BookPDF Available

Strategic Action Plan for Large Carnivore Conservation in Uganda 2nd Edition

February 2025

Publisher: Uganda Wildlife Authority

Authors:

Alexander Braczkowski

Griffith University

Arjun Gopalaswamy

Carnassials Global

Nicholas B. Elliot

Wildlife Counts

The Strategic Action Plan for Large Carnivore Conservation in Uganda (2024–2034) is a comprehensive national framework aimed at protecting and increasing viable populations of large carnivores in Uganda, including African lions, leopards, spotted hyenas, cheetahs, and African wild dogs. Developed by the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) in collaboration with national and international stakeholders, the plan sets out clear objectives, strategies, and actions to address key threats such as poaching, habitat loss, human-wildlife conflict, and lack of scientific monitoring. The plan’s central goal is to increase large carnivore populations by 30% by 2034. To achieve this, it focuses on reducing poaching rates, improving habitat quality, fostering coexistence with local communities, enhancing evidence-based decision-making, and strengthening coordination among conservation stakeholders. Notably, the action plan presents the most up-to-date population data on large carnivores in Uganda, derived from rigorous national surveys conducted between 2018 and 2023. These surveys provide the latest estimates for key species across six major protected areas, including Queen Elizabeth, Murchison Falls, and Kidepo Valley National Parks. Alarmingly, the data reveal significant population declines, particularly for lions in Kidepo Valley and Queen Elizabeth National Parks, highlighting the urgency of implementing this strategic framework. This action plan serves as both a conservation blueprint and a critical resource for decision-makers, conservationists, and stakeholders, aiming to secure a sustainable future for Uganda’s large carnivores and their ecosystems.

Content uploaded by Alexander Braczkowski

Content may be subject to copyright.

Strategic Action Plan

for Large Carnivore

Conservation in Uganda

2nd Edition

2024 - 2034

Published in 2024 by Uganda Wildlife Authority.

Citation: UWA (2024). Strategic Action Plan for Large Carnivore

Conservation in Uganda (2024-2034).

Photography: Alexander Braczkowski

Available from: This publication is available in hard copy from UWA.

Copies are available for reference at the Uganda

Wildlife Authority library. It can also be downloaded

from the UWA

website: www.ugandawildlife.org

Compiled and edited by: The Uganda Wildlife Authority Technical Team for

Large Carnivore Conservation; Dr Alex Braczkowski

(lead author), Dr Nic Elliot, Dr Arjun Gopalaswamy,

and Mr Aggrey Rwetsiba (co-lead author).

Editorial assistance: Keren Pereira, Orin Cornille, and Bosco Atukwatse

UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY (UWA)

P.O. Box 3530

Kampala, Uganda

www.ugandawildlife.org

info@ugandawildlife.org

Field team responsible

for National survey

fieldwork:

Alex Braczkowski, Bosco Atukwatse, Orin Cornille,

Drileyo Gilbert, Tutilo Mudumba, Sophia Jingo, Peter

Luhonda, Mihingo Lodge, Karamoja Overland Safaris,

Nic Elliot, Arjun Gopalaswamy, Herbert Kigongo,

Patrick Okello, Silva Musobozi, Lilian Namusoke,

Brenda Asimwe, Ralph Schenk, Innocent Komakech,

Anna Engelmann, Philipp Kiboneka, Kevin James, Kris

Debref, Daniel Tiromwe, Mustafa Nsubuga, Silvano

Ling, Richard Ochom, Samuel Aware, Ludwig Siefert,

Dinal Samarasinghe, Nasulu Muzanganda.

Additional thanks: Mr Jan Broekhuis and Dr Tutilo Mudumba

Funders

Financial support was provided by several donors, private individuals, and

organisations in both the creation of this new edition of the Strategic Action Plan

for Large Carnivore Conservation in Uganda and the consultative meeting that led

to its creation. This is acknowledged and highly appreciated:

Acknowledgements

Approval

Preface

Foreword

Acronyms

Glossary

Executive Summary

CHAPTER 1

18-21

1.1. Introduction

1.2. Rationale for the Strategic Action Plan

1.3. Process of Developing the New Strategic Action Plan

CHAPTER 2

22-56

2.0. Conservation and Distribution Status of Large Carnivore Species in Uganda

2.1 Field Methods

24-26

2.1.1. African Lions

2.1.2. African Leopards and Spotted Hyenas

2.1.3. Cheetahs and African Wild Dogs

2.2. Analytical Methods

2.3. Species-Specific Results

28-56

2.3.1. African Lions

2.3.1.1. African Lions in the Queen Elizabeth National Park

2.3.1.2. African Lions in the Murchinson Falls National Park

Table of Contents

2.3.1.3. African Lions in the Kidepo Valley National Park

2.3.1.4. African Lions in the Lake Mburo National Park

2.3.1.5. African Lions in the Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve

2.3.1.6. African Lions in the Toro Semliki Wildlife Reserve

2.3.2. African Leopards

2.3.2.1. African Leopards in the Queen Elizabeth National Park

2.3.2.2. African Leopards in the Murchinson Falls National Park

2.3.2.3. African Leopards in the Kidepo Valley National Park

2.3.2.4. African Leopards in the Lake Mburo National Park

2.3.2.5. African Leopards in the Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve

2.3.2.6. African Leopards in the Toro Semliki Wildlife Reserve

2.3.3. Spotted Hyenas

2.3.3.1. Spotted Hyenas in the Queen Elizabeth National Park

2.3.3.2. Spotted Hyenas in the Murchinson Falls National Park

2.3.3.3. Spotted Hyenas in the Kidepo Valley National Park

2.3.3.4. Spotted Hyenas in the Lake Mburo National Park

2.3.3.5. Spotted Hyenas in the Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve

2.3.3.6. Spotted Hyenas in the Toro Semliki Wildlife Reserve

2.3.4. Cheetahs and African Wild Dogs

CHAPTER 3

58-65

3.1. Threat Analysis by Protected Area

58-61

3.1.1. Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area (National Park and Wildlife Reserves)

3.1.2. Murchison Falls National Park

3.1.3. Kidepo Valley National Park

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 5.

3.1.4. Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve

3.1.5. Lake Mburo National Park

3.1.6. Toro Semliki Wildlife Reserve

3.2. Prioritised Key Threats facing Large Carnivore Species in Uganda

62-66

3.2.1. Poaching

3.2.1.1. Snaring for Bush Meat - Use of Wheel Traps & Wire Snares for Poaching

3.2.1.2. Targeted Poaching of Carnivores

3.2.2. Human-Carnivore Conflict attributed to Livestock Production

3.2.3. Habitat Loss

3.2.4. Insufficient Scientific Monitoring and Collaboration

CHAPTER 4

67-75

4.0. Strategic Action Plan for Conservation of Large Carnivores in Uganda

67-75

4.1. Vision, Goals, and Strategic Objectives

4.2. Strategic Objectives, Outputs, and Actions

69-75

5.0. Implementation of the National Carnivore Action Plan

6.0. Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL)

7.0. Conclusion

Appendix I: Terms of Reference for the Strategic Action Plan for Conservation of

large Carnivore Species in Uganda Technical Working Group

Appendix II: Stakeholder Analysis

Appendix III: Policy Instruments to Aid the Conservation of Large Carnivores in

Uganda

Appendix IV: Models Associated with Density and Abundance Results

Appendix V: Large Carnivore Action Plan Results Matrix

References

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 6.

The compilation of this Strategic Action Plan for Large Carnivore Conservation

in Uganda was a collaborative effort, spearheaded by the Monitoring and

Research Unit of the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA). Special thanks go to the

technical team that drafted this Strategic Action Plan for Large Carnivore

Conservation in Uganda; Dr Alex Braczkowski (lead author), Dr Nic Elliot, Dr

Arjun Gopalaswamy, and Mr Aggrey Rwetsiba (co-lead author). The input from

local and international experts and organisations and the guidance, contribution

and support of the Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities (MTWA) is

acknowledged and highly appreciated.

During the development of the Strategic Action Plan, rigorous local, regional,

and international consultations were undertaken with stakeholders and partners

in wildlife conservation and management. The key stakeholders consulted

include the Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities (MTWA), Uganda

Wildlife Authority staff, Uganda Wildlife Education Centre (UWEC), Research

and Academic Institutions, Private Sector, and Local Communities. The Uganda

Wildlife Authority is grateful to all stakeholders for their input towards the

development of this national strategy and action plan for large carnivore

conservation. Special thanks go to Volcanoes Safaris, Wild Frontiers, Makerere

University, African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Snares to Wares, Wildlife

Conservation Society Uganda (WCS), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

Uganda, Enjojo Foundation, Mihingo Lodge, Karamoja Overland Safaris,

Southern University of Science and Technology, Griffith University, Northern

Arizona University, Lion Recovery Fund, Uganda Conservation Foundation

(UCF), Carnassials Global, Uganda Carnivore Program, Virunga Foundation,

Makoma Nation Photography, Kasenyi Safari Camp, Space for Giants,

Biodiversity for Resilience (B4R) Program, Northern Arizona University (Prof

Duan Biggs) and Wildlife Counts.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements 8.

More than 60 people representing university scientists, lodge owners, NGO staff,

local communities, UWA staff, and independent consultants/researchers

participated and contributed to the national strategy and action plan for large

carnivore conservation development process during the consultative workshop

held in Kampala, Protea Marriot (8-10 May 2023). Without their inputs the

strategies developed and detailed within this document for the conservation and

management of large carnivore species in Uganda could not have been possible.

The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Uganda Program is appreciated for

facilitating the two meetings of a team that was formed after the lion population

and recovery conservation dialogue for backstopping the Uganda Wildlife

Authority to improve and finalise this national strategy and action plan based on

the input from the lion population recovery and conservation dialoge held

between 7-8 May 2024 at Imperial Botanical Beach Hotel, Entebbe, Uganda.

Special thanks go to the following members: Mr. Aggrey Rwetsiba, Dr. Simon

Nampindo, Mr. Joward Baluuku, Mr. Richard Oluke, Dr. Arthur Mugisha

(facilitator), Prof. Charles Masembe, Dr. Carol Asiimwe, Dr. Racheal Mbabazi,

Mr. Joshua Mbonga, and Ms. Harriet Musabende for their commitment and

valuable technical support to this end.

Approval

The Uganda Wildlife Authority Board of Trustees approved the Strategic Action

Plan for Large Carnivore Conservation in Uganda (2024-2034) for

implementation on the 10 January 2025.

____________________ ____________________

Professor James Kalema

CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES Mr Sam Mwandha

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Approval

Wildlife is a cornerstone of Uganda’s tourism industry and contributes

significantly to the country’s economic development. However, in the 21st

century we are increasingly seeing the challenges and pressures facing the

management of wildlife in the country. One such challenge is the absence of

regular science-based species Strategic Action Plans for the conservation of key

wildlife species in Uganda with consistent and coherent implementation. This

situation could not be more pressing than for large carnivores in Uganda. Large

carnivores represent some of Earth’s most critical wildlife species intersecting

hundreds of religions, cultures, and tourism economies. In Uganda along with

great apes, African lions, leopards, and spotted hyenas are the mainstay of the

wildlife economy, especially in places like Queen Elizabeth where every tree

climbing lion is estimated to be worth US$ 14,000.

The Strategic Action Plan for Large Carnivore Conservation in Uganda aligns

with the country’s third National Development Plan (2020-2025) and Vision

2040, which recognize wildlife-based tourism as key to Uganda's

industrialization and middle-income status. This plan is a valuable resource for

stakeholders in conservation, community, and tourism development, supporting

the objectives of the National Development Plan and Vision 2040 documents.

Amidst challenges like habitat loss, deforestation, and rapid population growth

affecting large carnivores in Uganda, the plan addresses the urgent need to

protect these species and their habitats. It provides updated information on

African lions, leopards, and spotted hyenas in six protected areas, aiding the

government and stakeholders in making informed conservation decisions.

The plan identifies key policies, gaps, and opportunities for large carnivore

species conservation in Uganda, aiming to garner support from local, regional,

and international stakeholders, as well as partners and donors. This

collaborative effort seeks to implement actions outlined in the plan, fostering

the long-term conservation and management of large carnivore species in

Uganda, with a specific focus on lions, leopards, hyenas, cheetahs, and wild

hunting dogs.

I therefore encourage all stakeholders, policy makers and the general public to

use this plan to enhance conservation of large carnivore species in Uganda, for

the benefit of our tourism industry and proper functioning of their habitats and

ecosystems for the benefit and survival of humankind.

Preface

Hon Col. (Rtd.) Tom R. Butime

MINISTER FOR TOURISM, WILDLIFE, AND ANTIQUITIES

10.

Preface

Foreword

Today, Uganda finds itself at a juncture where some carnivore populations are

under immense pressure, especially in the country’s southwest and far north,

where lions are threatened with local extinction. In Murchison Falls National

Park, carnivore species appear to be doing well regionally with some of the

highest densities in Africa recorded in the Nile Delta. This Strategic Action Plan

for Large Carnivore Species Conservation in Uganda contains strategies to

increase viable carnivore species populations, especially lion (Panthera leo)

populations, by 30% in Uganda’s national parks and wildlife reserves over the

next decade. If communities, conservation organisations, non-governmental

organisations (NGO) and scientific community can strategically partner with the

Uganda Wildlife Authority, pool and effectively target their limited resources,

significant progress will be made in attaining this goal. The African lion in

particular is one of the critically threatened carnivore species in the country.

Uganda’s lion population decreased drastically from the 1970s and 1980s

populations, due to political instability and the breakdown in the rule of law,

which resulted in the illegal hunting of wildlife in places like Queen Elizabeth

and Murchison Falls National Parks. Lions, which previously occurred across

most of the savannah parks in Uganda, now only exist in the larger national

parks of Murchison Falls National Park (MFNP), Kidepo Valley National Park

(KVNP), and Queen Elizabeth National Parks (QENP). Even the recent lion

population studies and survey results (2018-2023), indicate declining population

trends with an estimated 39 and 12 lions remaining in Queen and Kidepo

National Parks respectively. On a positive note, the lion population in MFNP

appears to be faring far better with an estimated 240 individual lions in the

park, presenting the park as one of the highest lion population density

conservation areas in Africa.

This second edition of the ten-year Strategic Action Plan for Large Carnivore

Species Conservation in Uganda presents objectives, strategies and actions, first

for mitigating threats to large carnivores so as to maintain viable populations in

their habitats in Uganda and second, strategies designed to base on scientific

data and long-term monitoring to boost large carnivore populations and their

conservation. The plan highlights park-specific threats and population status

assessments factoring in local contexts, park size, land use, and conservation

and stakeholder partner conservation organizations ready and willing to

collaborate with the management of UWA. The plan also highlights the

estimated budget allocation of resources required for large carnivore species

conservation and management for the next ten years. The Strategic Plan was

prepared through a rigorous consultative process involving active participation

of local, regional and international stakeholders. The development process

followed IUCN best practices and guidelines for the development of a species

national strategy and action plan for large carnivore conservation.

11.

Foreword

Conserving for Generations

Professor James Kalema

CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Foreword

Foreword 12.

12.

Now that this Strategic Action Plan for Large Carnivore Species has been

endorsed and launched, I call upon every stakeholder, policy maker, and

managers with an interest in large carnivore species conservation in Uganda to

support and promote its implementation.

AWF

African Wildlife Foundation

B4R

Biodiversity for Resilience

KVNP

Kidepo Valley National Park

KWS

Kenya Wildlife Services

LMNP

Lake Mburo National Park

MFNP

Murchison Falls National Park

MTWA

Ministry of Tourism Wildlife and Antiquities

MoU

Memorandum of Understanding

NGO

Non-Governmental Organisations

10.

PUWR

Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve

11.

QENP

Queen Elizabeth National Park

12.

SECR

Spatial capture-recapture

13.

TSWR

Toro Semliki Wildlife Reserve

14.

UCF

Uganda Conservation Foundation

15.

UTB

Uganda Tourism Board

16.

UWA

Uganda Wildlife Authority

17.

UWEC

Uganda Wildlife Education Centre

18.

UWRTI

Uganda Wildlife Research and Training

Institute

19.

WCS

Wildlife Conservation Society

20.

WWF

World Wide Fund for Nature

Acronyms

13.

Acronyms

Abundance:

Total number of individuals in a given area at a

specific time.

Accuracy:

Measure of how close a population estimate is to

true population size.

Bias:

Difference between the estimated and true

population size.

Capture-recapture:

This refers to the capturing and recapturing of an

individual animal (usually photographic). In this

case it can also be synonymous with sighting and

re-sighting an individual lion.

Density:

Number of animals per given unit area (e.g.

lions/100 km2).

Detection:

Defined as the positive identification of an

individual on a given day.

Extinct:

A taxon that is considered extinct when it no

longer has living members in any area of its

historical occurrence.

Extirpated:

A species that has been completely eradicated

from an area where it previously existed.

IUCN Red List:

A list of globally threatened species that

represents the categories; Extinct, Critically

Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable, Near

Threatened, or Least Concern (the IUCN Red List

has become an important tool for defining

conservation status and subsequent action at

international, national, and thematic levels; the

existing definitions are based on a series of

criteria).

Population Closure:

Assumption that population does not change

during an estimation exercise. No death, birth,

immigration or emigration of animals into the

study area occurs.

Population Estimate:

An approximation of the true population size

based upon a given method and sampling

procedure.

Spatial Capture Recapture:

A framework for the estimation of animal

populations using unique identity features and

capture recapture statistics.

Glossary

14.

Glossary

Executive Summary

Large carnivores in Uganda’s context refer to; African Lions (Panthera leo),

Leopards (Panthera pardus), Spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), Cheetahs

(Acinonyx jubatus), and African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). These carnivores are

not only a critical component of Uganda’s tourism industry but they also play a

key ecological role in ensuring a healthy ecosystem where they occur. Some of

these species are globally recognised and have significantly contributed to

Uganda’s economy, such as the iconic tree climbing lions of the Ishasha sector

in the Queen Elizabeth National Park, which are highly sought out for tourism

purposes and are valued at roughly US$ 14,000 per individual. Worryingly, the

populations of these carnivores have been in a state of decline throughout their

natural habitat across Uganda for over a decade. Indeed, results of the censuses

for these carnivores undertaken in 2018, 2022, and 2023 show that this is

particularly the case in the Kidepo Valley and Queen Elizabeth National Parks.

