Note to USAID Staff, Consultants & Partners Regarding … · Web viewThe USFS will provide NFA and UWA with institutional capacity building across technical and managerial areas including

INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATIONAND

REQUEST FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

AMENDMENT # 2 – NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION (NRM-BC) PORTFOLIO

Activity/Project Title: Environment Natural Resources Management and Biodiversity Conservation (ENRM-BC)PROGRAM AREA 4.8: EnvironmentPROGRAM ELEMENT 4.8.1: Natural Resources and Biodiversity

Solicitation #:[As assigned by contracting office]

Contract/Award Number (if known):Geographic Location : Uganda/East AfricaOriginating Bureau: Africa Bureau

Supplemental IEE: ☐Yes ☒ NoAmendment: ☒Yes ☐NoProgrammatic IEE: ☐Yes ☒ No

DCN and date of Original document: Uganda_DO1_NRM-BC_ IEE_050715 (http://gemini.info.usaid.gov/egat/envcomp/repository/pdf/43516.pdf)DCN and ECD link(s) of Amendment(s):Uganda_DO1_NRM_BC IEE Amendment 1_050616 (http://gemini.info.usaid.gov/repository/doc/47291.docx)Amendment No: 2: Uganda_DO1 NRM and Biodiversity Conservation_IEE Amend#2_11302017: http://gemini.info.usaid.gov/document.php?doc_id=50527

Please note due to CIO mandated changes this permalink will change soon (Dec. 2017) to: http://ecd.usaid.gov/document.php?doc_id=50527

Funding Amount: $27,700,000 Life of Project: 5 yearsImplementation Start/End: FY 2017 to FY 2022Prepared By: USAID/Uganda Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) TeamIEE Submitted by: Jessica Okui, Mission Environmental Officer USAID/Uganda

Date Submitted: November 24, 2017

Expiration Date: September 30, 2022 Reporting due dates (if any):Environmental Media and/or Human Health Potentially Impacted (check all that apply):None☐ Air ☒ Water☒ Land ☒ Biodiversity☒ Human Health☒ Other☐

Uganda DO1 NRM Biodiversity Portfolio IEE Amendment 2_FY2017-FY2022 1

http://ecd.usaid.gov/document.php?doc_id=50527

http://gemini.info.usaid.gov/document.php?doc_id=50527

http://gemini.info.usaid.gov/egat/envcomp/repository/pdf/43516.pdf


Recommended Threshold Determination(check all that apply):☒ Negative Determination

☒ with conditions☒ Categorical Exclusion

☐ Positive Determination☐ Deferral☐ Exemption☐ USG Domestic NEPA action

Additional Elements☒ Conditions ☒ EMMP ☐ WQAP ☐Pesticides ☐ Deferred ☐ Other: ☒ESF/ERRClimate Change:

GCC/Adaptation GCC/Mitigation ☒ Climate Change Vulnerability Analysis (included)Adaptation/Mitigation Measures: USAID Uganda’s Biodiversity Management PAD amendment will include several new biodiversity activities as well as modifications to several exiting activities. Per the Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 201 Climate Risk Management for Projects and Activities10/15/2017 a tailored climate risk analysis was done to support new conservation-related project and activity planning and design. The report, entitled Climate Risks to Conservation in Uganda (attached as an Appendix 2 to this IEE Amendment), built upon climate risk information from the 2013 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Uganda’s agriculture sector by assessing the vulnerability of biodiversity to climate change in USAID-targeted protected areas and their surrounding landscapes. The report identified climate risks in these landscapes and to the people living in and around them. This linkage is critical as communities and households in these areas rely heavily on the natural resources and ecosystem services provided by these landscapes and climate change impacts that affect one will affect the other either directly or indirectly. Key findings and recommendations are summarized below. Because climate variability and change may halt or reverse the sustainability of traditional conservation actions unless addressed, activity designs will incorporate selected site-specific recommendations to reduce climate vulnerability.Key Findings and Recommendations:

Climate change is one of many stressors, and is often not the most immediate, affecting biodiversity in Uganda. However, non-climate stressors are being exacerbated by climate factors and indirectly increasing risks to biodiversity. Overall addressing non-climate stressors should be prioritized in investment decisions in the Albertine.

Based on trend data, climate risks to biodiversity, livelihoods and ecosystem services appear significant, especially in the dry cattle corridor and mountainous areas and should be prioritized in investments in these areas.

The primary direct climate stressors for biodiversity are higher temperatures, more erratic rainfall and increased frequency of extreme weather events.

Increased intensity and spread of fires present the most pronounced indirect impact on biodiversity. Resulting changes in species composition, movement and distribution as well as the increased spread of invasive species impact the habitat quality in protected areas.

Significant gaps in climate change knowledge and adaptation responses to climate change for biodiversity exist. Investment should include climate smart protected area, buffer area and conservancy management practices. Weather based-information services for livestock holders and others should be promoted to improve climate-resilient management techniques. Land use planning and forest management efforts should include investments in catchment management to counter reduced water flows to catchments as a result of climate change.


Other Relevant Environmental Compliance Documentation: Uganda_Infrastructure_Development_051715 Uganda Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Report (2013)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:

This Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) and/or Request for Categorical Exclusion (RCE) Amendment #2 covers ongoing and new activities in the amended Biodiversity Management Project Appraisal Document (PAD), implemented under the Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) portfolio. It replaces and supersedes previous ENR IEEs.

