can benefit from wildlife management.

In the above regard, a tripartite agreement was signed between the Management Partners Uganda Wildlife Safaris Limited (UWSL), Supervisory Partners UWA and District Local Governments where each party had a role to play. UWA has a role to carry out surveys outside protected areas to know the species of animals that inhabit these areas, there distribution and population estimates.

Luwero district is considered to be part of the greater Kafu River Basin area. is primarily a papyrus wetland, which forms a drainage sink for a large part of central Uganda. Water drains eastwards from this swamp into , and westwards via the Nkusi River into . Much of this area, which includes parts of Luwero, Kyankwanzi, Nakaseke, Nakasongola and Masindi Districts, was allocated as private ranch holdings in the 1970s and 80s, in the Buruli, Singo, Bunyoro and Kiryandongo ranching schemes. Some areas are still managed as ranches, but many ranch holdings have been taken over by squatters (Lamprey 2003). In the mid-1990s it was suggested by the former Game Department that there was some potential for community-based conservation in the Kafu River basin area.

1 Figure 1.1: Location of Luwero district

Prior Surveys

In 1996 an SRF aerial survey was undertaken for the greater Kafu river basin and it indicated that the human population density in the area was still low, and that the area supported a significant population of Uganda kob, waterbuck, reedbuck, hartebeest (Lamprey and Michelmore 1996). The area also supported a small herd of elephants (totaling 18), that lived in the dense thickets in the southern part of the area – as a small isolated population, these elephants were translocated by UWA to Murchison Falls NP in 1999.

In year 2000 another aerial survey was conducted of the core area to determine trends in wildlife populations, livestock populations and human settlement, in order to make a more definitive statement about the possibilities for community conservation (Lamprey 2000). Results showed that Hartebeest and waterbuck populations were virtually eliminated from the area, whilst hippos were in a precarious state. The kob population also reduced by 50%.

In 2009, the first comprehensive documentation of the wildlife resources using a ground survey in the Kafu area commenced. The first area in which the survey was carried out was Nakaseke District (Rwetsiba et al 2009). The report provided valuable information for 2 development of interventions for sustainable utilization of wildlife resources therein. The findings suggested that Nakaseke still had diverse wildlife species comparable to that of adjacent Kafu River Basin contiguous with MFCA. However, the Luwero district ground survey did not take place.

Current survey

The ground survey in Luwero district commenced on 13th October 2017 and ended on 29th October 2017. This was the first comprehensive ground survey to be undertaken in the entire concession area of Luwero district.

The survey started with ground preparation where a team of three UWA staff travelled to the district to network with the different leaders. The team comprised of the law enforcement unit, community benefit and wildlife enterprises unit as well as the Ecological monitoring and research unit. The team explained to the various district leaders the importance of the exercise. The offices visited included; The Resident District Commissioner, District Police Commander, District Internal Security Officer, Local Council V, Sub and, the District Wildlife Association chairman. This was done from 13th October 2017 and to 14th October 2017. The actual ground data collection on transects commenced on 16th August 2017 to 29th October 2017.

Figure 1.2: Map showing sub counties of Luwero district under concession agreement

3 Objective of the survey

The overall purpose of the survey was to establish current information on mammal species occurrence, abundance and distribution patterns, focusing on medium to large sized wild mammals. The concessioner was being given quotas for sport hunting without relying on survey data since 2010. The specific objectives are;

i. To generate the population estimate of medium to large wild mammal species in Luwero district ii. To show wild mammal species distribution patterns in Luwero. iii. Provide data for monitoring and assessments of the current conservation strategies in the district. In this case quota setting for Sport hunting. iv. Establish the illegal activities taking place in the district in relation to wildlife management.

4 CHAPTER 2

Census Method

Survey design

Due to the bushland and woodland nature of vegetation in Luwero district, a ground survey was deemed to be the best option. DISTANCE 6.0 (Laake et al. 2009) was used to design where transects would be located within the Luwero survey zone. The area was treated as one block and transects within the block were analyzed as a single entity.