Concerned about this state of carnivore conservation in Uganda, the Uganda

Government, through its wildlife statutory institutions, partners and

stakeholders, embarked on a strategic planning process to address threats to

these carnivores and ensure their survival into the future. The planning process

adopted a participatory approach of key stakeholders and between May 8th and

10th 2023; a consultative workshop was held to formulate a revised second

edition of the Strategic Action Plan for Large Carnivore Species Conservation in

Uganda for the next ten years (2024-2034). This workshop brought together

experts from the country’s relevant protected areas, Uganda Wildlife Authority

Technical Staff, international NGOs, donors, independent scientists, and

research institutions to ensure credible data on carnivore population status and

threats faced by these species was used. It is upon this data that feasible and

relevant strategies were formulated, with the hope that if successfully

implemented, this will halt the decline and ensure positive population growth

trends for these large carnivores. The identified prioritised key threats upon

which this 10-year strategic plan is woven are:

1 - Poaching or illegal killing of large carnivores mainly through snare and wheel

trap poaching. This activity targets the prey of lions, leopards, and hyenas e.g.

Uganda kob, Cape buffalo, impala, and topi. This loss of preferred prey

threatens carnivores because they expand their range size due to a lack of

resources. They are also often caught as bycatch even though they are not the

targeted animals for poachers. Killing of lions for their body parts as

contrabands on international markets or ritualistic cultural practices and beliefs

among communities neighboring protected areas is another threat and has been

directly observed in Queen Elizabeth’s Ishasha sector, and Kidepo Valley

National Park.

2 - The conflict between large carnivores and human populations from

communities neighbouring Ugandan protected areas. This is characterized by

retaliatory killing usually through poisoning leftover carcasses following

carnivores preying on domestic animals both inside and outside protected areas.

15.

Executive Summary

Executive Summary 16.

16.

3 - Habitat degradation and destruction. This is characterised by invasive plant

species that make the habitat unsuitable for preferred large carnivore prey. This

may also be driven by disturbances through activities such as cattle grazing.

Infrastructure developments such as construction of roads through carnivore

habitats or undertaking oil exploration activities as well as uncontrolled tourist

visits to carnivore sightings also represent threats. The driving forces for these

threats is increasing human population, unsustainable development programs

such as agriculture and climate change with global warming related issues.

4 - Lack of awareness and an appreciation for carnivores. This cuts across

different levels; at the policy level, policy makers may not appreciate the

contribution of carnivores to the development of the national economy, mainly

through the tourism industry or the role that large carnivores have as keystone

species for a healthy ecosystem. At a local level, the perception that carnivores

are destructive agents and an enemy to humans also serves as a threat to any co-

existence.

5 - Lack of credible, timely and long-term research data upon which to make

sound decisions for successful intervention in conservation of carnivores. This is

exemplified by uncoordinated carnivore conservation interventions, which are

not evaluated in time to provide documented lessons for decision makers.

After careful assessment of the threats faced by carnivores, participants to the

formulation of this Strategic Action Plan for Large Carnivore Species

Conservation in Uganda (2024 -2034) devised the following vision, mission, and

five key objectives for the plan.

Vision: Sustainable and viable populations of large carnivores in a healthy

ecosystem in Uganda.

Goal: An increase of at least 30% of viable populations of large carnivore

species in Uganda by 2034.

The objectives are:

To reduce the poaching rates of large carnivores and carnivore prey base inside

Protected Areas by at least 50%.

To maintain and improve the quality and extent of possible suitable habitats of

large carnivore species inside and outside Protected Areas.

To enhance human–large carnivore coexistence inside and outside Protected

Areas.

To enhance evidence based decision-making processes for large carnivore

conservation.

To establish and operationalise coordination and collaboration mechanisms for

large carnivore conservation in Uganda.

It is important to note that this national Strategic Plan for Large Carnivore

Conservation (2024 – 2034), provides a national framework or guide for

planning site-specific actions and specific species. Through site-specific annual

operational work plans, respective protected area management teams, and their

respective stakeholders will be responsible for making tailor-made activities to

address management needs for specific species each year. This is for

implementation at the conservation area level, both inside and outside the

protected areas. Annual reviews and planning processes at specific sites will

ensure effective collaboration and coordination among all stakeholders working

at particular sites. This strategic plan also provides an estimate of budgeting

framework for coordinated fundraising and guiding site specific managers to

produce annual budgets. This will also assist in coordinating financial and

human resources for realising the strategic interventions stipulated in this

strategic plan 2024 – 2034.

Executive Summary

Executive Summary 17.

17.

Chapter 1

1.1. Introduction

Five large carnivore species still exist in Uganda; African Lion (Panthera leo),

African Leopard (Panthera pardus), Spotted Hyena (Crocuta Crocuta), Cheetah

(Acinonyx jubatus), and Wild Dog (Lycaon pictus). The first three species form

the mainstay of this national strategy and action plan for large carnivore

conservation. Conservation of Uganda’s large carnivores and their habitats, and

maintaining their ecological integrity and function requires scientific evidence

and a concerted strategy and actions. Uganda as a country is experiencing rapid

human population growth and economic development (Wakabi 2006). The

impact of these changes on the natural resources base is reinforced by the

impacts of habitat degradation and climate change. These negative impacts

underpin the importance and need of ensuring that protected areas in the

country receive management support and responsible tourism that contributes

to sustainable economic development. This document presents an opportunity to

use the latest gold standard data on large carnivores in Uganda (based on

methods in Elliot & Gopalaswamy 2017), highlighting the positives of where

these species are doing well and also underscore the places and situations where

their populations are under pressure, to ensure bettered management.

The most immediate threats to large carnivores in Uganda include; direct killing

caused by wire snare and wheel trap poaching, poaching of their preferred prey,

habitat loss, conflict between carnivores and livestock rearing communities (and

the associated poisoning and retaliatory killings), and a lack of resources to

effectively tackle these problems at the managerial level. This plan has been

designed in a way that it highlights the respective threats against the backdrop

of each protected area that was assessed during the last national population

survey so as to be specific in each area’s unique context. As an example in

KVNP, lions appear to be directly targeted by poachers in the Narus Valley, while

in MFNP they are caught largely as by-catch in snares when poachers target

their prey. Against these area-specific threats, and the status of their respective

populations, strategic interventions and possible actions have been highlighted.

Corresponding core conservation stakeholders at respective protected areas that

could be involved in the implementation of these national strategic

interventions have been identified. This second edition of the Strategic Action

Plan for Large Carnivore Species Conservation in Uganda thus provides an

opportunity and a framework to bring together key stakeholders involved in

large carnivore species conservation and highlights nodes of potential joint and

collaborative activities for effective conservation of these species in a coherent

manner. The response to a questionnaire administered during the national

stakeholders’ consultative workshop, made it clearer that stakeholders’

collaboration is a critical factor in Uganda’s carnivore conservation program.

18.

Chapter 1 - Introduction

The implementation of the first strategic plan for conservation of large

carnivores, which was formulated in 2010, expired in 2020 when it had not been

effectively implemented. The poor performance was attributed to the lack of

adequate financial resources, poor coordination and collaboration among key

stakeholders, and interruption of Covid-19 with the resultant lock down. These

carnivore species’ populations continue to dwindle despite the fact that they are

amongst the most iconic species in the country for both ecological and economic

reasons. The cheetah and wild dog populations are rare and near extirpation in

Uganda. African lions, leopards and hyenas are a key component of Uganda’s

tourism industry as they support a rich and vibrant tourism economy driving both

national and local economic growth. In the Ishasha sector of Queen Elizabeth

National Park, the tree-climbing lions (Figure 1) are internationally famous, for

instance, they have been a focus of Disney and BBC documentaries. Lions in this

region are estimated to generate approximately US$ 14,000 individually,

contributing significant funds from experiential tourism to the local tourism

economy. Similarly, night game drives for African leopards in LMNP generated

US$ 40,000 for the park in 2018 alone (Braczkowski et al. 2020). Large

carnivores are also key to wildlife management as they are components of trophic

integrity and proper functioning of the protected areas network and healthy

ecosystems functioning.

Currently efforts are not synchronized, activities overlap, and potential

synergies are not harmonized. Collaboration between all actors in the carnivore

species conservation landscapes in Uganda will be key for successful

implementation of the strategies and activities identified in this Strategic Action

Plan to achieve the overall goal of increasing carnivore populations (especially

lions) by 30%.

It is envisaged that the development process of this Strategic Action Plan, will go

a long way to consolidate stakeholder engagement and garner support for the

implementation of the plan. The Strategic Action Plan is also unique in that it

provides a framework in which specific actions for each carnivore species’

conservation within each individual protected area is developed and

implemented by the relevant management and stakeholders. Implementing

conservation activities that will conserve large carnivore species in Uganda also

supports the conservation of many other wildlife species, including many

restricted range and other globally threatened species supported by the same

habitats (particularly carnivore prey).

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.2. Rationale for the Strategic Action Plan

19.

Figure 1. Two African lions rest in a euphorbia Euphorbia candelabrum on the Kasenyi plains,

QENP. This rare tree-climbing culture is only found in three populations in East Africa:

Tanzania’s Se rengeti, Lake Manyara, and in western Uganda. This culture sees most if not all

members of these populations engaging in the behaviour of climbing trees (typically between

07:00 and 18:00, and in Euphorbia, Fig, or Acacia species).

Chapter 1 - Rationale for the Strategic Action Plan

In light of the above, the Uganda Government through its line Ministry of

Tourism Wildlife and Antiquities (MTWA) and the wildlife statutory institution,

UWA, in partnership with other stakeholders, undertook a consultative process

to develop the second edition of Strategic Action Plan that would see the

reversal of the declining trends of large carnivore species populations in the

country. The plan proposes timelines, financing, and coordination frameworks

that would enable effective conservation measures against the existing threats

to maintain viable carnivore populations in Uganda for their sustained

conservation. Moreover it provides the latest cutting edge science surrounding

carnivore numbers in Uganda.

20.

1.3. Process for Developing the New Strategic

Action Plan

The Strategic Action Plan for Large Carnivore Species Conservation in Uganda

development process started with preparatory meetings and a three-day

consultative workshop held at the Protea Hotel Marriot in Kampala from 8th to

10th May 2023 (Figure 2). The consultative workshop was attended by

representatives from 23 different institutions. The workshop included relevant

conservation actors and stakeholders. During plenary and group sessions

participants listed and prioritised threats by park location to generate strategies

to address these threats.

Another objective of the stakeholders’ consultative workshop was to present the

results of a recent nationwide survey of large carnivores across six protected

areas, assess the most recent information on the threats facing these species and

update the expired carnivore conservation strategic plan (2010-2020).

Therefore, this second edition has been developed using updated information on

large carnivore species populations across six of Uganda’s most critical

protected area systems in the form of density and abundance information for

lions, leopards, and hyenas. Considering that data for the first edition were

based on opportunistic sightings (for leopards and spotted hyenas), it is believed

that the data used in this second edition that were generated from systematic

survey methods, presents the most robust and accurate picture of carnivore

conservation status in the country for the 2022-2023 time period.

The vision and the goal of the strategic plan were formulated in light of the

expired Strategic Action Plan (2010-2020) and based on recommendations put

forward by stakeholders during the stakeholders’ consultative workshop held in

May 2023. The strategies, objectives, targets and priority activities in this

revised strategic plan were developed following existing international and

national frameworks, and stakeholder consultations which identified key threats

to these species. The vision, goal, and objectives are big picture and holistic,

while the targets and activities are specific, implementable, measurable and

collaborative.

The stakeholders’ consultative workshop was preceded by drafting the strategic

actions for approval and launch by the Minister of MTWA. The drafting process

considered all available data as an evidence for conservation status of large

carnivores’ species in Uganda to enable development of an informed Strategic

Action Plan that will inform conservation of large carnivores’ species at

different levels of management and ecosystems.

Figure 2. Participants from the Strategic National Action Plan Workshop held from 8th to 10th

May 2023 at Protea Hotel Kampala.

Chapter 1 - Process for Developing the New Strategic Action Plan

Chapter 1 - Process for Developing the New Strategic Action Plan 21.

21.

Chapter 2

2.0. Conservation and Distribution Status of

Large Carnivore Species in Uganda

Monitoring the population status of large carnivores is notoriously difficult

since they are naturally cryptic nocturnal and wide ranging. In order to address

this challenge, a variety of methods have been used, often within the same sites.

The use of different methods, such as call-in surveys, track counts, and expert

opinion, has also generated debates as to the actual numbers of large carnivore

population trends, since these methods have variable and questionable

reliability (Gopalaswamy et al. 2015; Belant et al. 2019; Dröge et al. 2020).

In light of these limitations, UWA adopted a robust and standardized framework

to assess large carnivore populations in 2022. This was achieved through

assembling a technical team to assist in conducting a national survey to provide

robust estimates of large carnivores in six key wildlife areas: KVNP, PUWR,

MFNP, TSWR, QENP and LMNP (Figure 4).

The team used methods that are the current gold standard in large carnivore

monitoring and were also recently used in a national survey of lions and other

large carnivores in Kenya, which was conducted by the Kenya Wildlife Service

(KWS) and Wildlife Research and Training Institute (Elliot et al. 2021; Broekhuis

et al. 2022).

22.

Figure 3. UWA African lion monitoring ranger, Jimmy Kisembo, assisting with the 2017-2018

African lion survey on the Kasenyi Plains QENP.

Chapter 2 - Conservation and Distribution Status of Large Carnivore Species

Figure 4. The si tes surveyed during the 2022 African lion and large carnivore survey. Silhouettes

denote species and search encounter tracks and camera trap locations denote the regions of each

area surveyed.

23.

Chapter 2 - Conservation and Distribution Status of Large Carnivore Species

2.1. Field Methods

2.1.1. African Lions

Chapter 2 - Field Methods: African Lions

The fieldwork made use of unstructured spatial sampling (Elliot & Gopalaswamy

2017), and was deployed in all three sites in Uganda where lions still exist, i.e.

QECA, MFNP and KVNP. While efforts were made to cover each of these

national parks in their entirety, this was not always possible due to restricted

road networks. Trained observation teams used vehicles to conduct fieldwork.

They actively searched for lions while recording drive efforts and their location

or sampling occasion for each lion sighting. In an effort to improve detection

rates, playback protocols were utilised (Western et al. 2022). The playback

protocol was conducted at night and consists of broadcasting sounds at 95DB to

attract lions. Sites for playback were chosen either opportunistically or when

fresh tracks had been found. Upon arrival at a site, the observation team waited

in silence for 10 minutes, then broadcast for 5 min, repeating this cycle and

rotating the speaker 90° until four broadcasts had been completed or lions had

appeared. In this manner, each playback lasted a maximum of 70 min. Standard

sounds that have been successfully used to attract lions in traditional playback

surveys were used eg. buffalo (Syncerus caffer) calf in distress, squealing pig,

squabbling hyenas (Crocuta crocuta); see Cozzi et al. (2013). The team recorded

the spatial location and date of each playback. When lions were observed,

wherever possible, a series of close-up photographs were taken of each

individual. The photographs were later used to unambiguously differentiate

individual lions based on their unique whisker vibrissae, spots and other

distinguishing features (Pennycuick & Rudnai 1970). Each individual was

assigned a unique identification and gender based on secondary sexual

characteristics. Determination of age was based on phenotypic features (Miller

et al. 2016). Individuals estimated to be less than one year were omitted from

final analysis, since lion mortality in the first year is typically high (Packer et al.

1988) and including these individuals could violate assumptions of population

closure (Otis et al. 1978).

Figure 5. An adult male African lion resting in a sycamore fig tree in the Ishasha sector of

QENP.

24.

2.1.2. African Leopards and Spotted Hyenas

To detect leopards and spotted hyenas,

an array of remote camera traps were

set in areas of interest in the following

protected areas: Queen Elizabeth,

Murchison Falls, Kidepo Valley, Lake

Mburo national parks, and in Pian Upe

and Toro Semliki wildlife reserves. It

should be appreciated that these

protected areas were too vast to

exhaustively cover with camera traps.

Instead, specific areas of interest were

chosen within each site. As an example,

in MFNP, the Nile delta was selected as

an area of interest. While this does not

provide protected area-wide estimates,

it provides estimates that are

comparable over time, if the surveys

were to be repeated.

Camera traps were set roughly 2 km

apart and were deployed along trails,

game paths, roads, and drainage lines to

increase the detection probability for

these species. The effort invested in

each protected area ranged widely

(Tables 2 and 3) but generally averaged

55 days per site with 30-55 locations.

At each camera trap station, a pair of

camera traps were deployed in an effort

to obtain photographs of left and right

flanks. The photographs were later used

to identify individual leopards and

spotted hyenas based on their unique

pelage patterns (Dheer et al. 2022). In

addition, the GPS location of where they

were photographed, the date, and

functionality of the camera traps was

recorded.

Figure 6. African leopard detected on remote

camera trap in Lake Mburo.

Figure 7. Spotted Hyena photographed in

Kyambura Gorge, QENP.

Chapter 2 - Field Methods: African Leopards and Spotted Hyenas

Chapter 2 - Field Methods: African Leopards and Spotted Hyenas 25.

25.

2.1.3. Cheetahs and African Wild Dogs

Large carnivore surveys for African lions (search-encounter), African leopards,

and spotted hyenas (remote camera trapping) were designed in a way that if

encountered, cheetahs and wild dogs could be incorporated into the analytical

framework. Search-encounter using unstructured sampling has indeed been used

with great success for cheetahs in Kenya (Broekhuis and Gopalaswamy 2016).

This unstructured sampling approach also deals with the cheetah-specific

behaviour of play trees, which traditional camera trapping along large roads and

trails may miss (Marnewick et al. 2008). In Uganda’s case there are only two

landscapes with historic information about the presence of both species in the

past decade. These are the Kidepo Valley National Park and Pian Upe Wildlife

Reserve. Both sites have had a low frequency of sightings recorded in recent

years, with a single male cheetah coalition regularly being photographed by

tourists in the Narus Valley in Kidepo, Karamoja Overland Safaris staff regularly

reporting cheetahs in the northern region of Pian Upe, and a single smart phone

photograph being taken of an African wild dog in Kidepo on 27 June 2023.

Because of the fact that our lion surveys were regularly implemented off track

we anticipated encountering these species if they were present in the

environment.

Chapter 2 - Field Methods: Cheetahs and African Wild Dogs

Chapter 2 - Field Methods: Cheetahs and African Wild Dogs 26.

26.

2.2. Analytical Methods

For all three species, the fieldwork was designed to be combined with spatially

explicit capture-recapture models (Royle & Young 2008). To describe the

manner in which individual animals were detected (the observation process), we

compiled standard capture-recapture matrices consisting of individuals, trap

locations (defined by discrete pixels), and sampling occasions. For each trap, on

each sampling occasion we noted whether or not the trap was active, and

included an additional covariate (logarithm of kilometers driven) to account for

our search effort during the lion surveys (Elliot & Gopalaswamy 2017). We also

included trap and sampling occasion-specific covariates for the playback

protocol (Western et al. 2022).