The purpose of this amendment of the original NRM-BC IEE (file name: Uganda_DO1_NRM-BC_ IEE_050715) is to provide a 22 CFR 216 review of new activities, increase the funding and scope of existing mechanisms, and provide threshold determinations for these activities as described in the amended Biodiversity Management PAD.

These activities align to DO1: Community and household resilience in select areas and target populations increased and DO3: Key systems more accountable and responsive to Uganda’s development needs in USAID/Uganda’s 2016-2021 Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS 2.0).

RECOMMENDED THRESHOLD DETERMINATIONS:

This IEE and RCE Amendment #2 recommends the following environmental threshold determinations: Activities Categorical

ExclusionNegative DeterminationWith Conditions

PositiveDetermination

Deferral

USFS Interagency Agreement Buy-in

√ √ - -

Biodiversity Trust Fund √ √ - -

Biodiversity Conservancy “Bridge” Buy-in

√ √ - -

Integrated Biodiversity and Resilience Activity

√ √ - -

Counter Wildlife Crime Activity

√ - - -

Wildlife TRAPS Buy-in √ - - -Blanket ENR Sector Evaluations, assessments and analyses

√ - - -

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES:

As required by ADS 204.3.4, the USAID/Uganda ENR team and activity implementing partners will actively monitor and evaluate whether the environmental features designed for these ENR activities resulting from the 22 CFR 216 process are being implemented effectively and whether there are new or unforeseen consequences arising during implementation that were not identified and reviewed in accordance with 22 CFR 216. If additional ENR activities not described in this document are added, an amended environmental examination must be prepared and approved.


https://www.climatelinks.org/sites/default/files/asset/document/ARCC-Uganda%2520VA-Report.pdf


In the event that any new ENR activity differs substantially from the type or nature of activities described here or requires different or additional mitigation measures beyond these described, this IEE and RCE Amendment #2 will be further amended. Ongoing activities with approved environmental monitoring and mitigation plans (EMMPs) may continue operating under those EMMPs. New activities or ongoing activities without approved EMMPs must meet the conditions of this IEE regardless of the award date.

APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION RECOMMENDEDDO 1: Economic Growth: Environment: NRM-BC IEE & RCE Amendment # 2

CLEARANCE:

Deputy Mission Director, USAID Uganda: _________/s/_______________ Date: _n.d.____ Jo Lesser-Oltheten

Mission Director,USAID Uganda: _________/s/_______________ Date: __22 Nov. 2017___ Mark Meassick

CONCURRENCE:

Bureau Environmental Officer, ________/s/__________________ Date: 11/30/2017AFR/SD: Brian Hirsch

File Name: Uganda_DO1 NRM and Biodiversity Conservation_IEE Amend#2_11302017 _____________________________________________________________ ECD url: http://gemini.info.usaid.gov/document.php?doc_id=50527

Please note due to CIO mandated changes this permalink will change in the near future to: http://ecd.usaid.gov/document.php?doc_id=50527

ADDITIONAL CLEARANCE: Mission Environmental Officer, ________/s/________________ Date: _Nov. 2, 2017__USAID/Uganda: Jessica Okui

EG Director, __________/s/______________ Date: Nov. 9, 2017 __USAID/Uganda: Sheila Desai with edits

Regional Environmental Officer, __ /s/ ______________ Date: Nov. 2, 2017_USAID/Kenya and East Africa: David Kinyua


http://ecd.usaid.gov/document.php?doc_id=50527

http://gemini.info.usaid.gov/document.php?doc_id=50527

INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATIONAmendment #2

PROGRAM/ACTIVITY DATA:Country/Region: Uganda/East AfricaProgram/Activity Name: Natural Resources Management and Biodiversity Conservation Program Area: 4.8 Environment Program Element: 4.8.1 Natural Resources and Biodiversity

Funding Period: FY 2017–FY2022 1. BACKGROUND AND ACTIVITY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

1.1 Purpose and Scope of IEE

Regulation 22 CFR 216 review procedures apply to all new projects, programs or activities authorized or approved by A.I.D. and to substantive amendments or extensions of ongoing projects, programs, or activities. This Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) and/or Request for Categorical Exclusion (RCE) Amendment #2 covers ongoing and new activities under the amended Biodiversity Management Project Appraisal Document (PAD), implemented under the Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) portfolio. The purpose of this Amendment #2 of the original IEE and/or RCE (File name: Uganda_DO1_NRM-BC_ IEE_050715) is to provide a 22 CFR 216 review of new activities, increase the funding and scope of existing mechanisms, and provide threshold determinations for these activities under the amended Biodiversity Management PAD.

In the event that any new proposed activity in ENR differs substantially from the type or nature of the activities described here or requires different or additional mitigation measures beyond these described, this IEE and/or RCE Amendment #2 shall be further amended.

1.2 Background

The Government of Uganda (GOU) supports sustainable development through the second (2015-2020) National Development Plan (NDP2) in accordance with its overall policy framework and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). The Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) holds principal responsibility for national planning, policy formulation, and reviewing of national policies, laws and programs for the water and environment sectors. The administration of environmental policies and laws, however, is embedded in implementing authorities that have differing mandates and capacities. The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) is a semi-autonomous institution responsible for monitoring, regulating and supervising all matters on the environment in Uganda. Management of the nation’s forest reserves, including biodiversity protection and regulating community/ private sector use, is in the hands of the National Forest Authority (NFA). The Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), however, falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities and manages the national parks and wildlife reserves.