DISTANCE 6.0 allows an assessment of coverage probability by various transect design layouts and can be used to try and maximize the chances that every portion of the survey area has an equal chance of being sampled. Using the DISTANCE software, and the concession area shapefile, a survey design was developed for line transects, positioning them evenly using the Systematic Segmented Trackline Sampling (Figure 2.1). A total of 90 transects each four (4) kilometre long were established. The spacing between individual transects was 2.5 km, giving an effort trackline length of 360 kilometers, and they were positioned in a north-south direction.

Figure 2.1: Location of transects in Luwero concession survey zone

5 The coordinates of the start and end points of the transects were calculated by DISTANCE and are given in Appendix 1 for the survey block. This should allow subsequent surveys to find the same points in the concession area and repeat surveys along the same lines, thereby allowing more robust comparisons of differences between population estimates.

Method used to count animals

Standard line transect methods were used to count wild game in the concession area (Buckland et al. 2003). These involve walking each transect in the early morning at a speed of about 1 km per hour recording all sightings of wild animals (estimating group size that can be seen at the time) and other animal spoors. The perpendicular distance from the transect to the individual animal/group of animals sighted is measured with a range finder to the center of animal group as estimated by the observer. The perpendicular measurements were made in meters. The length of each transect was also recorded at the end of each transect survey using the GPS.

The following assumptions were put into consideration during data collection as required for Distance analysis;

1. Line transects are located randomly with respect to the distribution of the animals. 2. All animals on or very close to the center line of the transect are detected with certainty and that the crew identifies all wild animals with ease. This has an influence on the estimation of the f(0). 3. Animal observations are independent of each other i.e., detection of one observation does not affect detection of another observation. 4. All animals are detected from their initial positions when first sighted. 5. Measurements are exact  Distances are recorded correctly and without measurement error.  Distances near the transect are recorded precisely and accurately

Data collection

There were 8 field teams and each team had 3 UWA staff and 2 local community people. Each team was headed by an individual knowledgeable in using Distance sampling. All the team were trained on field procedures and in particular the use of equipment (Garmin GPSMap 64s for navigation, use of range finder and sighting compass), data recording, animal sign searching, behaviour and general data collection protocol. The counts were all done on foot and they always started in the mornings between 0730 and 1200 hours with the latest count starting at 1030 hours due to the long distance walked by the crew to reach the start of the transect. Each group made an effort to walk and collect data on one transect per day so as not to be fatigued and become biased, which is common in such ground surveys. After reaching the starting point for each transect using the GPS, the census crew would walk quietly in a straight line using the GPS navigation until the end of transect.

6 Animal sightings

Each time an animals was detected, the perpendicular distance at the point of first detection of animal was measured using an optical range finder. In addition the number of individuals in the groups was counted. The observations and measurements were recorded on a standard data sheet (Appendix II). Directly observed animal species were identified on spot by the experienced UWA trackers.

Dung/Fecal surveys

The survey crew also carefully searched the ground for dung remains of the animal species. The state of decomposition of the dung and vegetation type at that location was recorded in the data sheet in Appendix II. Fresh scats, dung and dung pellets that were easily associated with particular mammal species were observed and used to identify the species. The GPS way points for each observation were recorded together with habitat type.

Foot print/spoors surveys

Animal foot prints were marked once rather than counting number of foot prints especially when they occurred close to each other. Foot prints or spoors, hairs, diggings in soft soil with clear marking which were easily identify were also recorded. Other opportunistic information collected during the survey included skeletal or carcass remains of the animals when found and soil excavation of the wild animals. GPS locations of these observations were recorded.

Human activity

Information on human activity/disturbance is important because it helps to assess the threats to wildlife. It is a measure of their use and impact on the wildlife resources. Common signs of human disturbance recorded included poaching, snares, traps, and hunting signs. For each encounter of human activity the type of evidence, and distance to transect was recorded. Other human activities recorded were settlements (huts), farmlands, cultivation, tree plantations, land clearance and charcoal burning.

7 CHAPTER 3:

Data Analysis

DISTANCE software is normally used to carry out the analysis of data collected during ground surveys. The software allows to design and analyze distance sampling surveys, where the aim is to estimate the density and abundance of a biological population. As with any statistical procedure, line transect methods rely on adequate sample sizes for estimation. Buckland et al. (1993, p. 302) suggest that the minimum number of observations required for adequate estimation of the detection function g is 60 to 80. It is standard practice to pool distance data across all transects when estimating g. Even when detectability varies by transect, the property of `pooling robustness' ensures that abundance estimation is still reliable (Buckland et al., 1993, p. 42).