For each species we defined a set of a-priori candidate models (defined in

Appendix 4), which were implemented using Bayesian spatial capture-recapture

analyses. More detailed descriptions of the analytical methods and model

selection criteria are described in a scientific peer-reviewed publication that

details all of these surveys (Braczkowski et al. in review), and also in other

publications (Elliot & Gopalaswamy 2017; Braczkowski et al. 2020; Elliot et al.

2020; Elliot et al. 2021; Braczkowski et al. 2022; Western et al. 2022).

Figure 8. Bosco Atukwatse, field team co-lead of the 2022 Kidepo Valley and Queen Elizabeth

National Park carnivore surveys shows assistants how to segregate lion sighting data on their

laptops.

27.

Chapter 2 - Analytical Methods

Location

Survey Date

Survey

Duration

Area of

inference

(km2)

Lion Density

(Posterior SD)

Lion Abundance

(Posterior SD)

QENP

26 Aug – 29

Nov

96 days

2400

1.64 (0.33)

39.72 (7.96)

MFNP

5 Apr – 7 Jul

94 days

4059

7.43 (1.05)

240 (33.99)

KVNP

31 Aug – 9 Dec

101 days

1430

0.87 (0.46)

12.44 (6.53)

2.3. Species-Specific Results

2.3.1. African Lions

The first national survey of lions was conducted in 2009 and 2010. A commonly

used technique, playback surveys (e.g. Ogutu & Dublin 1998), was employed to

estimate the number of lions (and spotted hyaenas) in Queen Elizabeth,

Murchison Falls and Kidepo Valley NPs. The fieldwork consisted of driving to

pre-defined points (spaced 5 km apart) and broadcasting a buffalo calf distress

call for 30 minutes. The results of these surveys are written up by Omoya et al.

(2014), and form the basis of the Strategic National Strategy and Action Plan for

Large Carnivore Conservation in Uganda 2010 - 2020. This study estimated 416

lions in Uganda, with 144 in Queen Elizabeth, 132 in Murchison Falls, 132 in

Kidepo Valley, 5 in Toro Semuliki, and 3 in Lake Mburo.

The second national survey of lions was conducted in 2022, using unstructured

spatial sampling combined with spatial capture-recapture analyses as described

above (Table 1). These methods have become the gold standard for monitoring

not only lions, but large carnivores across the world. Spatial capture-recapture

(SECR) models are appealing because they are statistically robust, and provide

accurate and precise inferences of key population parameters, such as spatial

density and abundance, sex ratios, and movements (Royle et al. 2013). In terms

of data collection, this framework is attractive since it can accommodate a

variety of field methods designed to obtain individual identities. This means that

different field protocols can be used within and between sites, with the results

being directly comparable. This is advantageous, since there is enormous

heterogeneity across the lion range, meaning that there is no one field method

that is appropriate everywhere.

Table 1. Lions - Summary table of results for sightings-based surveys conducted in 2022

within an SECR framework.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Lions

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Lions 28.

28.

Note: The SECR results are presented with posterior standard deviations in brackets. The

estimates provided are for lions over the age of 1 year.

2.3.1.1. African Lions in the Queen Elizabeth

National Park

Historic Figures (Table 2)

1999: Total counts using individual identification were conducted (Driciru et al.

1999). In total, 116 individual lions were identified. Since this study did not cover

the entire park, the authors reasoned that an “estimate in the range of 160 to

210 lions for the whole park seems reasonable” (Driciru et al. 1999).

2002: The Uganda Large Predator Program at Makerere University estimated

206 individuals.

2004: Citing personal communication with Siefert and Driciru, a figure of 200

lions (range: 140-260) was provided by Bauer and van der Merwe (2004).

2006: Aerial surveys of large mammals were conducted in 2006, and Treves et

al. (2009) converted this to an estimated abundance of 140 lions in the NP.

2008: During November and December 2008, a playback survey was conducted

to estimate the number of lions in Queen Elizabth NP (Omoya et al. 2014). The

fieldwork consisted of driving to pre-defined points (spaced 5 km apart) and

broadcasting a buffalo calf distress call for 30 minutes. A total of 35 playbacks

were conducted and the authors estimated that this equated to a sampled area

of 268 km2, which is 11% of the NP and 19% of the 1,386 km2 area defined by the

study as the ‘area suitable for lions’. Density was estimated within the 268 km2

area, and extrapolated to the 1,369 km2 area to provide an abundance estimate

of 144 (SE: 22) lions.

2010: In 2010, a monitoring project conducted by the WCS and Wildlife and

Animal Resource Management department (WARM) of Makerere University,

recorded 82-87 individuals within the park.

2018: From 10 November 2017 to 10 February 2018, a survey using unstructured

spatial sampling, combined with spatial capture-recapture models (consistent

with the 2022 national survey) was conducted (Braczkowski et al. 2020). An

estimate of 71 (PSD=11) lions over the age of one year was provided.

Current Status

Between 26th August and 29th November 2022, a repeat of the 2018 survey was

conducted with the same level of vehicle-based drive effort (8232 km). This

resulted in 171 detections of 19 individual lions over the age of one year.

Abundance was estimated to be 39 (PSD=7.9) lions. Overall density was

estimated to be 1.64 (PSD=0.33) individuals/100 km2. This was much lower than

the 2018 estimate of (2.7 (PSD=0.47) individuals/100 km2, Braczkowski et al.

2020).

29.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Lions in QENP

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Lions in QENP 30

1977-

1981a

1994-

1996

1997-

1999b

2000-

2002c

2004d

2005

2010e

2013

2018f

2022g

QENP

400

185

206

200

144

MFNP

181-467

350

263

132

215

240

KVNP

35-60

132

LMNP

TSWR

5-15

Sources: a Din (1978) and Va n Orsdol (1981) ; b (Driciru 1999, 2005; Driciru, Siefert & Mapesa, (2005); c

Uganda Large Predator Program (2000–2002); d Bauer & Van Der Merwe (20 04); e Omoya et al (2014);

Tutilo Mudumba & Sophia Jingo (2013); f Braczkowski et a l (2020b); g Brac zkows ki et al (in revi ew and this

action plan). Note the re ar e 16 captive lion s in UWEC as of 2025 exclud ed from these wild num bers.

Table 2. Lion Population Trends in Uganda

(b )

Figure 9. In 2022, field data on lions was collected using unstructured spatial sampling

protocols. Tile (a) details the field effort: In total, 8,232 km was driven while searching for lions.

This led to 171 detections of 19 individual lions over the age of one year. Tile (b) depicts an

output from the spatial capture recapture analysis and shows pixel-specific lion density within

the effective sample area (created by calculating a buffer around the traps equivalent to 2.44 *

the estimated value of sigma (an estimated parameter that is informative about movement). In

this area (2048 km2) we estimate a total of 33.59 lions. If we consider the entire 2400 km2 we

estimate 39.34 individuals (PSD=7.96).

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Lions in QENP

Discussion

It is not possible to directly compare the estimates from 1999-2010 to the

current estimates, owing to unaccounted for variation in sampling techniques.

However, the evidence points to a sharp decline of lions since 2008. Omoya et

al. (2014) estimated lions of all ages, whereas the 2018 and 2022 surveys only

estimated lions over the age of one year. Without accounting for that difference,

these data suggest that a decline of 51% may have occurred between 2008 and

2018, with strong evidence of a 45% decline between 2018 and 2022. The 2018

and 2022 surveys are directly comparable. Numerous mortality events occurred

in the time period between the last two surveys, including the poisoning of

eleven lions in Hamkungu Fishing Village in April of 2018, the poisoning of six

lions in the Ishasha sector in March of 2021, and the electrocution of three lions

in April 2022.

31.

2.3.1.2. African Lions in the Murchinson Falls

National Park

Figure 10. Field photos from the 2022 African lion survey in the Murchison Falls National Park.

Tile (a) shows field team members sweeping the Nyamsika river for lion presence. Tile (b)

shows field team members Herbert Kigongo and Silvan Musobozi training to use photographic

equipment used to collect lion ID data. Tile (c) shows one of the lionesses identified in the Nile

Delta region of the park, and Tile (d) shows one of the field vehicles used in the survey

exploring the grasslands near Tangi gate.

Historic Figures (Table 2)

2000-2002: A range of 181-467 lions is attributed to a report by Driciru et al.

2005.

2004: Citing personal communication with Siefert and Driciru, a figure of 350

lions (range: 280-420) was provided by Bauer and van der Merwe (2004).

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Lions in MFNP

2005: A figure of 263 lions is attributed to a report by Driciru 2005.

2009: Between September and November 2009, a playback experiment was

conducted to estimate the number of lions across the 5,045 km2 Murchison

Conservation Area (Omoya et al. 2014). The fieldwork consisted of driving to

pre-defined points (spaced 5 km apart) and broadcasting a buffalo calf distress

call for 30 minutes. A total of 72 playbacks were conducted and the authors

estimated that this equated to a sampled area of 550 km2, which is 11% of the

NP and 13.7% of the 4,004 km2 area defined by the study as the ‘area suitable

for lions’. Density was estimated within the 550 km2 area, and extrapolated to

the 4,004 km2 area to provide an abundance estimate of 132 (SE: 24) lions.

2021: From 2016 to 2021, vehicle-based surveys were conducted to monitor the

individuals within five prides in a 1,000 km2 study area. Based on these

observations, Montgomery et al. (2023) calculated a “minimum number” of 139

lions for their 1,000 km2 study area.

Current Status

As part of the national survey, fieldwork was undertaken between 5th April and

7th July 2022, using the methods described above. During this survey the field

teams recorded 13,442 km of vehicle-based search effort and conducted 40

playbacks (see the Field Methods section above for details on these protocols).

This resulted in 181 detections of 57 individual lions over the age of one year.

Abundance was estimated to be 240 (PSD=33.9) lions over the age of one year

(Figure 11). This estimate is for an area totaling 4,059 km2, which is the area

that was effectively sampled, and excludes the south-eastern region and

Budongo areas of the park. Density was estimated to be 7.43 (PSD=1.05)

individuals/100 km2 but ranged widely and in the Nile Delta area, density was

estimated to be 15.21 (PSD=2.37) lions/100 km2.

32.

Figure 11. In 2022, field data on lions was collected using unstructured spatial sampling

protocols. The figure details the field effort: In total, 13,442 km was driven while searching for

lions, and 40 playbacks were conducted. This led to 181 detections of 57 individual lions over the

age of one year.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Lions in MFNP

Figure 12. Output from the spatial capture recapture analysis, showing pixel-specific lion density

within the effective sample area (created by calcu lating a buffer around the traps equiv alent to

2.44 * the estimated value of sigma (an estimated parameter that is informative about

movement). This area was equivalent to 4059.3 km2 and in this area we estimate an abundance

of 240.08 lions (PSD=34).

Discussion

The 2009 survey estimated 132 lions (SE=24) across an area of 4,004 km2, while

the current estimates point to at least 240 lions (within 4,059 km2), excluding

the Budongo Forest and the park’s southeastern region which we could not

access by vehicle. It is difficult to know if lions in Murchison Falls have

increased from the 2010 call up surveys or if the abundance differences between

our 2022 survey and those noted in Omoya et al. (2013) are methodological. It is

noted that the 2009 survey results were based on a large-scale extrapolation

(13.7% of the area was estimated to be sampled) and there was a lack of

sampling effort across virtually the entire south-eastern region.

It is unknown to what degree Kony’s rebel (lord’s resistance army – LRA)

activities and historic poaching impacted the Murchison lion population during

the 2009 survey. However, we suggest that our 2022 survey results for both the

Nile Delta and more broadly across the Park provide a robust baseline estimate

of both density and abundance. These data (especially in the Nile Delta) are

comparatively higher than many lion populations across Africa and are

suggestive of a strong breeding population of lions.

33.

Historic Figures (Table 2)

2000-2002: A range of 35-60 lions is attributed to a report by Driciru et al.

2005.

2004: Citing personal communication with Siefert and Driciru, a figure of 25

lions (range: 20-30) was provided by Bauer and van der Merwe (2004).

2009: Between March and April 2009, a playback experiment was conducted to

estimate the number of lions across the 1,442 km2 Kidepo Valley National Park

(Omoya et al. 2014). The fieldwork consisted of driving to pre-defined points

(spaced 5 km apart) and broadcasting a buffalo calf distress call for 30 minutes.

A total of 24 playbacks were conducted and the authors estimated that this

equated to a sampled area of 183 km2, which is 13% of the NP and 14% of the

1,284 km2 area defined by the study as the ‘area suitable for lions’. Density was

estimated within the 183 km2 area, and extrapolated to the 1,284 km2 area to

provide an abundance estimate of 132 (SE: 77) lions.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Lions in KVNP

2.3.1.3. African Lions in the Kidepo Valley

National Park

Figure 13. Output from the spatial capture recapture analysis and shows pixel-specific

lion density within the effective sample area (created by calcul ating a buffer around the

traps equivalent to 2.4 4 * the estimated value of sigma (an estimated parameter that is

informative about movement). This area was equal to 2555 km2 and in this we estimate

22.32 individual lions (PSD=11.67). If we consider the 1430 km2 national park alone we

estimate 12.44 individual lions.

34.

Current Status

As part of the national survey, fieldwork was undertaken between 31st August to

9th December 2022, in the Narus and Kidepo sections of the Kidepo Valley NP.

During this survey the field teams recorded 4,519 km of vehicle-based search

effort and conducted 41 playbacks (see the Field Methods section above for

details on these protocols). This resulted in 16 detections of five individual lions

over the age of one year (Figure 13).

Discussion

The 2009 call-in survey estimated 132 lions within Kidepo NP, whereas the latest

estimate is 12.44 lions in the 1430 km2 national park. While direct comparisons

between these figures are problematic, the evidence does suggest a severe

decline in the national park. For instance, the 24 playbacks conducted in 2009

resulted in 19 responses, whereas in 2022, almost double the number of

playbacks were conducted (41), plus 4,519 km of intensive search effort was

invested, and this resulted in only 16 detections. Large sections of Kidepo Valley

NP are thought to contain decent prey densities, and it is plausible that there is

tremendous recovery potential for lions in this park. As with the 2009 survey, in

2022 large sections of the park were not surveyed due to insecurity and poor

accessibility. While these continued challenges hamper a more comprehensive

understanding of the lions in Kidepo Valley NP, it is thought to be unlikely that

wildlife occurs in these unsampled areas at any notable density, since most of it

is thought to have been exterminated.

Omoya et al. (2014) reported that lions had been absent from the NP for several

years, but around 2014 there had been sightings of up to five lions (Omoya et al.

2014). The last known lion in LMNP (a mature ~10-12 year-old male) was

photographed on camera traps during a leopard survey in 2018 (Braczkowski et

al. 2022) and was last sighted by lodge owners in 2020 (Ralph Schenk pers.

comm). As a result, LMNP was not specifically surveyed for lions. However,

during the 2022 national survey, 32 camera trap stations were deployed over 50

days (1,377 camera trap nights). No lions were detected during this survey and it

is most likely that lions are now extinct from LMNP.

2.3.1.4. African Lions in the Lake Mburo

National Park

35.

Discussion

Lake Mburo National Park is increasingly being isolated from its original

environment as land use around it is increasingly becoming intensified through

agriculture (mainly in the form of modern cattle and small stock farms). This

disadvantages any future efforts to consider the Park as a lion conservation area,

considering the original lion-human conflicts that led to the extirpation of this

population.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Lions in KVNP

Indeed, during the 2022 national survey, 28 camera trap stations were deployed

over 61 days (858 camera trap nights). No lions were detected during this survey,

providing further evidence that lions have not recolonized PUWR.

Discussion

Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve was nearly degazzeted as a conservation area in the

late 1990s due to encroachment and uncontrolled access to its resources among

other threats. Its conservation status is now applauded as a success because of

UWA’s management intervention including translocations of some species such

as impalas, and Uganda Kobs. It is also thought that animal populations are on

the increase in the region. There is a serious partner – Space for Giants and a

sport hunting program, Karamoja Overland Safaris who are co-managing this area

with the Uganda Wildlife Authority, and revamping much of its infrastructure. Its

geographical location in eastern Uganda neighbouring Kenya and at the foothills

of Mt. Elgon National Park makes it ideal as a core component of the tourism

circuit in Uganda and Kenya. Its potential as an large carnivore and potential

African lion area needs to be explored further.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Lions in PUWR

2.3.1.6. African Lions in the Toro Semliki

Wildlife Reserve

Omoya et al. (2014) reported that there were few lions; two to eight in number,

in the TSWR. However, recent anecdotal information suggested that lions were

no longer present in this reserve. As a result, Toro Semliki was not specifically

surveyed for lions. Nevertheless, during the 2022 national carnivore survey, 25

camera trap stations were deployed over 39 days (407 camera trap nights). No

lions were detected during this survey, and it is most likely that lions are now

extinct from Toro Semliki Wildlife Reserve.

36.

2.3.1.5. African Lions in the Pian Upe Wildlife

Reserve

Lions are thought to have become locally extinct in Pian Upe several decades

ago. As a result, Pian Upe was not specifically surveyed for lions.

However, there is one management scenario where the park is completely fenced

off. The population of ungulates such as impalas and zebras could likely support

a couple of lion prides. This would boost the tourism potential of the Park and

attract more tourists, and generate increased revenue.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Leopards

2.3.2. African Leopards

The Research and Monitoring wing of UWA has never conducted a national

survey of leopards. There is therefore no empirically derived national estimate of

leopards in the country. As such, the first edition of this Action Plan only

featured sighting data from UWA rangers. This is partly due to the

complications of surveying leopards across their range, for they are known to

occur quite widely outside protected areas and are elusive animals by nature. No

effort has been made to assess the densities or abundance of this species outside

of the formally designated protected areas of Uganda to date.

Figure 14. Tiles (a and b) Students from Makerere University setting up cameras in collaboration

with Dr Tutilo Mudumba and Mihingo Lodge staff in the Lake Mburo National Park. Tiles (c and

d) show staff from Karamoja Overland Safaris erecting camera traps with UWA rangers and Dr

Alex Braczkowski and Miss Anna Crysell in the Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve

37.

At a protected area level, in 2018 systematic surveys were conducted in LMNP

and QENP to estimate leopard population numbers (Braczkowski et al. 2022). In

2022 and 2023, surveys were conducted in specific regions of interest in; QENP,

MFNP, KVNP, LMNP, PUWR and TSWR (Figure 14). Table 3 summarises the

results of this survey.

Location

Survey Date

Survey Duration

Area of

inference (km2)

Leopard

Density

(Posterior SD)

Leopard

Abundance

(Posterior SD)

QENP (Ishasha)

20 Dec 2022 –

28 Feb 2023

36 days Ishasha

805

1.48 (0.6)

11.91 (3.83)

MFNP

23 April - 20

June 2022

59 days

262

14.06 (2.7)

36.83 (6.95)

KVNP

14 Sept - 8 Dec

60 days

432

6.26 (2.3)

27.04 (9.96)

LMNP

2 March - 20

April 2022

50 days

370

11.58 (2.46)

42.85 (9.12)

PUWR

23 Feb - 23

April 2022

61 days

1357

1.6 (0.5)

21.65 (6.6)

TSWR

24 April – 1 June

2023

39 days

None detected

Table 3. Leopards - Summary table of results for camera trap surveys conducted in

2022 and 2023 within an SECR framework.