Through USAID/Uganda’s conservation programs to date, a good rapport has been established with these organizations and the following major gaps have been identified: UWA lacks sufficient funds to implement improved park management plans fully; NFA lacks financial resources and full authority to halt deforestation and human encroachment; NEMA has also experienced budget cuts that impact its effectiveness and efficient implementation of environmental compliance functions. All three institutions would benefit from USAID’s activities in the ENR sector.


The USAID/Uganda Mission completed its Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment (ETOA) - 2015, concurrent with USAID/Uganda’s 2016-2021 CDCS. The ETOA identifies the following as threats to biodiversity and forest conservation, in order of importance:

Agricultural expansion into natural ecosystems; Charcoal production/firewood collection; Infrastructure development, urban expansion, energy development, mining; Illegal activities: poaching (wildlife, fisheries, timber) and wildlife trafficking; Human-wildlife conflict; Pollution; Climate change; Zoonotic diseases; Invasive species; Over-exploitation of natural ecosystems, especially forests, wetlands, rangelands, fisheries; Transboundary threats; Human-induced wildfires; and Modern agricultural practices affecting agricultural biodiversity.

Additionally, Uganda conducted a climate change vulnerability assessment in 2012 which shows how current climate patterns shape and how future climate patterns may influence key crop value chains and the livelihoods of households that depend on them. Along with the results of this assessment, the report includes recommendations enriched by options generated by key stakeholders from government, donor agencies, research organizations, and civil society.

1.3 Description of Activities

1.3.1 United States Forest Service (USFS) Interagency Agreement Buy-in:

Since 2007, USAID/Uganda has invested in a centrally-managed participating agency program agreement (PAPA) with the USFS in order to provide support to ongoing activities and technical assistance to GOU partners. The USFS will continue to support the implementation of institutional strengthening interventions, targeted primarily at NFA and UWA, for biodiversity conservation and protected-areas management to reduce threats to biodiversity and conserve critical ecosystems across Uganda’s landscapes to ensure sustained economic growth. The USFS will provide NFA and UWA with institutional capacity building across technical and managerial areas including development and expansion of partnership arrangements, organizational sustainability, payments for ecosystem services, strategic planning, boundary demarcation, and infrastructure management and development, e.g., forest roads, trails, bridges, etc.

1.3.2 Biodiversity Trust Fund:

In 2014, USAID/Uganda awarded a four-year cooperative agreement to the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) to design and establish a biodiversity-focused Conservation Trust Fund (CTF) and identify seed funding for future grants in order to enable long-term, sustainable financing of conservation efforts aimed at Uganda’s protected areas, forests, and wetlands. The activity is being implemented in three phases: 1) creation of the CTF institution; 2) development of the CTF institution, including comprehensive governance, fundraising, fund management, and grant-making strategies to guide operations; and 3) implementation of the CTF. The activity works with key stakeholders to include GOU institutions charged with biodiversity management and protection, international donors, Ugandan conservation and civil society organizations, universities and research institutions, and the private sector to build the CTF institution and capitalize the fund.


USAID/Uganda is planning to increase the total estimated cost and duration of this award to allow for expanded mentorship and capacity building in endowment development and grants, investment and financial management, along with additional funds for the provision of integrated biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation seed grants.

1.3.3 Biodiversity Conservancy “Bridge” Buy-in:

In order to advance work in the immediate term on the conservancy model initiated by the Biodiversity Program in 2012, USAID/Uganda will invest in a conservancy “bridge” activity as a buy-in to an existing regional interagency agreement with the USDOI or the USFS. To date, the ongoing Biodiversity Program has supported two of three target conservancy areas (private and community land surrounding Lake Mburo, Murchison Falls and Kidepo Valley National Parks) to develop governance structures and has attracted some outside partnerships, which are still in the initial stages of development. However, much of the work of a typical conservancy remains as yet undeveloped, and no economic benefits have accrued to the communities to date. Given the pace at which wild areas are being converted to agricultural land, threatening biodiversity and increasing human-wildlife conflict, USAID/Uganda recognizes the importance of supporting this nascent conservancy initiative while interest among communities and other partners is still high. Establishing this “bridge” as a new buy-in to an ongoing agreement will allow the Mission to access existing expertise on conservancy development and management, and prevent the loss of momentum while new PADs are developed under the 2016-2021 CDCS. The implementing partner will select and develop enterprises based on available information. USAID/Uganda expects to continue its support for conservancies under the Integrated Biodiversity and Resilience Activity which will be designed concurrently with the implementation of the “bridge” activity these may include infrastructure e.g. connecting roads in the conservancies, economic enterprises, construction/renovation of office blocks and other supporting infrastructure.

1.3.4 Integrated Biodiversity and Resilience Activity:

This new activity shall support sustainable biodiversity conservation, local economic growth, and building resilient ecosystems and communities in and around priority protected areas in Uganda—Lake Mburo, Murchison Falls and Kidepo Valley National Parks, and Budongo and Kalinzu Central Forest Reserves. The activity shall use applied conservation science and conservation enterprises, including ecotourism, together with conservation education tools to provide opportunities to communities to develop economic services that should enhance their appreciation of Uganda’s natural resources, thereby protecting ecosystems while promoting broader, sustainable economic development. A critical component of building resilient communities and households is preserving the ecosystem services on which they depend. Reduced water availability, invasive species and extreme weather events are climate drive shocks that this activity will work to address.