Results of wild mammal sightings

Density Estimates

No density and population estimate of any wild mammal species was calculated. The number of independent observations (encounters) of the animals were too few to warrant any analysis using the DISTANCE software. The low wild animal population is attributed to loss of vegetation suitable for wildlife management through land use change and population growth in the district. Nine mammal species were observed and recorded during the survey in the study area (Table 1). Additional four species were identified from spoors and remains (Table 2) giving a total of 13 species recorded in the area. The number of species recorded in the area was generally low, taking into consideration the current land uses of the study area. Other animal species which were opportunistically recorded included monitor lizard, tortoise, and guinea fowl.

Table 3.1: Population of wild mammal encounters in Luwero district, October 2017

Category Encounter Group size Aardvark 2 3 Baboon 2 11 Bush pig 4 4 Bushbuck 14 23 Colobus Monkey 1 15 Duiker 9 12 Vervet Monkey 20 119 Hare 1 1 Squirrel 1 1

8 Table 3.2: Record of animal evidence from spoors (dung and footprints) in Luwero district

Category Encounter Group size Aardvark Hole 18 34 Bush Pig Footprints 5 8 Bushbuck dropping 11 14 Bushbuck Footprint 42 55 Civet Cat dropping 1 1 Civet Cat Footprint 1 1 Duiker dropping 10 12 Duiker Footprint 64 77 Leopard Footprints 3 3 Mongoose droppings 2 3 Mongoose Footprint 1 5 Reedbuck Footprint 1 1

The most common and easily associated forms of animal identification were by using the dung pellets, and foot prints (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Dung and footprints of some of the animals recorded in Luwero survey zone

9 Wild animal distribution maps

The GPS locations of animal sighting were used to plot the distribution of animals. Encounters of the recorded animals, were spatially mapped using the GIS computer package ArcGIS 10.3. The relative abundance of animals in the different areas of the survey zone was represented using circles of different sizes Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3 This enables the spatial distribution of animals to be analyzed visually showing concentrations of different species.

The few sightings of the bushbuck, bush pig and duiker were all in the northern parts of the survey zone in Butuntumula and Kamira sub counties. These areas still have substantial patches of bushland, woodland and grassland. The few numbers of wild animals is due reducing suitable habitat for them. Most of the areas are being turned into both large scale and small scale agricultural/cultivation.

10 11 Figure 3.2: Species distribution map of bushbuck, vervet monkey, aardvark and baboon

Figure 3.3: Species distribution map of bush pig, black and white colobus monkey and duiker

12 Human impacts

The Luwero concession area is not a protected area and as such, several human activities take place as land is privately owned. Some of these activities impact on the presence of wildlife. The human activities in the area were recorded along the transects. These included; settlements, cultivation, cattle grazing, land clearing for agriculture, charcoal burning, snaring, pole cutting, sand mining, and tree plantations.

Charcoal burning

There is increasing human growth in Luwero district and this has resulted into expansion of agriculture, settlements, and roads. This has continuously impacted on the wildlife habitats by fragmenting them and in extreme cases losing them. Land conversion is being done where trees are enormously being cut done for charcoal burning to change the area into farmland. Figure 3.4 indicate locations of charcoal burning in the district while Figure 3.5 displays cutting of wooded areas and tress for charcoal burning as encountered on ground.. During the exercise, 397 incidences of charcoal burning were encountered.

Figure 3.4: Locations of charcoal making sites in the district

13 Figure 3.5: Charcoal burning activities

Poaching

Few poaching incidences were noted in the district perhaps due to the dwindling population of wild animals. However, evidence of hunting activity included actual arrest of six Poachers with their hunting gears (spears, dogs and hunting nets) Figure 3.6. These were arrested and taken to Luwero police station. This kind of poaching is detrimental to the wild animals as many are captured and killed in a go. Probably this is the other reason population sighted in Luwero are very few.