2.3.2.1. African Leopards in the Queen

Elizabeth National Park

Historic Figures

2018: Two leopard surveys were conducted in Queen Elizabeth in 2018. The first

covered the northern extent of Kasenyi, Mweya, and the craters area. This took

place from 8th March to 25th April 2018 and encompassed 44 camera-trap sites.

The second survey was conducted approximately 70 km south, across 30

locations in the Ishasha sector from 27th April 2018 to 24th June 2018. Each

respective survey estimated leopard densities of 5.03 (95% Highest Posterior

Density, HPD = 2.80–7.63) and 4.31 (95% HPD = 1.95–6.88) individuals/100 km2.

Current Status

In 2022 only the Ishasha survey yielded enough detections of leopards for a

credible estimate of leopard density. In this survey we obtained 21 detections of

7 individuals (2 males, 4 females, 1 unsexed) from 36 sampling days (732 trap

nights) and 23 sites. From these data we estimated a density of 1.48

leopards/100 km2 (PSD=0.57). This represents a near 70% reduction in the

density recorded.

38.

Note: The preliminary SECR results are presented with posterior standard deviations in brackets.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Leopards in QENP

Figure 15. Tile (a) Locations of camera traps in the 2022 Ishasha leopard survey along with their

corresponding leopard detections. Tile (b) depicts the 2.44 sigma area (805 km2) around our

camera traps in the Ishasha leopard survey. This area contained an estimated 11.91 individual

leopards (PSD=3.83).

(b )(a )

Discussion

It is plausible that the estimate we present here was strongly affected by a low

sample size, however the 95% confidence intervals still show a decline in the

density of leopards in the southern Ishasha region of the park (0.55-2.54

individuals/100 km2). It is critical to repeat this survey in 2024 and extend the

sampling frame to 45 days, and intensify the camera maintenance schedule. This

being said, the same sampling regime obtained 227 detections of 42 individual

hyenas, so sampling intensity in of itself cannot be blamed.

39.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Leopards in MFNP

Figure 16. Leopards photographed in the MFNP. T ile (a) shows a large male photographed in the

Buligi circuit. Tile (b) shows an individual photographed in the Commowealth Albert track of

the Delta region. Ti le (c) shows a female at the old Pakuba lodge pool, while tile (d) shows a

female photographed on the access road to the new Pakuba lodge. The estimates generated from

this leopard density estimate represent one of the highest in all of Africa.

Current Status

As part of the national survey of large carnivores, a survey of African leopards

was conducted in the Nile Delta region of the Murchison Falls National Park

from 23rd April to 20th June, spanning a total of 59 days and 1,603 trap nights.

This is the most important tourism area of the Park and also has the highest

observed densities of large carnivores, both lions and hyenas. A total of 99

detections of 27 individual leopards (10 males, 17 females) was recorded. We

estimated leopard density at 14.06 individuals/100 km2 (PSD=2.65). Importantly

this is not only the highest density of leopards in Uganda, but across most of the

species’ range in Africa. Other populations approaching this density include the

Sabi Sands of South Africa with 11.8 individuals/100 km2 and Matusadona

National Park in Zimbabwe with 12.2 individuals/100 km2.

2.3.2.2. African Leopards in the Murchinson

Falls National Park

Historic Figures

The 2010-2020 Action Plan for large carnivores did not include any data on

leopard densities or abundance, and data on leopards in Murchison are virtually

non-existent.

Figure 17. Tile (a) denotes the 32 camera trap locations in the Nile Delta region of Murchison

Falls National Park along with their associated detections illustrated by sphere size. Tile (b)

depicts an output from the spatial capture recapture analysis and shows pixel-specific leopard

density within the effective sample area (created by calculating a buffer around the traps

equivalent to 2.44 * the estimated value of sigma (an estimated parameter that is informative

about movement). This area was equal to 262 km2 and in this area we estimate 36.83 individual

leopards (PSD=6.95).

Discussion

Our results show one of the highest recorded densities of leopards anywhere in

continental Africa. These data help to confirm that the tourism zone of the Nile

Delta has an intact, high density large carnivore guild and the de-snaring efforts

of UWA and other NGOs appear to be working. It is recommended that this site

is regularly monitored due to it being a key leopard source population in

Uganda.

41.

(a)

(b)

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Leopards in MFNP

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Leopards in KVNP

2.3.2.3. African Leopards in the Kidepo Valley

National Park

Historic Figures

The 2010-2020 Action Plan for large carnivores did not include any data on

leopard densities or abundance, and data on leopards in Kidepo Valley and the

north of Uganda are extremely limited in scope.

Current Status

As part of the national survey of large carnivores we implemented a survey of

African leopards in the tourism zone, and northern border road of the Kidepo

Valley National Park from 14th September to 8th December (86 days, 1262 trap

nights). Despite this intensive effort we recorded only 19 detections of nine

individuals (4 males, 5 females). From these data we estimated a leopard density

of 6.26 individuals/100 km2 (PSD=2.30).

Figure 18: The 60 camera trap locations set during our 2022 African leopard survey along with

their associated detections illustrated by sphere size. Due to insecurity and a lack of access we

had extremely limited access i nto the Kidepo Valley portion of the na tional park during the

survey

42.

Figure 19. Map depicting an output from the spatial capture recapture analysis for leopard

densities i n KVNP. Shows pixel-specific leopard density within the effective sample area (created

by calculating a buffer around the traps equivalent to 2.44 * the estimated value of sig ma (an

estimated parameter that is informative about movement). Area totalled 432 km2 and 27.04

individual leopards (PSD=9.96) are estimated.

Discussion

Results show that the pressures observed on the lion population in Kidepo

Valley are likely decoupled from African leopards and spotted hyenas. The mid-

tier densities of leopards, and high densities of spotted hyenas (section to

follow) suggest these species are not as exposed to the threats as those facing

the lion population. It is suggested that a repeat survey be conducted into this

leopard population in future.

2.3.2.4. African Leopards in the Lake Mburo

National Park

Historic Figures

2018: In 2018 the leopard survey used 30 camera locations between 26th July

2018 and 16th September 2018 (53 days) and recorded a density of 6.31

individuals/100 km2 (posterior SD 1.47, 95% CI range [3.75–9.20]) and a

posterior mean abundance for the Lake Mburo National Park was 24.87

(posterior SD 7.78).

43.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Leopards in KVNP

Current Status

As part of the national survey of large carnivores we implemented a survey of

African leopards across the entirety of the park from 2nd March to 20th April; a

total of 50 days and 1377 trap nights using 32 camera trap locations. A total of

72 detections of 25 individuals (6 males, 16 females, 3 unsexed) were recorded.

This put the estimate of leopard population density at 11.58 individuals/100 km2

(PSD=2.46) in this protected area.

Figure 20. Tile (a) denotes the 32 camera trap locations in the LMNP along with their

associated detections illustrated by sphere size. Tile (b) depicts an output from the spatial

capture recapture analysis and shows pixel-specific leopard density within the effective

sample a rea (created by calculating a buffer around the traps equivalent to 2.44 * the

estimated value of sigma (an estimated parameter that is informative about movement). Area

equalled to 360 km2 and the leopard population density es timated at 42.85 indi vidual

(PSD=9.12).

44.

(a)

(b)

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Leopards in LMNP

Historic Figures

Pian Upe, until recently, was a relatively unstable wildlife area, with very little

information available on its predators and prey base.

Current Status

As part of the national survey we surveyed leopards across the tourism and

hunting zone of PUWR from 23rd February to 23rd April 2022; a total of 61 days

and 858 trap nights using 28 camera trap locations. A total of 56 detections of

14 individuals (5 males, 9 females) were recorded. From these data a density of

1.60 leopards/100 km2 (lower 95% Highest Posterior Density (HPD) = 0.62,

upper 95% HPD = 2.50, PSD=0.49) was generated. This estimate is amongst the

lowest using SECR methods and represents the second lowest leopard density

recorded in Uganda. Mean density from 17 studies in 20 locations was 5.0

individuals/100 km2; range = 0.62; 11.8 individuals/100 km2; (see Braczkowski et

al. 2022).

Discussion

Results show that the leopard population in this area has increased since the

2018 survey. The 11.58 population density estimate lies beyond the confidence

interval from the 2018 survey (i.e. 3.75 to 9.20 individuals/100 km2). However,

spotted hyenas during this same period declined. It is recommended that due to

the small size of LMNP and high rates of conflict associated with farming

neighbouring communities; (see Braczkowski et al. 2020) this population

continues to receive intensive surveillance and monitoring.

2.3.2.5. African Leopards in the Pian Upe

Wildlife Reserve

Figure 21. The 28 camera trap locations set during our 2022 African leopard survey in PUWR

along with their associated detections illustrated by sphere size.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Leopards in LMNP

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Leopards in PUWR

Figure 22. Map depicting an output from the spatial capture recapture analysis for leopard

densities in Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve and shows pixel-specific leopard density within the

effective sample area (created by calculating a buffer around the traps equivalent to 2.44 * the

estimated value of sigma (an estimated parameter that is informative about movement). Area

equalled 1,357 km2 and 21.65 individual leopards estimated (PSD=6.60).

Discussion

It is hypothesized that a key reason leopard density in Pian Upe is low is due to

lack of medium-sized prey which is typically preferred by leopards (especially

that 15-40 kg in weight, Hayward et al. 2006). Based on field camera traps

sessions, observations were regularly recorded of herds of hartebeest, buffalos,

waterbucks, roans, and giraffes. However, no observations of smaller prey, other

than the oribi (Ourebia ourebi) were recorded. This hypothesis needs further

exploration through a series of distance sampling exercise to assess the integrity

of the small-medium-sized ungulate component of this ecosystem. Indeed, this is

the single biggest driving force leading to the hyper-abundant leopard

populations of conservation areas like South Africa’s Sabi-Sands (Balme et al.

2009) and Sri Lanka’s Wilpattu National Park (Samarasinghe et al. 2022).

Historic Figures

There are no credible historic data available on the status of leopards or any

large carnivore in the Toro Semliki Wildlife Reserve.

2.3.2.6. African Leopards in the Toro Semliki

Wildlife Reserve

Current Status

This was the last survey site implemented as part of the nationwide survey in

2023. A total of 25 camera locations were deployed across the tourism network

between January and March 2023. Despite the camera traps recording, 407

nights of survey effort, there were no detections of leopards during the course of

this time period.

Discussion

There may be leopards in TSWR but it is likely, they occur in very low numbers.

For comparison, in Pian Upe, despite occurring at a low density of 1.60

individuals/100 km2 we still managed to obtain 56 detections of 14 individual

leopards in the 2-month-long survey. We also do not ascribe the lack of

detections to some detection problem as cameras were set along main tourism

tracks and animal trails – a pattern consistently followed across all of the study

sites.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Leopards in TSWR

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: African Leopards in TSWR 47.

47.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: Spotted Hyenas

2.3.3. Spotted Hyenas

Similarly to the African leopard, no national survey of spotted hyenas has ever

been conducted in Uganda and no empirically derived national estimate for the

species exists. As such, the 2010 to 2020 Large Carnivore Action Plan only

featured sightings data from UWA rangers. There has also not been a formal

attempt to assess the densities or abundance of the species outside of the

formally designated protected areas to date.

The only population work performed on spotted hyenas in Uganda was in 2018

when Braczkowski et al. (2022a and b) initiated systematic surveys in LMNP and

QENP to estimate spotted hyena population numbers. In 2022 and 2023, surveys

were conducted in specific regions of interest in the following protected areas:

QENP, MFNP, KVNP, LMNP, PUWR and TSWR.

Figure 23. A spotted hyena photographed in the Kyambura gorge in 2018 with a high resolution

DSLR camera trap. The gorge is comprised of tropical rainforest and is home to hyenas,

chimpanzees, lions, and a community of forest ungulates.

48.

Location

Survey Date

Survey Duration

Area of inference

(km2)

Spotted Hyena

Density (Posterior

SD)

Spotted Hyena

Abundance

(Posterior SD)

QENP (Kasenyi -

Craters)

20 Dec 2022 – 20

Jan 2023

32 days

219

34.28 (9.09)

75.06 (19.91)

QENP (Ishasha)

24 Jan 2023 - 28

Feb 2023

36 days

386

22.07 (3.73)

86.18 (14.40)

MFNP

23 April - 20 June

2022

59 days

355

45.31 (5.42)

160.86 (19.23)

KVNP

14 Sept - 8 Dec

60 days

423

29.71 (6.11)

125.68 (25.83)

LMNP

2 March - 20

April 2022

50 days

370

6.15 (1.42)

22.76 (5.26)

PUWR

23 Feb - 23 April

2022

61 days

939

16.13 (4.5)

151.47 (42.29)

TSWR

24 April – 1 June

2023

39 days

Camera traps set

in the tourism

zone

None detected

Table 4. Spotted hyena population summary table noting key results for camera trap surveys

conducted in 2022 and 2023 within an SECR framework.

Historic Figures

2018: Two hyena surveys were conducted in Queen Elizabeth in 2018 and two

core sites were assessed, the northern Kasenyi, Crater, Mweya region (north of

Kazinga Channel), and the southern Ishasha area. The first region was surveyed

from 8th March to 25th April 2018 and encompassed 44 camera-trap sites while

the second area was assessed across 30 locations from 27th April 2018 to 24th

June 2018. Hyena densities were estimated to be 13.44 (95% Highest Posterior

Density, HPD = 9.01-18.81) and 14.07 (95% HPD = 8.52–18.54) individuals/100

km2 for the north and south of the conservation area, respectively.

Current Status

In 2022 the northern Kasenyi survey yielded 15 individual hyenas detected 18

times. This data generated a density of 34.15 individuals/100 km2 (PSD=9.03).

The Ishasha survey yielded 227 detections of hyenas (42 individuals) and from

this we generated a density of 22.07 hyenas/100 km2 (PSD=3.73). Based on their

respective 2.44 sigma values we estimated abundances of 75.06 (PSD=19.91) and

75.06 (PSD=14.40) in the northern and southern regions of the park.

2.3.3.1. Spotted Hyenas in the Queen Elizabeth

National Park

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: Spotted Hyenas in QENP

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: Spotted Hyenas in QENP 49.

49.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: Spotted Hyenas in QENP

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: Spotted Hyenas in QENP 50.

50.

Discussion

This hyena density estimate represents a slight increase from the 2018 survey in

Ishasha and shows the Ishasha hyenas to be largely stable. This also illustrates

more resilience in hyena populations compared to lions. However, the northern

population of hyenas was more than double the density - we suspect this could

be due to low sample sizes creating a faulty estimate.

Figure 24. Tile (a) Locations of camera traps in the 2022 Kasenyi-Craters spotted hyena survey

along with their corresponding hyena detections. Tile (b) depicts the 2.44 sigma area (386 km2)

around our camera traps in the Kasenyi-Craters region which denotes the hyena density in this

area. This area contained an estimated 75.06 individual hyenas (PSD=19.91).

Figure 25. Tile (a) Locations of camera traps in the 2022 Ishasha spotted hyena survey along

with their corresponding hyena detections. Tile (b) depicts the 2.44 sigma area (219 km2)

around our camera traps in the Ishasha region which denotes the hyena density in this area. This

area contained an estimated 86.18 individual hyenas (PSD=14.40).

(a) (b)

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: Spotted Hyenas in MFNP

Historic Figures

The 2010-2020 Action Plan for large carnivores did not include any data on

hyena densities or abundance, and data on hyenas in Murchison are virtually

non-existent other than some sightings data provided in the last edition of the

National Action Plan (2010-2020).

Current Status

In the 2022 survey field teams focused on the Nile Delta tourism zone of the

national park. Due to the extensive size of Murchison, it was impractical to

provide a park-wide picture of the density and abundance of hyenas, however a

comprehensive assessment of the ~300 km2 delta region could be given. Camera

traps were deployed at 32 unique locations between 23rd April to 20th June; a

total of 59 days and recorded a density of 45.31 individuals/100 km2 (posterior

SD=5.42). Importantly this is not only the highest density of hyenas in Uganda,

but comparable to some Tanzanian sites.

2.3.3.2. Spotted Hyenas in the Murchinson

Falls National Park

Figure 26. Tile (a) Locations of camera traps in the 2022 Murchison Falls National Park spotted

hyena survey along with their co rresponding hyena detections. Tile (b) depicts output from the

spatial capture-recapture analysis in Murchison Falls National Park showing pixel-specific

spotted hyena density within the effective sample area created by calculating a buffer equivalent

to 2.44 * the estimated value of sigma (an estimated parameter that is informative about

movement). In this area (355 km2) we estimate a total of 160.86 hyenas (PSD=19.23).

51.

(b)(a)

Discussion

This spotted hyena density estimate is not only the highest in Uganda, it is the

highest recorded using SECR in Africa – again these data confirm the presence

and functionality of an intact guild and source population of large carnivores in

MFNP.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: Spotted Hyenas in MFNP

Historic Figures

The 2010-2020 Action Plan for large carnivores did not include any data on hyena

densities or abundance in the Kidepo Valley National Park and the north of

Uganda generally.

Current Status

The results from a spotted hyena survey implemented from 14th September to 8th

December 2022 are presented; this ran for a total of 86 days in the Narus and

Kidepo valleys of KVNP. During this survey a density of 29.71 individual

hyenas/100 km2 (posterior SD = 6.11) was recorded and an abundance of 125.68

(PSD=25.83) individuals were estimated in the 423 km2 effectively sampled area

our camera traps covered.

2.3.3.3. Spotted Hyenas in the Kidepo Valley

National Park

52.

Figure 27. Tile (a) Locations of camera traps in the 2022 Kidepo Valley National Park spotted

hyena survey along with their corre sponding hyena detections. Tile (b) shows a spotted hyena

caught on a camera trap near the Katurum Lodge on September 28th 2022, while Tile (c) shows an

individual caught on Tongobore junction on December 1st 2022.

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 28. Output from the spatial capture recapture analysis in Kidepo Valley National Park

showing pixel-specific spotted hyena density within the eff ective sample area created by

calculating a buffer equivalent to 2.44 * the estimated value of sigma (an estimated parameter

that is informative about movement). In this area (423 km2) we estimate a total of 125.68

hyenas (PSD=25.83).