The activity’s efforts will focus on developing and supporting the governance of community conservancy areas as the lynchpin for improving management of protected areas and buffer zones and increasing conservation-based economic growth. Specifically, the activity will continue earlier gains made in: 1) building the institutional capacity of UWA and NFA to manage biodiversity and monitor and mitigate threats; 2) increasing appreciation for Uganda’s biodiversity through education and partnerships; and 3) increasing community and landowner benefits from conservation and wildlife-friendly economic activities, including ecotourism and public private partnerships.


1.3.5 Counter Wildlife Crime Activity:

This new activity shall focus on combating wildlife crime and trafficking, and shall build upon lessons learned from current investments in the sector and complement ongoing biodiversity conservation activities. The new activity will take a multi-pronged approach that includes: 1) capacity building for wildlife protection and law enforcement (from investigation through adjudication); 2) strengthening cooperation among government institutions, civil society and the private sector; 3) community and private sector outreach and engagement; and 4) improving conservation approaches through research, analysis and information management. Key anticipated outcomes include improved wildlife investigation, prosecution and adjudication capacity; strengthened systems and processes to enhance coordination among government, civil society and the private sector; increased community action to decrease poaching and trafficking; and improved understanding of status and trends of threats to key species in trade.

1.3.6 Wildlife Trafficking Response, Assessment and Priority Setting (Wildlife TRAPS) Buy –in:

Through a buy-in to the Wildlife TRAPS activity, a centrally-managed Public International Organization (PIO) award to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and TRAFFIC (IUCN’s partnership with the World Wildlife Fund), USAID/Uganda commissioned a comprehensive, Uganda-specific analysis of wildlife crime and trafficking to inform the subsequent design of targeted programming. This assessment culminated in a report that synthesizes current information, intelligence and analyses of the scope and scale of illegal wildlife trade in Uganda and its linkages to illegal wildlife trade dynamics in the East African region. In addition to the identification of key species impacted by illegal trade, the report details the current state of trafficking and market demand trends in Asia with a focus on hotspots, transit routes, weaknesses in enforcement, and drivers of the trade. The findings and recommendations included in the report will be vetted with stakeholders and will inform the identification of strategic interventions to combat wildlife trafficking in Uganda. One priority action already identified is the establishment of a wildlife stakeholder coordination forum. USAID/Uganda intends to help stand up this forum through support from TRAFFIC.

The overall goal of the Wildlife TRAPS activity is to protect global biodiversity from the threat of IWT through strengthening the knowledge base, resolve and cooperation of governments, inter-governmental organizations, the private sector and NGOs, in tackling wildlife trafficking between Africa and Asia. Key outcomes include improved understanding of the status and trends in trans-continental IWT; increased international collaboration around actions to reduce and control IWT between Africa and Asia; and effective strategies to combat IWT identified. Informed and facilitated. The parent award for this activity has been extended to 2020.

1.3.8 Blanket ENR sector evaluations, assessments and analyses USAID may undertake evaluations, assessments and analyses to support a variety of functions throughout the program cycle, to include baseline assessments, midpoint and final activity evaluations, learning reviews, political economy and gender analyses and desk reviews or other basic research to support project and activity designs. These are typically conducted independently from the activities described above and are often procured on an ad hoc basis. They may be conducted at any point in the program cycle or in collaboration with other development partners in support of activities and other investments made through the ENR portfolio.


2. COUNTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION (BASELINE INFORMATION)

2.1 Locations affected:

The implementation of many of the ENR sector activities will employ a landscape approach with a long-term focus on better management, protection, and conservation of natural resources. Consequently, some of the activities shall be implemented at the national level, whereas many shall be in selected protected areas (PA) and areas bordering protected areas. Site-based activities will focus on regions of high biodiversity and conservation value or with species of conservation interest. Depending on the activity design, a variety of environmental situations might be encountered.

2.2 Baseline information:

USAID/Uganda’s ETOA, completed in 2015, summarizes key features of the natural environment. Uganda is a landlocked country on the equator, covering 241,551 sq. km; approximately 20% of the surface area of Uganda is covered by aquatic systems comprising of five major lakes (Victoria, Kyoga, Albert, George and Edward), the Kazinga Chanel, about 160 minor lakes and an extensive system of rivers, dams and ponds. The aquatic systems are usually fringed with extensive wetlands. Uganda is among the richest countries with respect to its natural environment. The country has a wide variety of physical environmental features, ranging from tropical forests to grasslands, an extensive surface drainage pattern (e.g. lakes, rivers, streams, etc.), and arid and semi-arid areas to the snow-capped Rwenzori Mountains range. The country has seven of Africa's 18 bio- geographic regions, which is the highest concentration on the continent, and some 90 different vegetation communities.