Bush meat offtake is high in the unprotected areas of Kafu Basin compared to Protected Area Oluport (2008) and the off take is influenced by the level of law enforcement and abundance of animal populations. The study also showed that meat hunted in the Kafu Basin was sold both in the neighboring villages and distant areas that included , Gulu, Lira, and Kitgum. The study also showed dealing in bushmeat was a major source of livelihood,

14 contributing as high as 95% of the total annual household income to some hunters and fetching dealer’s profits of over 30% of the cost price.

Figure 3.6: Arrested poachers with their hunting gear

Vegetation change

Human activities that were notable for vegetation change were, land clearings, cultivation, charcoal burning, softwood plantation and large scale farming. Figure 3.7 shows the land cover of the census zone for years 2005 and 2015.

15 Figure 3.7: Land cover map of Luwero district survey area for 2005 and 2015

16 Mammal abundance and distribution are affected by the alteration of their habitat. Like earlier noted, Luwero district is not a protected area and as such, the people living there are free to utilize their land as they so wish. But in so doing, they are altering the habitat suitable for wild animals.

Much of the woodland and bushland are being cut down, wood being used for charcoal burning in preparedness for ranches, large scale agriculture and cultivation. Most of these human impacts, impact negatively on management of wildlife outside protected areas. The current challenge now is how to ensure sustainable utilization of the natural resource and biodiversity to enhance livelihood and the development of the local community.

Table 3.3 below, is a comparison of land cover classes for the year 2005 and 2015. There were 9 land cover classes in 2015 but in 2015 they were 10. Column AREA(HA)2005 show the area of the land cover class in hectares in 2005 and column AREA(HA)2015 shows area of the same class in 2015. Then the difference column shows the difference between the figures. The classes are according to the National Biomass Study (NBS) Classification.

Table 3.3: Comparison of 2005 and 2015 Class areas

CLASS CLASS DESCRIPTION AREA(HA)2005 AREA(HA)2015 DIFFERENCE 2 Coniferous plantation or woodlot 711 711 4 Tropical High Forest, depleted 106 19 -87 5 Woodland 20,621 17,768 -2,853 6 Bushland 23,210 12,214 -10,996 7 Grassland 21,896 23,119 1,223 8 Wetland 8,120 10,909 2,789 9 Subsistence farmland 37,353 45,596 8,243 10 Uniform farmland 845 845 11 Urban or Rural Built-up Area 135 285 150 12 Open Water 63 39 -23 13 Impediments 2 -2

From the vegetation land cover maps, it’s evident that there is significant changes taking place in Luwero district. The bushland decreased significantly from 23,210 hectares in 2005 to 12,214 hectares in 2015, a 47 % decrease. Woodland shows a 14% decrease from 2005 t0 2015. This indicates decrease for the wildlife habitat. Such areas are being converted into farmlands. Figure 3.8 shows cultivation which was most prevalent and common throughout the study area. Actually, most of the landscape has majorly been turned into agricultural land.

17 Figure 3.8: Area in Luwero district cleared and under cultivation

18 CHAPTER 4: Discussions and Conclusion

Economics of wildlife

Wildlife conservation as a land use has an unusual characteristic that make it very valuable in some places but very vulnerable too. The wildlife outside protected areas have economic potential and can generate revenue through sport hunting or tourism. Therefore, there is good reason for retaining wildlife conservation as a widespread land use outside protected areas, not to the exclusion of other land uses but in combination with them. At present, there is divergence between the interests of individual landowners and the Uganda Wildlife Safaris Limited/Uganda Wildlife Authority. Whereas the latter two prefer wildlife conservation and sport hunting as a wildlife enterprise to support people, the former prefer agricultural activities to boost their home incomes.

Mammal population and occurrence

Results of this survey show that, though lots of wild game used to exist in Luwero district, they are being decimated now. Patterns of land use in the Luwero concession area are changing and human population densities are increasing. As this happens, several important wildlife dispersal areas are being threatened by land use changes detrimental to wildlife.

The 1991 national census estimated the human population of the district at 255,390 while the national census conducted in 2002 estimated the population at 341,317. The August 2014 national population census enumerated the population at 456,958 (Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2016). It is also estimated that 85 percent of the district population are engaged in agriculture and that, agriculture is the mainstay of the district economy.