Discussion

The results from the 2022 spotted hyena survey point to the second highest

density in the country. The results also depict a hyena population that is more

resilient to human pressures than the lion population in the KVNP.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: Spotted Hyenas in KVNP

Historic Figures

2018: In 2018 a spotted hyena survey was implemented by Braczkowski et al.

(2022) and used 30 camera locations between 26th July 2018 and 16th

September 2018; a total of 53 days. This translated into a recorded population

density of 10.99 individuals/100 km2 (posterior SD 3.35, 95% with confidence

interval range of 5.63 to 17.37 and the posterior mean abundance for the LMNP

was 39.07 (posterior SD 13.51).

Current Status

The 2022 survey featured 32 locations and was implemented from 2nd March to

20th April, a total of 50 days, recording a density of 6.15 hyenas/100 km2

(posterior SD = 1.42), and an abundance of 23 individuals in the park.

2.3.3.4. Spotted Hyenas in the Lake Mburo

National Park

53.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: Spotted Hyenas in LMNP

Figure 27. Tile (a) Locations of camera traps in the 2022 Lake Mburo National Park spotted

hyena survey along with their corresponding hyena detections. Tile (b) depicts output from the

spatial capture recapture analysis in Lake Mburo National Park showing pixel-specific spotted

hyena density within the effective sample area created by calculating a buffer equivalent to 2.44

* th e estimated value of sigma (an estimated parameter that is informative about movement). In

this area (370 km2) we estimate a total of 22.76 hyenas (PSD=5.26).

Discussion

The results indicate that the hyena population in this protected area has

declined and this is in line with reports of recent poisonings by farmers on the

edge of the national park (Ralph Schenk pers. comm.). It should be noted that

spotted hyenas in LMNP are the main conflict species that cause the most

financial damage in the farming communities neighbouring the Park

(Braczkowski et al. 2022a).

54.

(b)

(a)

Historic Figures

Pian Upe until recently was a relatively unstable wildlife area, with very little

information available on its predators and prey base.

Current Status

We present the results of a hyena survey implemented from 23rd February to

23rd April 2022; a total of 61 days in the tourism and hunting zone of the

reserve. Spotted hyena density for PUWR was estimated at 16.13 hyenas/100 km2

(PSD=4.50) and an abundance of 151.47 (PSD=42.29) was estimated in an area of

939 km2.

2.3.3.5. Spotted Hyenas in the Pian Upe

Wildlife Reserve

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: Spotted Hyenas in PUWR

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: Spotted Hyenas in PUWR 55.

55.

Figure 28. Locations of camera traps in the 2022 Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve spotted hyena survey

along with their corresponding hyena detections.

Figure 29. Output from the spatial capture recapture analysis in Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve

showing pixel-specific spotted hyena density within the eff ective sample area created by

calculating a buffer equivalent to 2.44 * the estimated value of sigma (an estimated parameter

that is informative about movement). In this area (939 km2) we estimate a total of 151.47 hyenas

(PSD=42.29).

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: Spotted Hyenas in PUWR

Discussion

It is hypothesized that the presence and evident recovery of large prey layer may

be buoying the hyena population here when compared to leopards which rely on

smaller prey, as well as the localised extinction of African lions.

Historic Figures

There are no credible historic data available on the status of hyenas or any large

carnivore in the Toro Semliki Wildlife Reserve.

Current Status

This was the last survey site implemented as part of the nationwide survey in

2023. 25 camera locations were deployed across the tourism network between

January and March 2023. Despite the camera traps recording 407 nights of

survey effort we detected no spotted hyenas.

Discussion

There may be hyenas present in the Toro Semliki area but it is likely they occur

in very low numbers.

2.3.3.6. Spotted Hyenas in the Toro Semliki

Wildlife Reserve

56.

2.3.4. Cheetahs and African Wild Dogs

Cheetahs continue to persist in at least two protected areas of Uganda: KVNP

and PUWR. During the 86-day-long survey of African leopards and spotted

hyenas in Kidepo from 14th September to 8th December 2022, we detected a

coalition of two male cheetahs in the Narus Valley on multiple occasions. These

individuals appear to be the same coalition regularly sighted by tourists in the

valley. In PUWR a female cheetah and her three sub-adult cubs were detected

during a two-month camera trap survey in early 2022 in the Napadet region of

the reserve. A young male near the Mukalazi barracks in the same reserve was

also photographed. African wild dogs have been feared extinct in Uganda,

however on the 1st of June 2023 a pair was photographed in the Narus Valley of

the Kidepo Valley National Park (see: https://phys.org/news/2023-06-african-

dogs-uganda-decades.html). The pair are likely transient from neighbouring

Kenya or South Sudan.

Chapter 2 - Species-Specific Results: Cheetahs and African Wild Dogs

Figure 30. Three subadult ch eetah cubs in the Napadet region of the Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve

photographed on February 28th 2022.

57.

Chapter 3

3.1. Threat Analysis by Protected Area

Stakeholders attending the consultative Action Plan workshop in Kampala

identified several key problems facing the conservation of large carnivore

species in Uganda. Focused group sessions detailed these problems not only by

protected area but also by threat priority. They represent a blend of social and

ecological threats, but at their core they are socioeconomic in nature and

interlinked. A threat analysis for each protected area is given below as well as a

summary of the key threats in each site. This is to delineate the priority threats

and site-specific contexts which may not be relevant of other conservation areas

(e.g. Murchison Falls’ unique oil extraction situation is vastly different to the

cattle farming activities within Queen Elizabeth and vice versa).

These threats and their associated conservation actions for large carnivore

species conservation in Uganda are built around a theory of change which

recognises that urgent policy and management are required to reduce and/or

reverse threats that have exacerbated their declining population trends over the

past decade (especially for lions).

3.1.1. Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area

(National Park and Wildlife Reserves)

The Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area (QECA) is arguably the most complex

protected area system in Uganda. The conservation area has approximately

60,000 people living within its borders, mainly distributed across its 11 fishing

villages. Some of these villages like Hamukungu and Kasenyi have large

livestock populations yet, these are the regions where the highest densities of

lions exist.

Figure 31. Hamkungu village in QENP shows the complexity of having a fishing village with

cattle in the heart of some of the best lion habitat. Originally demarcated as fishing villages,

many of these now have large cattle populations which directly conflict with lions and other

carnivores.

Chapter 3 - Threat Analysis

Chapter 3 - Threat Analysis 58.

58.

The recent carnivore population survey indicates that MFNP is by far the best

protected area for large carnivore persistence in Uganda. This could be due to

not only its large size (4500 km2) but also the largely absent feature of large

cattle farming communities within the park and on its borders. Where livestock

communities overlap with high density lion areas, the lion populations tend to

decline over time in Uganda but also throughout lion rangelands (Schutte et al.

2013). Studies have advocated for minimizing overlap between livestock and lion

habitats to reduce conflict (Beattie et al. 2020).

The recent African lion surveys indicate that lion densities are on a rapid decline

and this can be attributed to; 1) human-lion conflict and the retaliatory killings

by pastoralists contributing to lion declines, 2) snaring of lions and prey,

particularly in the Ishasha and Kigezi regions of the park, and 3) habitat loss.

There is a plethora of examples of lions losing limbs, being wounded or being

killed in wire snares in these regions and this has contributed to the fracturing

of lion prides.

3.1.2. Murchison Falls National Park

Figure 32. Bul ldozers and compacters line up on the road construction project stretching from

Tangi gate to the Nile River bridge crossing. This road extends through the heart of the park and

will facilitate large tankers in their oil delivery activities. Photograph: Alamy.

The Murchison Falls National Park seems to benefit from this lack of significant

overlap. Surprisingly, for all the three carnivore species, densities are highest in

the broader area within and around where oil activities are ongoing. This is

despite oil exploration and extraction activities that include 3D seismic tests,

test drilling and exploratory oil well drilling and infrastructure development

including major roads and oil pad constructions which would be considered as

destructive to the environment. Except for short-lived displacement reported by

Mudumba and Jingo (2015), and other wildlife displacement reported by Ayebare

(2011), there has not been any evidence of negative impacts of oil extraction on

lions so far.

59.

Chapter 3 - Threat Analysis

Ironically, this same area of MFNP that proved to have the highest density of

lions also had the highest snaring levels in the park. Thus, UWA and other key

anti-poaching NGO’s focus their activities in this region (including UCF, Snares

to Wares). At 56 snares/km2 (the highest in Africa to date) there is immense

pressure for bush meat in Murchison, but law enforcement and de-snaring

activities seem to have a net-positive impact and holding off the tide of

pressure. However, it is difficult to know the baseline lion, leopard, and hyena

numbers 15-20 years ago because the methods used to estimate lion population

then are not comparable or no studies were done at all. This poor population

monitoring implemented in the Park has led to several years without population

estimates and adds credence to the need to develop a robust framework to

monitor lions and other carnivores in a standard and regular way.

3.1.3. Kidepo Valley National Park

Located at the northernmost edge of the country, Kidepo Valley National Park is

one of Uganda’s most remote parks, with low human densities and associated

pressures from livestock farming. However, there are transhumant cattle

keepers that occasionally traverse the Kidepo Valley section of the Park.

Therefore, despite its remoteness and healthy buffalo populations that can

sometimes be more than 1,000 individuals in a single aggregation in the Narus

Valley, the lion population surveys revealed extremely low densities of African

lions in the Park. Evidence collected during the 2022 population survey of

carnivores in the park revealed at least three lions were killed by two poachers

in Karenga village in just over three months, suggesting lions may be targeted in

this park for their body parts. More information and data is needed to confirm

this. Spotted hyena densities which are over 10x higher than for lions lend some

further evidence that lions are being disproportionately targeted.

60.

Figure 33. The vast expanse of the Kidepo Valley National Park’s Narus Valley. Despite

significant prey numbers in the Narus itself lions have almost completely disappeared from the

park as evidenced by the 2022 lion survey. Photograph: Wikimedia Commons.

Chapter 3 - Threat Analysis

Lake Mburo, although one of the smallest protected areas in Uganda, appears to

be locally important for African leopards with densities that appear to be not

only stable but possibly increasing. Importantly however, the surveys from 2018

and 2022 indicate that hyenas are likely on the decline. This corresponds to

recent reports of hyena clan poisonings on the edge of the park (Ralph Schenk,

pers.comm). Hyenas prefer larger prey and this includes cattle, which may drive

hyena-farmer conflict and result in retaliatory killing. This may explain the

better population performance of leopards (Braczkowski et al. 2022 showed that

leopards preferred smaller prey when feeding on domestic stock, mainly goats).

It should be noted that a key threat in this region is the loss of habitat on the

park edge and outside the park boundary – this cattle grazing thicket matrix is

becoming increasingly modified to increase the capacity of cattle grazing in the

region.

3.1.6. Toro Semliki Wildlife Reserve

This wildlife reserve recorded no large carnivores despite 39 days (407 trap

nights) of camera trap survey effort. Reports from UWA scouts and field guiding

logbooks from Semliki Safari Lodge shows a decline in African lion, leopard and

hyena sightings over time. Snaring appears to be a key concern in this region as

is the presence of cattle farmers on the park boundary.

61.

3.1.5. Lake Mburo National Park

Population surveys of large carnivores in this region highlighted the potential

for their conservation and recovery, especially for African lions which became

locally extinct decades ago. The spotted hyena survey revealed that densities of

this species reached 16.13 individuals/100 km2 which is the fourth highest

density out of the six protected areas that were surveyed. This suggests that

there is a good large-sized prey base in the region, especially species like

waterbuck, hartebeest, roan antelope, and buffalo. Contrastingly, leopard

densities were found to be low at 1.6 individuals/100 km2. However, this is likely

the result of the very low densities of small to medium-sized prey (e.g. Uganda

kob, impala) with some oribi present west of the Reserve and headquarters camp

area. Through a co-management agreement with Space for Giants and UWA and

the involvement of a sport hunting concession the strategic plan recommends

that this area should be intensively managed and monitored over the next ten

years to examine the possible recovery of wild prey and carnivore species

populations currently happening here.

3.1.4. Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve

Chapter 3 - Threat Analysis

3.2. Prioritised Key Threats facing Large

Carnivore Species Conservation in Uganda

The analysis of threats to large carnivore species conservation in Uganda

revealed that key threats include; habitat degradation and fragmentation (driven

by climate change, invasive species, infrastructure development, extractive

industries, among others), loss of migratory corridors, human-carnivore

conflicts, diseases, retaliatory killings, poaching, illegal trade in carnivore parts

e.g. lion body parts, among others. During the consultative stakeholders’

workshop, a questionnaire was administered. One of the parameters assessed

from participants was the main causes of the declining trends of large carnivore

species populations in Uganda. Results showed that majority of respondents

identified poaching as the main cause of the decline of carnivores. This included

the retaliatory killing of carnivores, killing for their body parts as well as the

killing of prey thereby diminishing the available prey base. A total of 37% of

respondents indicated that poisoning was a major cause, usually as a retaliatory

killing. Habitat loss and habitat degradation accounted for 54% of the causes

indicated by participants due to encroachment by people and cattle as well as

invasive species. A last major listed contributor to the decline of large

carnivores was inadequate law enforcement and general poor management of

protected areas for carnivore species conservation.

3.2.1. Poaching

3.2.1.1. Snaring for Bush Meat - Use of Wheel

Traps and Wire Snares for Poaching

Chapter 3 - Key Threats

Local consumption of bush meat is typically restricted to ungulate species but

comprises all terrestrial mammals harvested from the wild (Cawthorn and

Hoffman 2015). Bush meat is a subset of vital wild nutrients that millions of

people depend on throughout the world. In the global south, bush meat forms a

significant proportion of all food intake and some communities would perish

without it (Diaz et al. 2006, Thompson and Amoroso 2011). At the same time,

global biodiversity including populations of most prey species are declining at

unprecedented rates in what some are terming as the 6th mass extinction. This

is the first human-driven extinction event and has been attributed to

unsustainable use. One of the most common ways of harvesting wild protein is

the use of snares. Snares are widespread globally and made from a variety of

materials mostly freely sought. Although set to catch ungulate species, snares

are indiscriminate and are just as likely to catch non-target species (Mudumba

et al. 2021). Given the relatively lower number of non-target species compared

to the target species, snares can have a disproportionate impact on species –

such as carnivores that occur at lower densities (Mudumba et al. 2021). Poachers

also use wheel traps (the North American equivalent of a bear trap) across

Ugandan protected areas. This trap regularly kills its victim by trapping or even

amputating a limb (see Figure 34).

62.

National Park, especially in the Ishasha and Kigezi regions of the park where

multiple study and monitoring animals collared by the Wildlife Conservation

Society and Uganda Conservation Foundation have been either been maimed or

killed in wire snares (Figure 35). This study found a hyena in a wire snare in

Toro-Semliki National Park and no other carnivores were recorded (Orin

Cornille and Bosco Atukwatse pers. comm). While snaring is not prevalent in

Kidepo Valley National Park, Mudumba et al. (Unpublished data) found that the

number of snares collected during ranger patrols in KVNP between 2016 and

2022 had steadily increased by 20% per year which highlights snaring as a

growing threat in KVNP.

Chapter 3 - Key Threats

Figure 34. A poacher with gin trap (or common ly

known as wheel trap) apprehended in the Murchison

Falls National Park in 2009.

In Uganda, snaring is listed as

the major threat to large

carnivores, even as a preceding

threat to human-carnivore

conflict from livestock

production mainly because it is

pervasive across every major

protected area in the country.

In-fact, Murchison Falls had as

many as 4.58 snares/km2 the

highest density recorded

globally in some regions of the

park (Mudumba et al. 2021).

Unpublished field reports show

similar snare pressures appear

to be operating in Queen

Elizabeth

Snaring is also holding the

population of lions in the

largest protected area (MFNP) at

an artificial asymptote

(Mudumba et al. 2021).

Montgomery et al. (2023) shows

that if snare density can be

reduced by 2.79 snares/km2

African lions in MFNP could

reach the natural carrying

capacity within just two

generations. Therefore, snaring

is the largest threat to the

persistence of carnivores in

Uganda’s savannah parks. This

is exacerbated by declining prey

numbers, and to a lesser degree

declining habitat quantity and

quality.

Figure 35. Dr Ludwig Siefert, director of the Uganda

Carnivore Program treats a snared lioness named

Naturinda fr om the Kigezi Wildlife Reserve, QENP.

Snaring rates in Ishasha and Kigezi are high and often

lions are caught in snare wires. Photo: Steve Winter.

63.

Chapter 3 - Key Threats

3.2.1.2. Targeted Poaching of Carnivores

Evidence points to this threat as an emerging concern in recent years, especially

for African lions in the country. It is a critical threat because of the low numbers

of lions in Queen Elizabeth and Kidepo Valley National Parks. In 2021 and in

2022 the Uganda Wildlife Authority noted two direct poaching events 1) the

poisoning of six lions in the tourism circuit of Ishasha, Queen Elizabeth (these

lions were poisoned and their faces, and paws cut off for the lion body part trade,

see: https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/killed-lions-were-

targeted-for-trade-rdc-3337034), and 2) a poacher in Karenga was caught with a

lion in a sack full of meat and another was caught with the head and body parts

of a lion collared by the Uganda Conservation Foundation during the lion and

carnivore survey in Kidepo in late 2022 (Figure 36).

Figure 36. Tile (a) shows UWA staff and UCF members gather around one of the six poisoned

African lion carcasses found in the tourism circuit of Ishasha sector in March 2021. Tile (b)

shows a poacher convicted in Ka renga district after being found in possession of an African male

lion poached in KVNP. This male lion was one of the few individ uals photo captured during the

2022 KVNP lion survey.

64.

(a) (b)

Chapter 3 - Key Threats

3.2.2. Human-Carnivore Conflict attributed to

Livestock Production

The spatial overlap between livestock and large carnivores is widely known to

cause problems to both livestock farmers and big carnivores. Farmers incur

economic losses when carnivores prey on their livestock as they are easier to

catch than wild game. The carnivores suffer, when livestock farmers retaliate

through direct killing or poisoning left over carcasses. Poison not only kills the

carnivores, but a horde of other wildlife including birds of prey, mesocarnivores

like jackals, foxes, and badgers, which further threatens the larger predator guild

in a region. Human-carnivore conflict is particularly rife in Uganda in the

regions where cattle, sheep, and goat farming occurs inside or bordering

protected areas. The most important regions where this occurs is in 1) QENP

(Kasenyi, Katunguru, Hamukungu, Katwe, Kazinga villages, and Bwentare), 2)

LMNP (the park is small at ~370 km2 and is surrounded by cattle farming

communities), 3) TSWR (this region experiences intense pressure from

neighbouring pastoralists and there is little evidence from the 2022/2023 survey

that carnivores remain in any appreciable number in this reserve), and 4) PUWR

(in Pian Upe, Kenyan Pokot farmers drive thousands of cattle into the wildlife

reserve daily). Although this activity is illegal it is a significant clash of cultural

herding practiced by a Kenyan tribe and the Ugandan authorities (Figure 37).