Given Uganda’s location in a zone between the ecological communities that are characteristic of the drier East African savannas and the moist West African rain forests, combined with high altitude ranges, the country has a high level of biological diversity. Uganda ranks among the top ten most biodiverse countries globally. Most of Uganda’s biodiversity is found in the natural forests, but a considerable number is also found in other natural ecosystems such as mountains, savannas, wetlands, lakes, and rivers. Uganda is an exceptionally important area for biodiversity conservation. The natural resource base, especially its wide diversity of wildlife, is the country's greatest biological and economic asset for sustainable tourism industry development. More than 18,783 species of fauna and flora are recorded: approximately 5,000 species of higher plants; lower plants – algae (115 species), pteridophtes/ferns (386 species), bryophytes/mosses (500 species) and liverworts (250 species); and birds 11% (1,063 species) – representing 50% of Africa’s bird species. Uganda is second in Africa in number of mammal species (345 species); 15 mammal species and sub-species are endemic to Uganda; and nine species of primates are known, including the mountain gorilla, the red Columbus monkey and the chimpanzee. Over half (53.9% - 400 individuals) of the world's remaining population of mountain gorillas are found in Uganda; along with butterflies (1,249 species); fish (600 species); amphibians (98 species); reptiles (150 species); insects (8,999 species). The cichlid family consisting of 324 species, of which 292 are endemic to Lake Victoria (NEMA 2012), dominates the fish diversity in Uganda. Lakes Victoria, Kyoga, and George are of international importance in the conservation of endemic wetland species.

Conservation of key biodiversity resource areas is a well demonstrated priority of the Ugandan Government. About 13% of the country's land area is protected under a comprehensive system of National Parks, Wildlife Reserves, and Forest Reserves. The Uganda Wildlife Authority and the Forest Sector Support Department manage these areas.

Uganda’s biodiversity faces a wide range of threats and is at significant risk. The USAID/Uganda ETOA completed in 2015 identified the following threats to biodiversity and forest in order of importance:


Agricultural expansion into natural ecosystems: Agriculture potentially threatens the vitality

and health of wetlands through draining of water and clearing wetland vegetation, especially seasonal woodlands, bush, and thickets, negatively affecting their capability to provide ecosystem services (Turyahabwe et al., 2013). Furthermore, the promotion of commercial crops reduces available arable land for the rural poor, which may force them to encroach on forests and other natural ecosystems.

Charcoal/firewood collection: Biomass is the dominant energy resource for household as well as for small and medium scale industries – 92% of Uganda’s energy needs are met from woody biomass (NEMA, 2014a). Fuel wood currently contributes more than 96% of energy for cooking in Uganda (NEMA 2014b). Charcoal production increased from 7,975,000tons in 2009 to 10,449,000tons in 2013; during the same period, fuel wood for household use increased from 21,905,000 to 25,196,000 (UBOS 2014).

Infrastructure development: Urban expansion, energy development, mining. Urbanization and industrialization have exerted pressures mainly on peri-urban forest reserves and wetlands for expansion of urban and industrial centers, and 30% of Uganda’s wetland ecosystem, or 4.7% of Uganda land area, has been lost in just 15 years (NEMA 2014a).

Illegal activities: Poaching (wildlife, fisheries, timber) and wildlife trafficking. Illegal activities affecting biodiversity inside and outside protected areas and in wetlands, and water bodies include hunting for subsistence, commercial trading of wildlife and wildlife products (meat, skins, and other trophies) pit sawing and fishing. Animals most affected are elephants for ivory, hippopotamus for meat and ivory, sitatunga and other antelopes for subsistence consumption, and pangolins for their scales.

Human-wildlife conflict: These conflicts occur as a result of movement of wildlife form inside to outside protected areas. These conflicts are occurring as a result of increased interference between people and wildlife and destruction of crops by elephants, chimpanzees etc.

Pollution: This results from agricultural, industrial, and municipal waste discharge and dumping. This poses a potential threat to biodiversity through habitat modification or loss (NEMA 2014).

Climate change: An overview of climate change and biodiversity (USAID 2014) states, “Biodiversity and ecosystem-specific goods and services in Uganda are likely to be adversely affected by climate change in the future. According to projections, Uganda will continue to experience rising temperatures, which will increase by more than 2 °C by 2030 (Tetra Tech ARD, 2013). Additionally, the growing variability of inter-annual rainfall is projected to continue, including increased rainfall during the dry season. These new climate scenarios are expected to increase the frequency of floods, droughts, and fires.”

Zoonotic diseases: Zoonotic disease and vector-borne diseases form more than 70% of the

global emerging and reemerging disease burden. Zoonotic diseases are known to be very aggressive and contagious. Passed from animals to humans and vice versa, Uganda has experienced eight such out breaks in the past years (Nabukenya et al., 2014).

Invasive species: This is priority concern for protected area management. Invasives affect nearly half of all the National Parks, including Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Lake Mburo National Park, Kidepo Valley Conservation Area, Murchison Falls Conservation area, etc.


Over-exploitation of natural ecosystems, especially forests, wetlands, rangelands, and fisheries: Forest cover change in Uganda is has decreased from 24% in 1990 to 9% in 2015. Most logging for timber and fuel wood is taking place on private land (MWE 2011), making it difficult for responsible agencies to enforce the principal of maximum sustainable yield provided for in the legal framework governing exploitation of natural ecosystems. NATURAL FOREST (Ha)

1990 2000 2005 2010 2015

On private land

3,319,090 2,546,778 2,117,331 1,046,306 660,986

In protected areas

1,531,394 1,449,688 1,364,260 1,189,532 1,067,793

Total 4,880,484 4,018,466 3,573,591 2,292,838 1,829,779Source: Ministry of Water and Environment.

Transboundary threats: Transboundary threats to biodiversity conservation and forest management are mainly poaching across borders, trafficking of wildlife and forest products, seasonal incursion of pastoralists for water and grazing resources, fishing, charcoal burning and timber harvesting. The majority of Uganda’s protected areas high in biodiversity are located at international borders, which are largely porous.