Sustainability of the wildlife enterprise program

Majority of areas in the Luwero concession area have been turned into agricultural lands. These agricultural lands where cultivation of crops like maize, cassava, pineapple, bananas and sweet potatoes are done, are not compatible with wildlife management. However, livestock farming practices are compatible with wildlife management but, in Luwero concession area, the area under this land use is very small. The area has been turned into cultivation for household incomes and therefore, not secure and suitable for wildlife conservation. Thus, prospects of wildlife conservation and wildlife enterprise program of sport hunting is no longer viable in the district.

Conclusion

Over the past years wild animals in Luwero district have been decimated by poaching, loss of habitat and settlement. Substantial quantities of bush meat have also been marketed on the Kampala-Gulu road, particularly in the area of the Kafu river bridge, and all this comes from the Kafu basin area of which Luwero is part.

The area is evidently being massively transformed in terms of human settlement, habitat disturbance, and the elimination of large wildlife species. This area as well serves as a production zone for both charcoal and bush meat for urban markets. 19 The findings of this survey are an eye-opener in that, despite a management partner being brought on board with the intention of reducing the wildlife vulnerability and conservation threats in Luwero, district, nothing has been done.

Wildlife conservation in Luwero district therefore is no longer an option. This means that the tripartite agreement that was signed between the Management Partners Uganda Wildlife Safaris Limited, Supervisory Partners UWA and District Local Governments be retracted. Despite its high economic potential, wildlife as a land use has had little to offer the ordinary landowners under the prevailing conditions in Luwero district.

20 REFERENCES

Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P. & Laake, J.L. 1993. Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Chapman & Hall, London.

Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., Laake, J.L., Borchers, D.L. and Thomas, L. 2004. Advanced Distance Sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, UK. 416pp.

Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., BurnhamK.P., Laake, J.L., Borchers, D.L. & ThomasL (eds) (2004) Advanced Distance Sampling. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Lamprey, R.H. & Michelmore, F. (1996) Surveys of Protected Areas, Phase I and Phase II. Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities, Kampala, Uganda.

Lamprey, R.H. (2000) Aerial Counts of Wildlife in Queen Elizabeth National Park and Murchison Falls National Park, 1999-2000. Uganda Wildlife Authority, Kampala

Lamprey. R, Buhanga. E, Omoding. J. 2003 A Study of Wildlife Distributions, Wildlife Management Systems, and Options for Wildlife-based Livelihoods in Uganda For IFPRI/USAID Kampala, Uganda

Oluport, W, McNeilage, A. J, Plumptre, A. 2008 Constraints to sustainability of benefits from wildlife resources. An analysis of socioeconomics of bushmeat hunting in and around major hunting sites in Uganda,

Rwetsiba. A, Wanyama. F, Muhabwe. R, Mugote. E and Igulo. I. 2009 Ground Census of Medium to Large Mammals in Nakaseke District. Uganda Wildlife Authority

Thomas, L., Laake, J.L., Rexstad, E., Strindberg, S., Marques, F.F.C., Buckland, S.T., Borchers, D.L., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., Burt, M.L., Hedley, S.L., Pollard, J.H., Bishop, J.R.B. and Marques, T.A. 2009. Distance 6.0. Release 2. Research Unit for Wildlife Population Assessment, University of St. Andrews, UK.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2016. The National Population and Housing Census 2014 – Main Report, Kampala, Uganda