Similarly, in Toro Semliki the Batuku tribe graze their livestock, mainly cattle

within the boundaries of the wildlife reserve.

Figure 37. Pokot herders examining a remote camera trap set during the month of March 2022 as

part of the National Carnivore survey in Uganda. Every day Pokot herders bring their cattle from

Kenya, and sometimes camp inside the park. This has impacts on large carnivores and their prey

inside the reserve, but also creates conflict with the local wildlife authority.

65.

Chapter 3 - Key Threats

Uganda is a small country at just 241,000 km2 and its protected areas are

limited in both their size and connectivity. Habitat loss in Uganda is manifested

in various forms including habitat loss in the corridors connecting national

parks and wildlife reserves due to increasing human populations and expanding

human activities. There is also loss of suitable habitat from to the presence and

proliferation of invasive species like sickle bush, acacia species, and euphorbias.

An example of corridor and habitat loss is around the Lake Mburo National Park

which has seen a recent surge of clearing of native species for cattle grazing,

while an example of invasive species can be seen in the Mweya peninsula and

Kazinga regions of QENP where sickle bush and euphorbia thickets have taken

over a region which was historically open grassland. Habitat loss is occurring in

several protected areas in Uganda due to expansion of human settlements (as in

Queen Elizabeth National Park) and expansion of livestock grazing and other

agricultural activities within the borders of conservation areas. Between 2002

and 2022, Uganda lost roughly 7.5% of its total tree cover (see:

www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/UGA).

3.2.4. Insufficient Scientific Monitoring and

Collaboration

Although not traditionally thought of as a threat, the planning process observed

that lack of robust scientific monitoring of large carnivore populations hinders

timely conservation and management decision-making. Robust scientific

monitoring has been illustrated elsewhere (e.g. Balme et al. 2009) and shown to

be an early warning system of population stress and decline. For instance,

Braczkowski et al. 2020 showed that robust population monitoring could

identify critical demographic parameters such as sex-specific movement, sex

ratio, density and abundance in lion populations and changes in home range

sizes which is vital for management intervention. The lack of robust scientific

monitoring is best exemplified in Uganda by the results of the Kidepo Valley lion

survey. The last time a lion monitoring effort was launched there, was in 2012

during the surveys of the Wildlife Conservation Society (Omoya et al. 2014).

This call up survey estimated over 100 African lions to be living in the park. In

2022, a follow-up survey using robust methods which explicitly factor in search

effort detected only 5 individuals and estimated that 23 individuals remain in a

2300 km2 area). Although the methods employed in the first study differs from

the second, and even accounting for large errors, this is a remarkable change in

the population. This large difference can only be attributed to a drastic

population decline. This lack of monitoring over a 15-year period demonstrates

how population declines can “fly under the radar” of wildlife authorities and

conservation stakeholders. Because until now, no urgency has been expressed

about the status of the lion population in KVNP and how the population might

be on the brink of extinction. This exemplifies what could happen to other

protected areas where the monitoring framework is weak, study methods

incompatible, and leading research groups working independently of each other

making un-corroborated survey data, resulting into estimates that are often

defended against others regardless of their scientific underpinning.

66.

3.2.3. Habitat Loss

Chapter 4

4.0. Strategic Action Plan for Conservation of

Large Carnivores in Uganda

During the stakeholders’ consultative workshop, a plausible, ambitious and

realistic goal was discussed and set for the conservation of large carnivores in

Uganda over the next ten years (2024-2034). This was in consideration of the

overarching goal of the first edition of the Large Carnivore Action Plan (2010 –

2020), to double carnivore numbers in protected areas, was far from being

achieved. It was thus concluded that the overarching goal of the 2024-2034

edition of the conservation of large carnivore species in Uganda would be to

achieve a 30% increase in large carnivore species numbers over the next decade.

4.1. Vision, Goals, and Strategic Objectives

Vision: Viable and sustainable populations of large carnivores in a healthy

ecosystem in Uganda.

Goal: An increase of at least 30% of viable populations of large carnivores in

Uganda by 2034.

Indicators: 1. Density and abundance change in viable carnivore population

(Numbers, Sex ratio, Genetic diversity and age structure) – through carnivore

surveys conducted after every two years. 2. Change in home range size and

sigma.

Strategic Objectives

Objective 1. To reduce poaching rates of large carnivores and carnivore prey base

inside Protected Areas by at least 50%.

Indicators

Percentage change in poaching incidences of large carnivores – through

UWA wildlife crime reports reported annually, SMART system and Earth

Ranger.

Percentage change in poaching incidences of prey – through UWA wildlife

crime reports reported annually and SMART System and Earth Ranger.

Objective 2. To maintain and improve the quality and extent of possible suitable

habitats of large carnivores inside and outside Protected Areas.

Indicator

Percentage change in area of suitable habitat for large carnivores.

67.

Chapter 4 - Strategic Action Plan

Chapter 4 - Vision, Goals and Strategic Objectives

Chapter 4 - Vision, Goals and Strategic Objectives 68.

68.

Objective 3. To enhance human–large carnivore coexistence inside and outside

Protected Areas.

Indicators

Change in incidences of human-large carnivore conflicts (retaliatory killing,

livestock predation, human injury/death, diseases – animals to animals and

animals to humans).

Percentage of community members actively involved in large carnivore

conservation.

Proportion of household with improved economic benefits from large

carnivore conservation.

Objective 4. To enhance evidence (scientific, M&E, M&R, RBM, genetics) based

decision-making processes for large carnivore conservation.

Indicator

Decisions made informed by evidence-based information (research and

monitoring) e.g. translocations, re-introduction, intensive management,

prosecution – forensic, planning patrols.

Objective 5. To establish and operationalise coordination and collaboration

mechanisms for large carnivore conservation in Uganda.

Indicators

Existence of functional coordination mechanisms (species manager or focal

office).

Existence of functional collaboration mechanisms (collaboration policy,

MoUs, reports, minutes, budgets, work plans and performance appraisal).

Figure 38. Uganda Wildlife Authority tourism rangers Silva Musobozi and Lilian Namusoke from

the Murchiso n Falls National Park were a key component of the 2022 Murchison National Park

lion survey. Their daily safari guiding activities fit in perfectly with the spatial lion survey data

collection methods in the park. Collectively they surveyed the entirety of the Nile Delta during

the survey.

4.2. Strategic Objectives, Outputs, and Actions

The tables below present strategic intervention, strategic action areas, indicators

and associated actors necessary to achieve each of the five strategic objectives.

Included in the tables are budget estimates required for the implementation of

the strategic interventions. The given figures are simply estimates but will help

UWA and the Ugandan Government to identify critical objectives and actions for

large carnivore conservation in the country and solicit assistance from funders

and potential supporters where required.

4.2.1. Strategic Objective 1: To reduce poaching rates of large carnivores and

carnivore prey base inside Protected Areas by at least 50%.

69.

Target: To reduce the proportion of large carnivore numbers illegally killed by

50% within 10 years.

Current situation: There is uncontrolled open access to PAs. Under community

conservation programs, there are poorly enforced community access agreements

to access resources such as firewood, grass, etc. There is little or no

collaboration between law enforcement and community programs. Large

carnivores are declining in part because they are outcompeted by humans who

come into protected areas to poach prey animals. When carnivores leave

protected areas in search of food, they get killed either directly in self-defense

or through poisoning. They also get killed when members of the community are

involved in poaching for the body parts trade. When community members

illegally access protected areas to graze their livestock and large carnivore prey

on livestock, carnivores may be poisoned.

Desired situation: Controlled access to protected areas where large carnivores

are being conserved. Protected area managers must have capacity to know who

has access to PAs, reasons for entering, and ability to monitor their activities

while inside the PAs. Where carnivores are being conserved, livestock must be

excluded through appropriate fencing and assisting livestock farmers to change

their traditional lifestyles such as free-ranging grazing, and live within their

space through intensive livestock management such as zero grazing. This will

be achieved through closely working with neighbouring communities and using

high technology equipment such as unmanned drones and surveillance cameras.

Strategic

Interventions

Strategic Action Areas

Indicators

Actors

Budget

Estimates

(USD)

Strengthen law

enforcement at

PA level

1) Increase ranger capacity –

staff and training

1) Number of illegal

activities successfully

detected through

intelligence

UWA in

partnership with

relevant

stakeholders,

1 018 046

Table 5: Objective 1: Reduce poaching rates by 50%

Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives, Outputs, and Actions

Strategic

interventions

Strategic action areas

Indicators

Actors

Budget

estimates

(USD)

2) Provide specialised

equipment i.e. improved

conservation technology –

UAV, forensic equipment,

aircraft, command control,

access and control measures

on public roads or patrol

roads, communication system

for rangers, field gears,

vehicles, motorcycles, boats,

etc. to increase patrol efforts

and efficiency

3) Support intelligence

gathering, investigation and

prosecution

4) Establish and operationalise

a health safety and security

and environment (HSSE) -

Medical evacuation plans –

health and safety.

2) Number of arrests

from illegal activities

3) Percentage of

illegal activities

successfully

prosecuted

4) Number of law

enforcements

conducted

5) Increased rates of

detecting and

effectively preventing

crime in PAs

6) Decreased

occurrences of illegal

activities in PAs

7) Number of rescued

large carnivores.

NGOs,

UPDF/Police and

Judiciary,

community or

local government

institutions

536 804

335 241

315 388

TOTAL:

2 205 479

70.

4.2.2. Strategic Objective 2: To maintain and improve the quality and extent of

possible and suitable habitats of large carnivores inside and outside Protected

Areas.

Targets:

a) To restore and secure new areas for large carnivore conservation

b) To reduce habitat destruction through alternative livelihoods in large

carnivore areas

c) To control invasive species in affected areas

d) To mitigate the impacts of climate change on large carnivore conservation

e) To identify the impacts of human development and initiate mitigation

measures.

Current situation: Due to a number of factors, habitats are changing and

becoming unsuitable for survival of large carnivores. First, there are invasive

species taking over formerly open grasslands that favoured grazers, which form

a good base for carnivore food. The invasive species are promoting growth of

closed thickets. These thickets do not favour grazers, hence negatively impacting

the survival of large carnivores.

Desired situation: Intensively managed habitats that will support the survival

and multiplication of large carnivores.

Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives, Outputs, and Actions

Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives, Outputs, and Actions 71.

71.

Table 6: Objective 2: Maintain and improve quality and extent of possible and suitable

habitats of large carnivores inside and outside PAs.

Strategic

Interventions

Strategic Action Areas

Indicators

Actors

Budget

Estimates

(USD)

a) Improve

habitat

management for

large carnivore

habitat in and

outside PAs

1) Assess specific large

carnivore habitat suitability to

guide carnivore management

plans development process

a) Assess land-use practices

around large carnivore

conservation areas

b) Devise appropriate

management intervention

measures to modify habitat to

suit large carnivores

c) Assess impacts of invasive

species on conservation of

large carnivores.

1) Area of habitats

restored for

conservation of large

carnivores

2) Area of habitats

maintained for large

carnivore

conservation.

UWA, MTWA,

NGOs, research

and academic

institutions

634 000

b) Monitor and

mitigate climate

change impacts

on large

carnivore

conservation

1) Design research programs to

monitor impacts of climate

change on large carnivores

(weather stations, animal

seasonal movement, feeding,

phenology/physiology,

reproduction, etc.)

2) Develop management

interventions based on

research findings

3) Monitor, evaluate and re-

plan.

1) Research

findings/recommenda

tions documented and

published

2) Management

intervention

implemented to

address impacts of

climate change

(preparedness plan –

fire, disaster, drought,

diseases outbreak).

UWA, UWRTI,

WCS, MAK,

external

scientists

257 923

c) Mitigate

impacts of

human

activities on

large carnivores’

habitats in PAs.

1) Identify and mitigate the

impacts of infrastructure

development across large

carnivores’ home ranges

2) Monitor compliance of

developments with national

and international best

1) Control measures

to regulate use of

public roads, e.g.

cameras, speed

bumps etc.

2) Number of

monitoring centres.

UWA, UNRA,

NFA, UETCL,

ERA

159 278

Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives, Outputs, and Actions

Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives, Outputs, and Actions 72.

72.

Strategic

Interventions

Strategic Action Areas

Indicators

Actors

Budget

Estimates

(USD)

(Power lines,

roads, fishing

villages, eco-

lodges,

extractive

industries)

photographic,

research

activities,

support

infrastructure

for UWA –

ranger posts,

vehicles).

practices (such as IFC PS6,

EIAs and ESIAs).

4.2.3. Strategic Objective 3: To enhance human–large carnivore coexistence in

and outside Protected Areas.

Targets:

a) To increase numbers of people supporting conservation initiatives for large

carnivores

b) To enhance ex-situ conservation of large carnivores for public education and

awareness

c) To increase public awareness about the plight and conservation efforts of

large carnivores.

Strategic

Interventions

Strategic Action Areas

Indicators

Actors

Budget

Estimates

(USD)

a) Increase

appreciation

and support for

large carnivore

conservation

1) Conduct KAP studies to

identify knowledge, attitude

and practice gaps

2) Undertake cultural analysis

to understand relationships

between neighbouring

communities and large

carnivores

3) Design and implement

education and awareness

programs to address

1) Percentage of

community members

with improved

understanding and

awareness of the

benefits of large

carnivore

conservation

2) Percentage change

of community

members

UWA, UWEC

231 230

Table 7: Objective 3: Enhance human-large carnivore coexistence in and outside PAs.

Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives, Outputs, and Actions

Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives, Outputs, and Actions 73.

73.

Strategic

Interventions

Strategic Action Areas

Indicators

Actors

Budget

Estimates

(USD)

identified gaps among targeted

audiences (totems, sports

tournaments)

4) Formulate appropriate

interventions such as public

health services (vaccination of

livestock, dogs, tick control,

etc.) to address drivers of

negative attitudes

5) Design and implement a

nation-wide large carnivore

conservation awareness

campaign targeting policy-

makers, youth and general

public.

expressing positive

attitudes towards

large carnivore

conservation

3) Percentage of

community members

expressing preference

for peaceful means to

resolve human-

carnivore conflicts.

b) Implement

human-

carnivore

conflict

mitigation

measures

1) Fast-track compensation of

carnivore kills to avoid

retaliatory killings

2) Support community

initiatives to protect

themselves and their property

against large carnivores

(Kraals, water, pastures,

appropriate barriers).

Number of human

carnivore conflict

mitigation measures

implemented.

766 595

4.2.4 Strategic Objective 4: To enhance evidence-based (scientific, M&E, M&R,

RBM, genetics) decision-making processes for large carnivore conservation.

Targets:

a) To establish a regular population monitoring program examining density and

abundance of large carnivores in key sites (yearly or bi-yearly)

b) To ensure a healthy population of large carnivores in a healthy environment.

Strategic

Interventions

Strategic Action Areas

Indicators

Actors

Budget

Estimates

(USD)

Establish and

implement a

robust

1) Review capacity gaps and

establish adequate capacity at

UWA in the Research and

1) A functional

database for large

carnivore populations

UWA,

independent

researchers,

183 417

Table 8: Objective 4: Enhance evidence-based decision-making process for large

carnivore conservation.

Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives, Outputs, and Actions

Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives, Outputs, and Actions 74.

74.

Strategic

Interventions

Strategic Action Areas

Indicators

Actors

Budget

Estimates

(USD)

monitoring and

research

program for

large carnivore

conservation.

Monitoring department

(personnel, training,

computers, budget, etc.)

2) Establish a large carnivore

computerised database within

UWA

3) Organise regular large

carnivore (annual) meetings to

review progress and compare

notes among all stakeholders

4) Produce policy briefs to

policy-makers about large

carnivore conservation

5) Conduct habitat suitability

and population viability

analyses for carnivore and prey

populations

6) Analyse and map large

carnivore ranging patterns and

prey preferences

7) Conduct studies on

population genetics of large

carnivore populations, animal

seasonal movement, feeding,

phenology/physiology,

reproduction

8) Assess potential disease

threats and take precautionary

measures

9) Monitor and record stress

levels of different species of

large carnivores

10) Identify specific sites

where large carnivores can be

intensively managed in their

natural environment.

2) Research

publications, reports

papers.

partners and

collaborators in

carnivore

conservation.

4.2.5. Strategic Objective 5: To establish and operationalise coordination and

collaboration mechanisms for large carnivore conservation in Uganda.

Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives, Outputs, and Actions

Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives, Outputs, and Actions 75.

75.

Target: Establish efficient and effective intervention mechanisms that will

deliver conservation objectives of large carnivores in Uganda.

Current situation: The levels of interest to conserve large carnivores is quite

high, which is a big strength. This is exemplified by a number of different

players involved in the conservation of large carnivores. Some have been

undertaking long-term research and others have specific projects and programs

to conserve large carnivores. However, the weakness is that there is little

collaboration and coordination among these players. This creates duplication of

roles and responsibilities, leading to waste of meagre resources as well as

creating conflicting relationships among the players.

Desired situation: This strategic objective is desirous of improving efficiency

and effectiveness through creation of a coordination mechanism. The objective

works towards ensuring respect for all players in conservation of large

carnivores. Building trust among all stakeholders through promotion of

transparency and accountability for all resources available, dialogue to ensure

each player understands respective roles of the other and pooling resources

together, so that conservation interventions are effectively coordinated.

Strategic

Interventions

Strategic Action Areas

Indicators

Actors

Budget

Estimates

(USD)

Establish and

implement

effective

coordination and

collaborative

mechanisms

1) Establish a coordination team

2) Develop terms of reference for

the coordination mechanism

3) Operationalise the team (work

plans, supervision, regular

meetings to discuss progress and

challenges)

4) Undertake a stakeholder

analysis

5) Develop, implement and

update a stakeholder engagement

plan

6) Undertake regular meetings

7) Conduct collaborative activities

8) Streamline and align partner

activities

9) Design and negotiate possible

private partnerships to implement

intensive beneficial large

carnivore conservation enterprises

Improved dialogue and

collaboration among

stakeholders

MTTI, UWA and

stakeholders

157 923

Table 9: Objective 5: To enhance coordination and collaboration mechanisms for large

carnivore conservation.

Chapter 5 - Implementation of the National Carnivore Strategy & Action Plan

5.0. Implementation of the National

Carnivore Strategy and Action Plan

The emphasis of this 2024-2034 Strategic Large Carnivore Action Plan for

Uganda is on two key points, 1) updating the latest status information for

carnivores in the country, and 2) identifying actions and partners in order to

ensure that the objectives set forth in the Plan are realised. Carnivore

conservation and management actions in Uganda continue to be implemented in

largely, in an ad hoc manner, with little centralisation, stratification or

collaboration. With this Strategic Plan spelling out strategic intervention and

action areas, we have identified the most critical interventions as far as the key

prioritised threats are concerned. This will enable site-specific managers, in

consultations with their stakeholders and partners to be guided in their planning

process to address localised threats in each site. The Strategic Plan will also

guide the supervising statutory authorities, i.e. the UWA management and the

Ministry of Tourism Wildlife and Antiquities to effectively supervise the

implementation of this Plan without overlaps and/or replications (e.g. multiple

de-snaring teams working in the same area in the Nile Delta of Murchison Falls

without any prioritisation, collaboration or stratification of where teams are

picking up snares).