Human-induced wildfires: Human induced wildfires threaten biodiversity resources. Fires are set to prepare land for agricultural production and rangeland regeneration and to flush animals and ease visibility during hunting. Fires can affect plant species composition, richness, diversity and cover (Govender et al., 2006).

Underlying causes: The following are the underlying causes of biodiversity threats described above:

- Population growth;- Weak governance, including weak implementation, conflicting, and overlapping

mandates;- Limited opportunities for off-farm employment;- Poverty;- Insecurity of land tenure;- Government policies that fail to promote conservation; and- Climate change.

Three regions of Uganda have particularly important biodiversity. These are: Western Uganda forms part of the Albertine Rift region, which is one of Africa’s most

important regions for biodiversity. About half of the entire population of the mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla berengei) lives in the extreme southwestern part of this region. Lakes George and Edward have 79 species of fish; three of these species are endemic to Uganda (Varicorhinus ruwenzori, Microcteriopoma damasi and Hypsopanchax modestus) (NEMA, 2009). An endemic species of papyrus (Chloropeta gracilirrostris) grows in the shallower parts of Lakes Edward, George, and Bunyonyi;

The Southern Central Region, Lake Victoria, the lakes of the Kyoga basin and Sango Bay originally had more than 600 endemic haplochromine cichlids; they also have important


biodiversity that, due to the island nature, is extremely fragile. This gives the southern portion of Central Uganda its particular importance for biodiversity (NEMA, 2009); and

Northeastern Uganda is important for biodiversity because a number of species are endemic to this area and areas of Kenya and Southern Sudan. The species include 30 species of birds, among which are the Karamoja Apalis (Apalis karamojae), a threatened species, and several species of butterflies, including Papilio nobilis and Charaxes smaragdilis elgonae, the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), lesser kudu (Tragalaphus imberbis), greater kudu (Tragalaphus strapsiceros), roan antelope (Hippotragus equines), Secretary bird (Sagittarius serppentaris) and ostrich (Struthio camelus).

Climate. Uganda has a tropical climate, with temperatures ranging from 21-25°C, apart from in the mountainous areas, which are much cooler – the top of Mount Rwenzori is often covered with snow. The hottest months are July to September and December to February. Evenings can feel chilly after the heat of the day with temperatures around 12- 16ºC. Most regions of Uganda, apart from the dry area in the north, have an annual rainfall of between 1,000 and 2,000 mm. There is heavy rain between March and May and between October and November (NEMA 2014).

In 2012, USAID/Uganda commissioned a climate change vulnerability assessment. Results of the assessment indicate that temperatures have and will continue to increase in Uganda, and although average total precipitation is projected to stay the same, the country may experience an increase in rainfall during the dry season and an increase in extreme events such as droughts and floods. The assessment’s livelihood analysis indicates that 73% of households surveyed are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts because of their reliance on sensitive crops and their lack of assets, financial capital, and non-agricultural sources of income that can be used at times of stress. Additionally as a result of global climate change, Uganda is experiencing melting glaciers in the Rwenzori Mountains and increasing intensity and frequency of dry spells and floods. This has led to increasing prevalence of agricultural pests and human diseases (e.g. malaria). Furthermore, biodiversity and ecosystem-specific goods and services in Uganda are likely to be adversely affected by climate change.

Topography: Uganda is divided into four relief regions: Above 2,000m – 2% of the land area; 1,500–2,000m – 5% of the land area; 900–1,500m – 84% per cent of the land area; and Below 900m – 9% of the land area.

A large part of Uganda forms part of the interior plateau of the African continent. The Rwenzori Mountains and the Mufumbira volcanoes in the West and Mt. Elgon, Mt. Moroto, Mt. Morungole, Mt. Timu and Mt. Kadam in the East (NEMA 2002) represent the plateau in the eastern and western parts of the country.

Soils: The most dominant soil type is ferralitic soil which accounts for about 2/3 of the soils found in the country. According to Parsons (1970), the soils of Uganda have been classified as:

Soils of high productivity constituting 8% of the land area; Soils of medium productivity covering 14% of the land area; Soils of fair productivity constituting 43 % of the land area; Soils of low productivity constituting 30% of the land area; and Soils of negligible productivity constituting 5 % of the land area (FAO 2006).


Water resources: Uganda is endowed with significant surface and ground water resources which consist of open water bodies (lakes and rivers), wetlands, groundwater, and rain water. Of the 241,500 km2 total area of the country, fresh water lakes occupy 36,280 km2 (15%).

Wetlands: Uganda presently has 12 sites designated as Wetlands of International Importance, with a surface area of 454,303 hectares. Wetlands occupy an estimated 13 % of Uganda’s national territory and serve a number of functions. They serve as storehouses for fresh water and nurseries for fish; they sustain high levels of biodiversity and represent important bird areas; some act as basins for tertiary treatment of urban wastewater; and many people depend for their livelihoods on wetland resources. However, the wide distribution of wetlands and the lack of protective mechanisms mean that a large proportion of the population has access to wetlands, which is resulting in extensive degradation and biodiversity loss. According to a 2012 NEMA report, wetlands in 2008 covered approximately 10.9 % of the land surface area, down from 15.6 percent in 1994 (MWE, 2012). The ongoing, overall decline in wetlands, particularly in the Lake Victoria and Lake Kyoga drainage basins, is largely attributed to encroachment for expansion of urban centers, housing settlements and industrial developments, and extension of agricultural land driven by declining soil productivity on the uplands, pushing people to farm in lowlands, exacerbated by complex land ownership issues.