21 Appendix I: GPS start and end points (survey coordinates) for transects

Name Easting Northing Name Easting Northing 1E 428008 110152 24E 450008 104521 1S 428008 114152 24S 450008 100521 2E 428008 114450 25E 452008 102342 2S 428008 118450 25S 452008 106342 3E 430008 122094 26E 452008 110141 3S 430008 118094 26S 452008 114141 4E 430008 116094 27E 454008 121218 4S 430008 112094 27S 454008 117218 5E 430008 110094 28E 454008 115218 5S 430008 106094 28S 454008 111218 6E 432008 122100 29E 454008 109218 6S 432008 118100 29S 454008 105218 7E 432008 116100 30E 456008 102381 7S 432008 112100 30S 456008 106381 8E 432008 110100 31E 456008 107316 8S 432008 106100 31S 456008 111316 9E 434008 119914 32E 456008 113316 9S 434008 115914 32S 456008 117316 10E 434008 113924 33E 456008 119316 10S 434008 109924 33S 456008 123316 11E 434008 108156 34E 458008 104004 11S 434008 104156 34S 458008 108004 12E 436008 104829 35E 458008 110004 12S 436008 108829 35S 458008 114004 13E 436008 110829 36E 458008 116004 13S 436008 114829 36S 458008 120004 14E 438008 98575 37E 458008 122004 14S 438008 102575 37S 458008 126004 15E 438008 102795 38E 460008 96288 15S 438008 106795 38S 460008 92288 16E 438008 108795 39E 460008 125461 16S 438008 112795 39S 460008 121461 17E 440008 98943 40E 460008 119812 17S 440008 102943 40S 460008 115812 18E 440008 104162 41E 460008 113812 18S 440008 108162 41S 460008 109812 19E 440008 110021 42E 460008 107812 19S 440008 114021 42S 460008 103812 20E 442008 104086 43E 460008 101812 20S 442008 108086 43S 460008 97812 21E 444008 103626 44E 462008 84161 21S 444008 107626 44S 462008 88161 22E 446008 102418 45E 462008 90161 22S 446008 106418 45S 462008 94161 23E 448008 102354 46E 462008 96161 23S 448008 106354 46S 462008 100161

22 Name Easting Northing Name Easting Northing 47E 462008 102161 70E 470008 74711 47S 462008 106161 70S 470008 70711 48E 462008 108161 71E 470008 118881 48S 462008 112161 71S 470008 114881 49E 462008 114161 72E 470008 113816 49S 462008 118161 72S 470008 109816 50E 464008 76915 73E 470008 107816 50S 464008 80915 73S 470008 103816 51E 464008 81591 74E 470008 101816 51S 464008 85591 74S 470008 97816 52E 464008 87591 75E 470008 95816 52S 464008 91591 75S 470008 91816 53E 464008 93591 76E 470008 89816 53S 464008 97591 76S 470008 85816 54E 464008 99591 77E 470008 83816 54S 464008 103591 77S 470008 79816 55E 464008 105591 78E 472008 75237 55S 464008 109591 78S 472008 71237 56E 464008 111591 79E 472008 115771 56S 464008 115591 79S 472008 111771 57E 464008 115983 80E 472008 109771 57S 464008 119983 80S 472008 105771 58E 466008 82324 81E 472008 103771 58S 466008 86324 81S 472008 99771 59E 466008 88324 82E 472008 97771 59S 466008 92324 82S 472008 93771 60E 466008 94324 83E 472008 91771 60S 466008 98324 83S 472008 87771 61E 466008 100324 84E 472008 85771 61S 466008 104324 84S 472008 81771 62E 466008 106324 85E 474008 118895 62S 466008 110324 85S 474008 114895 63E 466008 112324 86E 474008 112895 63S 466008 116324 86S 474008 108895 64E 468008 82437 87E 474008 106895 64S 468008 86437 87S 474008 102895 65E 468008 88437 88E 474008 100895 65S 468008 92437 88S 474008 96895 66E 468008 94437 89E 474008 95985 66S 468008 98437 89S 474008 91985 67E 468008 100437 90E 476008 97544 67S 468008 104437 90S 476008 101544 68E 468008 106437 68S 468008 110437 69E 468008 112437 69S 468008 116437

23 Appendix II: Ground Survey Data Sheet Survey Area: …………………………………………

Observer (Team Leader): …………………….….….. Date: ………………………... Census Number: ………………. Other observers Transect No.: ………………… Transect length: ………..…... 1.…………………………………

Start time: ………………..…… End Time: ……………..……. 2.……………………..….………

Way Easting Northing Perp. Dist Group Time Animal species REMARKS/Habitat point 36M UTM (m) size

24 Appendix III: Ground Survey Crew

Survey crew at Luwero district Police Station

Part of the ground survey crew during transect allocation

25