Carnivore conservation in the country, and the 30% population increase goal

will only work if UWA’s management mandate is actively supported both

financially and scientifically. The above actions, targets, and strategic objective

help to outline this. For any progress on these objectives to be made there is a

need for an appropriate structure to oversee the implementation and to monitor

progress. Once the Strategy and Action Plan is approved by the UWA Board of

Trustees and the Ministry of Wildlife Tourism and Antiquities, it will be

officially launched in the presence of stakeholders who will be invited to

support its implementation. The successful implementation of this Strategy and

Action Plan will require significant financial investment.

The UWA Technical Team on Large Carnivore Conservation will meet twice a

year with UWA and all the actors mentioned above, to oversee the

implementation of the Strategy and Action Plan, and assess the key priorities to

help its realisation.

76.

6.0. Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

(MEL)

The Large Carnivore Action Plan (CAP) will employ an evidence-based approach

to ensure continuous improvement, learning, and adaptation, thereby increasing

the likelihood of achieving its desired outcomes. Monitoring, Evaluation, and

Learning (MEL) will be integral to the CAP and will be implemented through the

Results Matrix (See Appendix V). This matrix will detail the program logic,

including impacts, outcomes and outputs, along with performance indicators,

Chapter 7 - Conclusion

7.0. Conclusion

This 2024-2034 edition of the Strategic National Carnivore Action Plan has

provided the Uganda Government and conservation stakeholders in Uganda with

the latest information on the status and distribution of large carnivores across

six of Uganda’s largest carnivore protected areas. These data are not only the

most recent in their temporal origin but also in the methods they use (cutting-

edge spatially explicit capture-recapture statistics). They point clearly to the fact

that African lions in Uganda are in a crisis, with two populations under severe

pressure and distress (Queen Elizabeth and Kidepo). We also highlight a series

of strategic interventions to guide each protected area system to formulate

species and site-specific implementation plans that will help to stem some of

the declines observed over the last decade. The overarching goal of bringing

back densities and abundance of carnivores in protected areas by 30% is more

modest and potentially achievable if the identified threats such as snaring and

cattle-lion conflict are addressed.

For Uganda to address the declining ecological, socio-cultural and economic

footprints following the existing decreasing rate of the large carnivore species

populations, abundances and distribution, it needs an ambitious commitment

that is supported and adopted by all actors. Implementation of this strategic

action will thus require the involvement and participation of stakeholders at all

levels of government up to the grassroots.

77.

baselines, targets, data sources, collection methods, reporting frequency, and

responsible institutions.

To establish benchmarks for monitoring performance and assessing the CAP’s

impact, a baseline study will be conducted. Mid-term and end-of-strategic-plan

evaluations will be conducted midway and at the end of the implementation

period, respectively, to assess the extent to which the CAP has achieved its

desired outcomes and impact. During implementation, quarterly and annual

reports will be generated to share progress, challenges, and lessons learned.

These reports will inform annual learning and reflection engagements, providing

an opportunity to evaluate what is working, what is not, and generate

recommendations to continuously strengthen implementation of the CAP.

The Uganda Wildlife Authority Monitoring and Evaluation Unit will lead the

implementation of the Results Matrix, with support from other units and

conservation development partners such as WCS, WWF, AWF among others and

cat experts such as Dr Alex Braczkowski, Dr Nic Elliot and Dr Arjun

Gopalaswamy.

Appendix I: Terms of Reference for the

Strategic Action Plan for Conservation of

large Carnivore Species in Uganda Technical

Working Group

Introduction

The Technical Working Group (TWG) for implementation of the Strategic Action

Plan for Conservation of Large Carnivore Species in Uganda is a multi-

stakeholder voluntary technical advisory group. In order to realise the goal of

this Strategic Action Plan, there is a need for leadership to provide technical

support through the working group to guide and monitor the progress of

implementation of the actions.

The roles of the Technical Working Group

The primary function of Technical Working Group is to provide technical and

logistical advice on the implementation of key actions, as outlined in the

Strategic Action Plan for Conservation of Large Carnivore Species in Uganda. In

pursuit of this, the TWG will:

Contribute technical information required to guide the effective

implementation of the Strategic Action Plan for Conservation of Large

Carnivore Species in Uganda. This will include but is not limited to scientific

information on species population assessments, trends and conservation

status.

Monitor the progress of the implementation of actions listed in the Strategic

Action Plan.

Contribute expert knowledge, skills and experience to the implantation of

key action items.

Identify emerging conservation issues and opportunities that pertain to large

carnivore species conservation.

Provide innovative solutions to broad issues that may have an impact on

conservation of large carnivore species in Uganda.

Meet annually with the primary purpose of developing and assessing activity

plans for conservation of large carnivore species in Uganda.

Conduct a mid-term review of the Action Plan.7.

Regularly update information on conservation large carnivore species with

regard to advances in science.

Compile and circulate reports that outline progress and needs assessments

for the Strategic Action Plan of Large Carnivore Species in Uganda.

Source additional funding for the implementation of the Action Plan.10.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1 78.

78.

Appointment of members of the Carnivore Technical Working Group and

Terms of Representation

During the consultative workshop it was decided that the following individuals

shall meet annually to discuss the progress of this action plan and to consult

relevant parties in the actions section of this document: Dr Tutilo Mudumba, Mr

Aggrey Rwetsiba, Dr Alex Braczkowski, Mr Jan Broekhuis, Dr Nic Elliot, and Dr

Arjun Gopalaswamy.

Responsibilities of representatives

All TWG members, including those on working groups, shall:

Regularly attend annual meetings or nominate alternative representatives of

their organisation to attend;

Report back, as necessary, to their nominating organisation and members to

encourage wide dissemination and sharing of knowledge about progress and

issues;

Inform the TWG of any issues/recent information which should be discussed,

noted or acted upon;

Identify gaps in the knowledge relevant to the TWG; and4.

Make available relevant information held by the organisations they represent

to assist and guide the implementation of the National Large Carnivore

Conservation Strategy and Action Plan.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1 79.

79.

Governance of the Large Carnivore Conservation Technical Working

Group

The TWG will report to the Executive Director and head of research and

monitoring. The TWG shall have a Chairperson and UWA focal point as the

Secretary. The Chairperson and Secretary shall be responsible for convening and

keeping a record of the proceedings of all meetings respectively.

Appendix 2

Appendix II: Stakeholder Analysis

The stakeholder consultations for the development of a Strategic Action Plan for

Conservation of Large Carnivore Species in Uganda identified the key partners

and their roles in the conservation and management of large carnivores in

Uganda. Some of the stakeholders will fulfil very important day-to-day roles,

while others will fulfil more strategic and/or supportive roles, be they local or

international. Although the stakeholder consultations noted that the Ministry of

Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities (MTWA), and the Uganda Wildlife Authority

(UWA) are the primary partners in the development and implementation of the

Action Plan, the UWEC, various other line ministries, non-governmental

organisations (NGOs), research and academic institutions, donors, and the

private sector were also recognised as key partners. Additionally, the local

governments, tourists, the media, and local communities that neighbour

Protected Areas with large carnivores are also key stakeholders in the

conservation and management of large carnivores in Uganda.

Flowchart 1: Roles and responsibilities of identified stakeholders

LARGE CARNIVORES

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

Communities

Neighbouring PAs

MTWA

UWA, Field

and HQ

Local

Governments

NGOs, CBOs,

Private Sector

UWEC, Media,

Civil Society

UWRTI, Research &

Academic Institutions,

Independent Researchers,

NGOs

Private Sector, investors,

lodges and hotels owners

Tourists,

Tour operators

Donors, NGOs, CBOs

Provide labour for

conservation, use resources,

intelligence for law

enforcement

Make policy decisions;

ensure day-to-day

management and

protection of large

carnivores, raise funds

Support

implementation of

activities

Create awareness

& advocacy

Conduct research

and education

activities on large

carnivores

Invest in services

that promote large

carnivore tourism,

research and

conservation

Provide additional

financial and

technical resources

Visit PAs, bring

visitors to PAs,

awareness, tourism

investments for

conservation

80.

Appendix 3

Appendix III: Policy Instruments to Aid the

Conservation of Large Carnivores in Uganda

1.2 Policy and Legal framework for Conservation of Large Carnivores in Uganda

1.2.1. The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda: Objective XXVII of the

1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda obligates the state including local

government to create and develop parks, reserves and recreation areas and

ensure the conservation of natural resources. Under Article 237(2b) of the

Constitution, Government or a local government as determined by Parliament by

law shall hold in trust for the people and protect natural lakes, rivers, wetlands,

forest reserves, game reserves, national parks and any land to be reserved for

ecological and touristic purposes for the common good of all citizens.

1.2.2. Wildlife Policy (2014): The Wildlife Policy, 2014 provides for sustainable

management and development of wildlife resources in a manner that contributes

to the development of the nation and the well-being of its people. The theme of

the policy is “enhanced wildlife contribution to national growth, employment

and socio-economic transformation for prosperity”.

1.2.3. The Uganda Wildlife Act (2019): The purpose of the Act is to provide for

the conservation and sustainable management of wildlife, strengthen wildlife

conservation and management, continue the existence of the Uganda Wildlife

Authority, streamline the roles and responsibilities of institutions involved in

wildlife conservation and management, to continue the existence of the Wildlife

Fund and other related matters.

1.2.4. Uganda Wildlife Conservation Education Centre Act (2015): The Uganda

Wildlife Conservation Education Centre Act, 2015 is an Act to promote the

conservation of renewable natural resources through education using the

Centre, its facilities and programs, both on-site and through extension services;

establishment of Uganda Wildlife Education Centre with its trustees as a body

corporate and for other matters incidental to or connected with the foregoing.

1.2.5. Uganda Wildlife Research and Training Institute Act (2015): The Uganda

Wildlife Research and Training Institute Act (2015) provides for the

establishment of a self-sustaining centre of excellence for conducting research,

training and consultancy services in conservation and sustainable development

of wildlife resources in and outside Protected Areas.

1.2.6. The National Environment Act (2019): The Act is to ensure management of

the environment for sustainable development, to continue the National

Environment Management Authority as a coordinating, monitoring, regulatory

and supervisory body for all activities relating to environment, to provide for

emerging environmental issues including climate change, the management of

hazardous chemicals and biodiversity offsets, to provide for strategic

81.

environmental assessment, to address environmental concerns arising out of

petroleum activities and midstream operations, to provide for the management

of plastics and plastic products, to establish the Environmental Protection Force,

to provide for enhanced penalties for offences under the Act; to provide for

procedural and administrative matters, and for related matters.

1.2.7. International laws: The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda sets

out the principles of foreign policy objective of Uganda as (a) promotion of the

national interest of Uganda, (b) respect for international law and treaty

obligations, (c) peaceful coexistence and nonalignment, (d) settlement of

international disputes by peaceful means, (e) opposition to all forms of

domination, racism, and other forms of oppression and exploitation.

Uganda is a signatory to a number of international conventions, treaties and

agreements relating to wildlife. These are in line with Uganda’s foreign policy

which obligates the state to conserve wildlife and wildlife protected areas and

promote sustainable development of wildlife resources. International laws which

are of immediate importance for the conservation of wildlife and laws to which

Uganda is a member state include:

1.2.7.1. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of 1992: The Convention on

Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992 obliges member states to establish a system of

protected areas, develop guidelines for the selection, establishment and

management of protected areas, and promote the protection of ecosystems,

natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural

surroundings and integration of sustainable utilisation of natural resources in

national strategies.

1.2.7.2. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora (CITES) of 1973: CITES obliges member states to regulate

international trade in endangered species of fauna and flora through

international cooperation. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in

specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. The

Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities is the Management Authority of

CITES in Uganda.

1.2.7.3. Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) of 1979: CMS obligates Uganda

to conserve migratory species of wildlife across their migratory range. It also

requires Uganda to cooperate with other states that form part of the migratory

range of wildlife resources found or migrating through Uganda.

1.2.7.4. East African Community Protocol on Environment and Natural Resources

(2006): The East African Community Protocol on Environment and Natural

Resources (2006) obligates Uganda as one of the Partner States of the East

African Community to sustainably conserve wildlife resources in collaboration

with the local communities. The protocol requires Uganda to cooperate in the

management of trans-boundary wildlife resources, promotion of social and

economic incentives for conservation and to conclude agreements aimed at

conserving trans-boundary wildlife resources.

Appendix 3

Appendix 3 82.

82.

Species

Model Name

Model Characteristic

African Lions

and Leopards

Baseline Model with

Heterogeneity (model 1)

No specific behavioral effect, but includes

heterogeneity in detection probabilities

(Msigma = 1)

Heterogeneity with

Individual-Level

Detection Variation

(model 2)

No behavioral effect, but includes both

heterogeneity in detection probabilities

(Msigma = 1) and individual-level detection

variation (Msexsigma = 1)

Sex-Specific Behavioral

Effect (model 3)

Includes a behavioral effect related to

individual-level sex (Msex = 1), but no

heterogeneity in detection probabilities

Complex Model with Sex-

Specific Behaviour and

Heterogeneity (model 4)

Includes both a sex-specific behavioral effect

(Msex = 1) and heterogeneity in detection

probabilities (Msigma = 1, Msexsigma = 1)

Spotted Hyenas

Baseline Model with

Heterogeneity and Fixed

Spatial Scale (model 1)

No behavioral effect, includes heterogeneity

in detection probabilities (Msigma = 1), and

the spatial scale parameter Theta is explicitly

set to 1

Baseline Model with

Heterogeneity and

Estimated Spatial Scale

(model 2)

No behavioral effect, includes heterogeneity

in detection probabilities (Msigma = 1), and

the spatial scale parameter Theta is not

explicitly set, allowing for estimation during

the modelling process

Appendix 4

Appendix IV: Models Associated with Density

and Abundance Results

83.

Appendix 5

Appendix V: Large Carnivore Action Plan

Results Matrix

84.

Appendix 5

Appendix 5 85.

85.

Appendix 5

Appendix 5 86.

86.

References

Ayebare, S. (2011). Influence of industrial activities on the spatial distribution of

wildlife in Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda. University of Rhode Island.

Balme, G. A., Slotow, R., & Hunter, L. T. (2009). Impact of conservation

interventions on the dynamics and persistence of a persecuted leopard (Panthera

pardus) population. Biological Conservation, 142(11), 2681-2690.

Bauer H, van der Merwe S. (2004). Inventory of free-ranging lions, Panthera leo,

in Africa. Oryx 38:26-31.

Beattie, K., Olson, E. R., Kissui, B., Kirschbaum, A., & Kiffner, C. (2020).

Predicting livestock depredation risk by African lions (Panthera leo) in a multi-

use area of northern Tanzania. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 66, 1-14.

Belant JL, Bled F, Mkasanga IJ, Wilton CM, Mwampeta SB, Beyer DE, Mwakilema

W, Fyumagwa R. (2019). Track surveys do not provide accurate or precise lion

density estimates in serengeti. Global Ecology and Conservation:e00651.

Braczkowski A, Gopalaswamy AM, Nsubuga M, Allan J, Biggs D, Maron M.

(2020b). Detecting early warnings of pressure on an African lion (Panthera leo)

population in the Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda. Ecological

Solutions and Evidence 1:e12015 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12015.

Braczkowski A, Schenk R, Samarasinghe D, Biggs D, Richardson A, Swanson N,

Swanson M, Dheer A, Fattebert J. (2022a). Leopard and spotted hyena densities

in the Lake Mburo National Park, southwestern Uganda. PeerJ 10:e12307.

Braczkowski, A., Gopalaswamy, A. M., Fattebert, J., Isoke, S., Bezzina, A., &

Maron, M. (2022b). Spatially explicit population estimates of African leopards

and spotted hyenas in the Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area of southwestern

Uganda. Mammalian Biology, 102(4), 1199-1213.

Braczkowski et al. (in review). Insights into Large Carnivore Populations in

Uganda: A Participatory Survey of Lions, Leopards, and Hyenas Using Spatial

Capture-Recapture.

Broekhuis, F., & Gopalaswamy, A. M. (2016). Counting cats: Spatially explicit

population estimates of cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) using unstructured

sampling data. PLoS One, 11(5), e0153875.

Broekhuis F, Ngene S, Gopalaswamy AM, Mwaura A, Dloniak SM, Ngatia DK,

Tyrrell PD, Yamane Y, Elliot NB. (2022). Predicting potential distributions of

large carnivores in Kenya: An occupancy study to guide conservation. Diversity

and Distributions 28:1445-1457 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13554.

Cawthorn, D. M., & Hoffman, L. C. (2015). The bushmeat and food security

nexus: A global account of the contributions, conundrums and ethical collisions.

Food Research International, 76, 906-925.

References

References 87.

87.

Cozzi, G., Broekhuis, F., McNutt, J. W., & Schmid, B. (2013). Density and habitat

use of lions and spotted hyenas in northern Botswana and the influence of

survey and ecological variables on call-in survey estimation. Biodiversity and

Conservation, 22, 2937-2956.

Dheer A, Samarasinghe DJS, Dloniak S, Braczkowski A. (2022). Using camera

traps to study hyenas: challenges, opportunities, and outlook. Mammalian

Biology - Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde:3 DOI: 10.1007/s42991-021-00188-1.

Din, N.A. (1978). Notes on two Lion Prides near Mweya in the Ruwenzori

National Park, Uganda.Pakistan Journal of Zoology, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 133-138.

Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin III, F. S., & Tilman, D. (2006). Biodiversity loss

threatens human well-being. PLoS biology, 4(8), e277.

Driciru M, Kisolo D, Lutaya B, Pomeroy D, Tushabe H, Siefert L (1999). Lions of

Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1418.0724.

Driciru, M. (2005) Predictive population viability of lions in Murchison Falls

National Park. MSc thesis. Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.

Driciru, M., Siefert, L. & Mapesa, M. (2005) Status of lions in Uganda.

Unpublished report to Uganda Wildlife Authority.

Dröge E, Creel S, Becker MS, Loveridge AJ, Sousa LL, Macdonald DW. (2020).

Assessing the performance of index calibration survey methods to monitor

populations of wide‐ranging low‐density carnivores. Ecology and Evolution.