Forest resources: Forests and woodlands cover approximately 4.9 million hectares in Uganda, about 24 % of the total land area in 2012 (UIA, 2012). The vast majority of this is woodland (19%), while the rest is tropical moist forest (5 %), and forest plantations (0.2%). According to the National State of Environment Report (NEMA 2012), Uganda’s forests and woodland resources contribute 2% of the national GDP; however the deforestation rate is estimated at 1.8 % per year. Between 1995 and 2005 Uganda’s forest area decline from 24 % to 18 % of the land area at a deforestation rate of 18%. Uganda has lost more than 3 million hectares of forest cover since 1990 (NFA, 2015). This is almost 30 % of the 1990 forest coverage acreage. The main factors at play are the rapid expansion of farmlands, rapidly growing human population, and increased urbanization (NEMA, 2012). In the recent past, the tendency for people to migrate out of the increasingly crowded city into the suburbs of Kampala has seen the forest coverage in the districts of Wakiso, Mukono and Mpigi reduce to 22 percent of what they were during 1990 (NFA, 2011).

Population: Population is an important factor that affects environmental management in Uganda. It affects the availability and renewability of natural resources. The use of natural resources is directly proportionate to population increase. A vast majority of Uganda’s population is very dependent on natural resources. For example the decline in forest cover at 1.8 percent per annum is attributed to the increasing demand of land for agriculture and fuel wood by the rapidly increasing population growth.

Uganda’s population is about 34.9 million people, up from 8 million people at the time of independence in 1962. The 2014 census revealed an increase of 10.7 million from the 24.2 million given by the 2002 census. This gives an annual growth rate of 3.03%, giving an estimated population of 42.4 million people by 2020. The average household size is 4.7 persons, with a sex ratio of 94.5 males per 100 females. An estimated 72% of the population lives in rural area as compared to 28% in the urban centers. 49% of Uganda’s population is under the age of 15 and 18.9% of the total population is under the age of five.

Population Number %Total 34.9 million 100%Children aged 0-59 months (under five years) 6.6 million 18.9%Women of reproductive age (15-49 years) 7.3 million 20.9%Population that is 15 years of age 17.0 million 48.7%Population of adolescents (10-19 years of age) 8.6 million 24.5%


Source: National Population and Housing Census 2014

Despite Uganda’s success in reducing poverty, more than 7.5 million Ugandans still live in poverty, surviving on income below the minimum that is required to meet their basic needs partly due to high population (MFPED 2012). The incidence of poverty remains higher in rural areas than in urban areas. The rural areas with 85% of the population constitute 94.4% of national poverty. These results suggest that the majority of the poor are in rural areas. The incidence of poverty remains highest in the Northern region and least in the Central region. On average, poverty incidence in the Northern region (46.2%) remains higher than the national average (24.5%) (UBOS 2010).

2.3 National Environmental Policies and Procedures:

All details in this section remain as described in the original IEE and RCE, (File Name: Uganda_DO1_NRM-BC_ IEE_050715), and is cross referenced in this amendment.

3. EVALUATION OF ACTIVITY ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POTENTIAL

Many of the proposed activities do not have direct adverse environmental impacts as they entail capacity building, skills development, education, behavior change communication, research and assessments, trainings, information transfers, etc. However, in the course of implementing these activities, partners should take advantage of opportunities to address any potential adverse environmental impacts that may emerge.

Some of the proposed activities will certainly have potential impacts on the proposed activity areas, such as:

(i) USFS activities involving: boundary demarcation and infrastructure management and development, e.g., forest roads, trails, bridges, etc.;

(ii) USAID’s support to conservancies, UWA, and NFA, e.g., infrastructure (roads, trails, bridges, outposts, boreholes, etc.), and other economic enterprises; and

(iii) Biodiversity Trust Fund sub-grants.

4. THRESHOLD DETERMINATIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES:

Table 1.0: Recommended threshold determinations and conditions for each activity group.Activities Recommended Threshold Determinations and Conditions4.1 Categorical ExclusionActivities with no adverse impacts on the environment: Technical assistance; Capacity building; Analysis, research, studies, evaluations,

assessments, etc..

Categorical Exclusion, per 22 CFR 216.2(c)(2)(i): education, technical assistance or training; (ii): (iii): analyses, studies, academic or research workshops and meetings; (v): document and information transfers; and (xiii).

No further environmental review required.


Activities Recommended Threshold Determinations and Conditions4.2 Negative Determination with Conditions

Activity Group 1:USAID ENR activities involving boundary demarcation, infrastructure management and development in select protected areas e.g. forest roads, trails, bridges etc.

A Negative Determination with Conditions recommended pursuant to 22 CFR 216.3(a)(2)(iii) for these activities:

Conditions:Constructions, and /or renovations, and rehabilitation shall be undertaken in a manner generally consistent with the guidance for environmentally sound construction, provided in the Small Scale Construction chapter of USAID’s Sector Environmental Guidelines: (http://www.usaidgems.org/SectorsGuidelines.htm.)These standards shall be specified in the EMMPs.

Activity Group 2:Establishment of economic enterprises in conservancies.

Conditions:Proposed enterprises shall be screened for potential adverse impacts on the environment, and appropriate mitigation measures recommended prior to approval.

Activity Group 3:Biodiversity Trust Fund sub-grants.