Elliot NB, Bett A, Chege M, Sankan K, de Souza N, Kariuki L, Broekhuis F,

Omondi P, Ngene S, Gopalaswamy AM. (2020). The importance of reliable

monitoring methods for the management of small, isolated populations.

Conservation Science and Practice 2:e217 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.217.

Elliot NB, et al. (2021). Report on the application of novel estimating

methodologies to monitor lion abundance within source populations and large

carnivore occupancy at a national scale. Wildlife Research and Training Institute

and Kenya Wildlife Service. ISBN: 978-9914-40-516-3.

Elliot NB, Gopalaswamy AM. (2017). Towards accurate and precise estimates of

lion density. Conservation Biology 31:934-943 DOI:

http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12878.

Gopalaswamy AM, Delampady M, Karanth KU, Kumar NS, Macdonald DW.

(2015). An examination of index-calibration experiments: counting tigers at

macroecological scales. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 6:1055-1066 DOI:

http://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12351.

Hayward, M. W., Henschel, P., O'Brien, J., Hofmeyr, M., Balme, G., & Kerley, G. I.

(2006). Prey preferences of the leopard (Panthera pardus). Journal of Zoology,

270(2), 298-313.

References

References 88.

88.

Marnewick, K., Funston, P. J., & Karanth, K. U. (2008). Evaluating camera

trapping as a method for estimating cheetah abundance in ranching areas. South

African Journal of Wildlife Research-24-month delayed open access, 38(1), 59-

65.

Miller JR, Balme G, Lindsey PA, Loveridge AJ, Becker MS, Begg C, Brink H,

Dolrenry S, Hunt JE, Jansson I. (2016). Aging traits and sustainable trophy

hunting of African lions. Biological Conservation 201:160-168.

Montgomery RA, Mudumba T, Wijers M, Boudinot LA, Loveridge A, Chapron G,

Macdonald DW. (2023). Predicting the consequences of subsistence poaching on

the population persistence of a non-target species of conservation concern.

Biological Conservation 284:110147 DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110147.

Mudumba, T., & Jingo, S. (2015). Murchison Falls National Park Lions population

structure ranging and key threats to their survival.

Mudumba, T., Jingo, S., Heit, D., & Montgomery, R. A. (2021). The landscape

configuration and lethality of snare poaching of sympatric guilds of large

carnivores and ungulates. African Journal of Ecology, 59(1), 51-62.

Mudumba, T., Stimpson, B., Jingo, S., & Montgomery, R. A. (2023). The

implications of global oil exploration for the conservation of terrestrial wildlife.

Environmental Challenges, 11, 100710.

Ogutu JO, Dublin HT. (1998). The response of lions and spotted hyaenas to

sound playbacks as a technique for estimating population size. African Journal

of Ecology 36:83-95 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2028.1998.113-89113.x.

Omoya EO, Mudumba T, Buckland ST, Mulondo P, Plumptre AJ. (2014).

Estimating population sizes of lions Panthera leo and spotted hyaenas Crocuta

crocuta in Uganda's savannah parks, using lure count methods. Oryx 48:394-401.

Otis DL, Burnham KP, White GC, Anderson DR. (1978). Statistical inference from

the capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62:1 - 135.

Packer C, Herbst L, Pusey AE, Bygott JD, Hanby JP, Cairns SJ, Borgerhoff-Mulder

M. (1988). Reproductive success in lions. Pages 363 - 383 in Clutton-Brock TH,

editor. Reproductive Success: Studies of individual variation in crossbreeding

systems. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Pennycuick CJ, Rudnai J. (1970). A method of identifying individual lions

(Panthera leo), with an analysis of reliability of identification. Journal of

Zoology 160:497-508.

Royle JA, Chandler RB, Sollmann R, Gardner B (2013). Spatial capture-recapture.

Academic Press, Amsterdam DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/C2012-0-01222-7.

Royle JA, Young KV. (2008). A hierarchical model for spatial capture–recapture

data. Ecology 89:2281-2289.

References

References 89.

89.

Samarasinghe, D. J., Wikramanayake, E. D., Gopalaswamy, A. M., Jayewardene,

R., Kumara, J., Fernando, J., ... & Braczkowski, A. (2022). Evidence for a critical

leopard conservation stronghold from a large protected landscape on the island

of Sri Lanka. Global Ecology and Conservation, 37, e02173.

Schuette, P., Creel, S., & Christianson, D. (2013). Coexistence of African lions,

livestock, and people in a landscape with variable human land use and seasonal

movements. Biological Conservation, 157, 148-154.

Thompson, B., & Amoroso, L. (Eds.). (2011). Combating micronutrient

deficiencies: food-based approaches. Cabi.

Treves A, Plumptre AJ, Hunter LTB, Ziwa J. (2009). Identifying a potential lion

Panthera leo stronghold in Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda, and Parc

National des Virunga, Democratic Republic of Congo. Oryx 43:60-66 DOI:

10.1017/S003060530700124X.

Van Orsdol, K.G. (1981) Lion predation in Rwenzori National Park, Uganda. PhD

thesis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Wakabi, W. (2006). Population growth continues to drive up poverty in Uganda.

The Lancet, 367(9510), 558.

Western G, Elliot NB, Sompeta SL, Broekhuis F, Ngene S, Gopalaswamy AM.

(2022). Lions in a coexistence landscape: Repurposing a traditional field

technique to monitor an elusive carnivore. Ecology and Evolution 12:e8662 DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8662.

References

References 90.

90.

Strategic Action Plan

for Large Carnivore

Conservation in Uganda

2024 - 2034

2nd Edition

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

The implications of global oil exploration for the conservation of terrestrial wildlife

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023

Global dependence upon fossil fuels persists in the 21st century. With known deposits of oil diminishing, technological advancements and alternative financing have facilitated explorations into a number of sensitive habitats around the world. Such pursuits challenge global priorities relating to the ideals of energy production versus those of biodiversity protection. Presently, the implications of oil extraction on terrestrial wildlife, for instance, are unclear, undermining the ability to meet this challenge. We synthesized the literature to quantify the range of documented impacts of oil extraction on terrestrial wildlife and to identify prevailing knowledge gaps. Our review returned 31 studies documenting various effects of oil extraction, across the exploration, development, production, and abandonment phases, on terrestrial wildlife. These studies were most often based in North and South America, tended to focus on the development phase of oil extraction projects, and often focused on the impacts on mammals. We found that terrestrial wildlife were generally negatively impacted by oil extraction through road development, seismic surveys, hydraulic fracturing, installation of oil wells, contamination, and other extraction disturbances. We also considered the implications of this review on oil extraction in Murchison Falls National Park and the broader Murchison Falls Conservation Area, a highly biodiverse region in Uganda. Herein, we detected an important knowledge gap relating to the ways in which various oil extraction activities may increase the potential for human-wildlife conflict. Reviews of this type are essential for quantifying the effects of oil extraction on terrestrial wildlife and can inform future decision-making on natural resource extraction in ecologically-sensitive habitats globally.

Spatially explicit population estimates of African leopards and spotted hyenas in the Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area of southwestern Uganda

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2022

African leopards (Panthera pardus pardus) and spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) are data deficient across much of Africa, and there are only a handful of recent population estimates for these species from Uganda. This has conservation ramifications, as both species are important for wildlife tourism, and leopards are hunted for sport in several regions adjacent to national parks as part of a government-led revenue-sharing scheme to foster increased tolerance of wildlife. We ran a single-season camera-trap survey in each of the northern and southern sections of the Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area (2400 km 2), Uganda's second largest national park. We applied spatially explicit capture-recapture (SECR) models to estimate the population density and abundance of leopards and spotted hyenas in the northern Mweya and Kasenyi plains area, and the southern Ishasha sector. Leopard densities were estimated to be 5.03 (95% Highest Posterior Density, HPD = 2.80-7.63) and 4.31 (95% HPD = 1.95-6.88) individuals/100 km 2 for the north and south of the conservation area, respectively, while spotted hyena densities were 13.44 (95% HPD = 9.01-18.81) and 14.07 individuals/100 km 2 (95% HPD = 8.52-18.54) for the north and south, respectively. Leopard densities were in the middle range of those recorded in the literature, while sex ratios were what would be expected for this polygamous felid. Spotted hyena densities were on the higher end of those recorded for the species using spatially explicit capture-recapture (SECR) methods. Our work provides the first robust population estimate of leopards and spotted hyenas in the Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area of western Uganda.

Predicting potential distributions of large carnivores in Kenya: An occupancy study to guide conservation

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2022
DIVERS DISTRIB

Aim Species‐specific conservation strategies are frequently formulated based on species distribution maps, which are challenging to produce, especially at large spatial scales. Our aim was to use a novel empirical approach to predict the national distribution for all six large carnivore species found in Kenya to guide conservation and management decisions by identifying knowledge and conservation gaps. Location Kenya. Methods We collected data on carnivore presence and absence through questionnaire and sightings‐based surveys and analysed the combined data set using single‐season false‐positive occupancy models, which account for imperfect detections and false positives. To predict potential distributions and inform conservation strategies, we used the occupancy outputs to make predictions for unsampled areas and create occupancy‐based distribution maps where ψ > 0.50, to (1) quantify differences with IUCN Red List range maps, (2) quantify overlap with wildlife areas and (3) identify areas of high carnivore richness. Results Large carnivore occupancy was associated with land conversion, habitat and prey availability. Our results suggest that all six species are widely distributed across Kenya and reveal substantial differences to distribution maps compiled by the IUCN Red List. More specifically, our occupancy‐based distribution maps predict much larger distribution for African wild dog (5.09X), lion (4.77X) and leopard (1.46X), similar distribution for cheetah, and smaller distribution for spotted hyaena (0.84X) and striped hyaena (0.65X). For all large carnivores, the vast majority (~80%) of their predicted distribution falls outside wildlife areas and northern Kenya is predicted to have the highest large carnivore richness. Main conclusions Our results are encouraging as large carnivores may be widely distributed across Kenya, in some cases potentially more so than previously acknowledged. However, much of this range lies outside wildlife areas and represent areas of concern both for conservation and human livelihoods illustrating the challenges of conserving large carnivores across their range.

Evidence for a critical leopard conservation stronghold from a large protected landscape on the island of Sri Lanka

Article

Full-text available

May 2022

The decline and extirpation of large carnivore populations can lead to cascading effects in natural ecosystems. An understanding of large carnivore population densities, distribution and dynamics is therefore critical for developing effective conservation strategies across landscapes. This is particularly important in island environments where species face increased extinction risk due to genetic isolation coupled with local losses of finite habitat. The Sri Lankan leopard Panthera pardus kotiya is one of two remaining island-living leopards on Earth and the only apex predator in Sri Lanka. Despite its iconic status in Sri Lanka, robust research on the species has been limited to only a handful of scientific studies, limiting meaningful scientific recommendations for the species’ conservation and management. In this study, we conducted a single season camera trap survey in Sri Lanka’s largest protected area, Wilpattu National Park (1,317 km²), located in the country’s northwest. Our objective was to estimate key ecological state variables of interest (density, abundance, sex-specific movement and spatial distribution) of this leopard subspecies. Our results indicate that Wilpattu National Park supports a density of 18 individuals/100 km² (posterior SD=1.5; 95% HPD interval=16–21) with a mean abundance of 144 (posterior SD=15) individual leopards and a healthy sex ratio (f:m=2.03:1). The estimated activity range for male leopards >2 years old was 49.53 km² (Posterior SD=3.43; HPD interval=43.09–56.41) and for female leopards >2 years old was 22.04 km² (Posterior SD=1.82; HPD interval=18.34–25.65). This density falls at the higher end of published estimates for the species anywhere in its global range, based on similar methods. Given Sri Lanka’s limited size, this national park system should be considered as a critical stronghold that maintains a source population of leopards, contributing to the long-term population viability of leopards in the larger landscape.

Using camera traps to study hyenas: challenges, opportunities, and outlook

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2022

The use of remote camera traps has accelerated rapidly in the field of large carnivore science since the 1990s. Members of the Hyaenidae are important components of functional ecosystems in Africa and parts of the Middle East and South Asia, and make good candidates for study using camera traps. However, camera trap studies of hyenas remain rare in the literature when compared to species like tigers Panthera tigris, leopards Panthera pardus, and snow leopards Panthera uncia. In this paper, we examine the published use of camera traps for hyenas (n = 34 studies implemented between 2007 and 2020) and examine the logistical challenges of using camera traps, such as individual identification, limited sexual dimorphism, and complex social structures, for studies of hyena population biology, behavioral ecology, and conservation. We highlight what these challenges may mean for data analyses and interpretation. We also suggest potential benefits of further camera trap studies of this taxonomic family, including new insights into social behavior, range extensions, and robust density estimates.

Leopard and spotted hyena densities in the Lake Mburo National Park, southwestern Uganda

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2022

Robust measures of animal densities are necessary for effective wildlife management. Leopards (Panthera pardus) and spotted hyenas (Crocuta Crocuta) are higher order predators that are data deficient across much of their East African range and in Uganda, excepting for one peer-reviewed study on hyenas, there are presently no credible population estimates for these species. A lack of information on the population status and even baseline densities of these species has ramifications as leopards are drawcards for the photo-tourism industry, and along with hyenas are often responsible for livestock depredations from pastoralist communities. Leopards are also sometimes hunted for sport. Establishing baseline density estimates for these species is urgently needed not only for population monitoring purposes, but in the design of sustainable management offtakes, and in assessing certain conservation interventions like financial compensation for livestock depredation. Accordingly, we ran a single-season survey of these carnivores in the Lake Mburo National Park of southwestern Uganda using 60 remote camera traps distributed in a paired format at 30 locations. We analysed hyena and leopard detections under a Bayesian spatially explicit capture-recapture (SECR) modelling framework to estimate their densities. This small national park (370 km 2) is surrounded by Bahima pastoralist communities with high densities of cattle on the park edge (with regular park incursions). Leopard densities were estimated at 6.31 individuals/100 km 2 (posterior SD = 1.47, 95% CI [3.75-9.20]), and spotted hyena densities were 10.99 Distributed under Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 individuals/100 km 2 , but with wide confidence intervals (posterior SD = 3.35, 95% CI [5.63-17.37]). Leopard and spotted hyena abundance within the boundaries of the national park were 24.87 (posterior SD 7.78) and 39.07 individuals (posterior = SD 13.51) respectively. Leopard densities were on the middle end of SECR studies published in the peer-reviewed literature over the last 5 years while spotted hyena densities were some of the first reported in the literature using SECR, and similar to a study in Botswana which reported 11.80 spotted hyenas/100 km 2. Densities were not noticeably lower at the park edge, and in the southwest of our study site, despite repeated cattle incursions into these areas. We postulate that the relatively high densities of both species in the region could be owed to impala Aepyceros melampus densities ranging from 16.6-25.6 impala/km 2. Another, potential explanatory variable (albeit a speculative one) is the absence of interspecific competition from African lions (Panthera leo), which became functionally extinct (there is only one male lion present) in the park nearly two decades ago. This study provides the first robust population estimate of these species anywhere in Uganda and suggests leopards and spotted hyenas continue to persist in the highly modified landscape of Lake Mburo National Park.

The landscape configuration and lethality of snare poaching of sympatric guilds of large carnivores and ungulates

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2020

Poaching of wildlife presents one of the biggest conservation challenges in the 21st century. Snaring is one of the primary means of capturing target animals. To prioritise interventions intending to reduce snaring, we describe an approach for quantifying the configuration and lethality of snares. We conducted transect surveys in Murchison Falls National Park. All the snares that we recovered were made of wire with the majority (81.0%, n = 546 of 674) deriving from vehicle tire wire. The density of snares ranged from 0.08 to 4.58 snares/km², which is the highest known density in sub-Saharan Africa. The majority (63%) of the animals caught in wire snares were unrecovered and wasted. We found that noose width, vertical drop, wire circumference, anchor height, proportion of un-thicketed area, grass height, distance to river and village had a significant positive relationships to lethality, while snare thickness, charms, tree DBH, thicket diameter, distance to nearest road negatively affected lethality. We recommend adopting wholistic anti-snare countermeasures such as the human heritage-centred conservation to empower local people. Our method illustrates the opportunity to standardise temporal and spatial measurements of snare density and configuration necessary to stop illegal wildlife poaching.

Detecting early warnings of pressure on an African lion (Panthera leo) population in the Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2020

African lions are declining across much of their range, yet robust measures of population densities remain rare. The Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area (QECA; 2,400 km²) in East Africa's Albertine Rift has potential to support a significant lion population. However, QECA lions are threatened, and information on the status of lions in the region is lacking. Here, we use a spatially explicit search encounter approach to estimate key population parameters of lions in the QECA. We then compare home range sizes estimated from our models to those from a radio‐collaring study implemented a decade earlier. We recorded 8,243.5 km of search effort over 93 days, detecting 30 individual lions (16 female and 14 male) on 165 occasions at a rate of 2 lion detections/100 km². Lion density in the QECA was 2.70 adult lions/100 km² (SD = 0.47), while mean abundance was 71 individuals (SD = 11.05). Worryingly, the movement parameter for male lions was 3.27 km and 2.22 km for females, suggesting > 400%, and > 100% increases in home range size, respectively, compared to a decade earlier. Sex ratio of lions in the QECA was lower (1 male: 0.75 females), when compared to a previously published review (mean = 1:2.33). The large movements and skewed sex ratios we report on in this paper are likely a result of human‐driven prey depletion. Our results suggest lions in the QECA are in a precarious state, and the lion densities are significantly lower than what they could be. As lions are under pressure throughout much of Africa, our study presents the utility of a census technique that could be used elsewhere as an early warning of lion declines.

The importance of reliable monitoring methods for the management of small, isolated populations

Article

Full-text available

May 2020

To effectively manage wildlife populations, it is essential to reliably estimate their abundance. This is particularly the case for small, isolated populations, which are vulnerable to extirpation. Lake Nakuru National Park in Kenya is one such small, isolated area where an introduced population of African lions (Panthera leo) is vulnerable to genetic degradation and catastrophic events. A founder population of six individuals was introduced between 1984 and 1992, with no further recorded immigration. We used Bayesian spatially‐explicit capture–recapture models to estimate lion density and abundance based on unstructured spatial sampling. For individuals over the age of 1 year, posterior mean lion density was estimated to be 6.75 (mode = 5.93, posterior SD = 0.92) individuals/100 km2, with a mean abundance of 11.37 (mode = 10, posterior SD = 1.54), and a sex ratio of 1.38♀:1♂. Previous reports provided abundance figures much higher than ours. However, our estimates are the result of the first scientifically robust survey and we discuss why they should be viewed as a baseline rather than being suggestive of population decline, and how the discrepancy highlights the need for regular systematic surveys using a standardized framework. Given the small population size and prolonged genetic isolation, we provide long‐term management recommendations to secure this lion population.

Predicting the consequences of subsistence poaching on the population persistence of a non-target species of conservation concern

Article