Conditions:The Biodiversity Trust Fund shall have in place an environmental screening system sufficient to demonstrate compliance with local environmental laws. This is to ensure that projects financed are environmentally sound and comply with applicable laws and procedures.

4.1 Monitoring and Compliance Assurance:

Implementing partners' annual reports and, as appropriate, progress reports shall contain a brief update on mitigation and monitoring measures being implemented, results of environmental monitoring, and any other major modifications/revisions in the development activities and mitigation and monitoring procedures.

The ENR team Activity Managers and A/CORs will report to the MEO on an annual basis on the status of the implementation of mitigation and monitoring requirements. This report should draw upon implementing partners' progress and annual reports, as well as on periodic site visits by the A/CORs and the activity managers

The ENR team is responsible for monitoring and evaluation of activities after implementation with respect to environmental effects. A process will be integrated into the ENR pertinent Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan which will involve periodic field visits.

The Activity Managers and the respective A/CORs are responsible for assuring that implementing partners have the human capacity necessary to incorporate environmental considerations into program planning and implementation and to take on their role in the Environmental Screening Process. Implementing partners should seek training as needed, such as through participation in the Africa Bureau’s Global Environmental Management Support (GEMS II) offered training courses.


As required by ADS 204.3.4, the ENR team shall actively monitor ongoing activities for compliance with approved IEE recommendations and modify or end activities that are not in compliance. If additional activities are added to this program that are not described in this document, an amended environmental examination must be prepared.

4.2 General Project Implementation and Monitoring Requirements:

In addition to the specific conditions enumerated above, the negative determinations recommended in this IEE are contingent on full implementation of the following general monitoring and implementation requirements:

1. Implementing Partner Briefings on Environmental Compliance Responsibilities: The ENR Team shall provide each Implementing Partner (hereinafter IP), with a copy of this IEE; each IP shall be briefed on their environmental compliance responsibilities by their MEO and C/AOR. During this briefing, the IEE conditions applicable to the IP’s activities will be identified.

2. Development of EMMP: Each IP whose activities are subject to one or more conditions set out in section 3 of this IEE shall develop and provide for C/AOR and MEO review and approval, an EMMP documenting how their project will implement and verify all IEE conditions that apply to their activities (refer to APPENDIX 1).

These EMMPs shall identify how the IP shall assure that IEE conditions that apply to activities supported under subcontracts and sub-grants are implemented. (In the case of large sub-grants or subcontracts, the IP may elect to require the sub-grantee/subcontractor to develop their own EMMP.) (Note: The AFR EMMP Factsheet provides EMMP guidance and sample EMMP formats: http://www.usaidgems.org/Documents/lopDocs/ENCAP_EMMP_Factsheet_22Jul2011.pdf ).

3. Integration and Implementation of EMMP. Each IP shall integrate their EMMP into their project work plan and budgets, implement the EMMP, and report on its implementation as an element of regular project performance reporting.

IPs shall assure that sub-contractors and sub-grantees integrate implementation of IEE conditions, where applicable, into their own project work plans and budgets and report on their implementation as an element of sub-contract or grant performance reporting.

4. Integration of Compliance Responsibilities in Prime and Sub-contract and Grant Agreements.

a. The ENR Team shall assure that any future contracts or agreements for implementation of their portfolio activities, and/or significant modification to current contracts/agreements shall reference and require compliance with the conditions set out in this IEE, as required by ADS 204.3.4.a.6 and ADS 303.3.6.3.e.

b. IPs shall assure that future sub-contracts and sub-grant agreements, and/or significant modifications to existing agreements, reference and require compliance with relevant elements of these conditions.

5.Assurance of Sub-grantee and Sub-contractor Capacity and Compliance. IPs shall assure that sub-grantees and subcontractors have the capability to implement the relevant requirements of this IEE. The IP shall, as and if appropriate, provide training to sub-grantees and subcontractors in their environmental compliance responsibilities and in environmentally sound design and


http://www.usaidgems.org/Documents/lopDocs/ENCAP_EMMP_Factsheet_22Jul2011.pdf

management (ESDM) of their activities.

6.ENR team monitoring responsibility. As required by ADS 204.5.4, the ENR team will actively monitor and evaluate whether the conditions of this IEE are being implemented effectively and whether there are new or unforeseen consequences arising during implementation that were not identified and reviewed in this IEE. If new or unforeseen consequences arise during implementation, the team will suspend the activity and initiate appropriate, further review in accordance with 22 CFR 216. USAID Monitoring shall include regular site visits.

7.New or Modified Activities. As part of its Work Plan, and all Annual Work Plans thereafter, IPs, in collaboration with their C/AOR, shall review all on-going and planned activities to determine if they are within the scope of this IEE. If any activity makes substantial modifications outside the scope of what is covered by this IEE, an amendment to this IEE shall be undertaken prior to formal approval of the proposed modification. Any amendment to the PAD to include a new activity outside those listed under this IEE will require an amendment of this IEE before approval of the PAD amendment.

If activities outside the scope of this IEE are planned, the ENR team shall assure that an amendment to this IEE addressing these activities is prepared and approved prior to implementation of any such activities.

Any ongoing activities found to be outside the scope of the approved 22 CFR 216 environmental documentation shall be modified to comply or halted until an amendment to the documentation is submitted approved.


APPENDIX 1:

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN (EMMP)PROJECT/ACTIVITY DATAProject/Activity Name:Geographic Location(s) (Country/Region):Implementation Start/End:Contract/Award Number:Implementing Partner(s):Tracking ID/link:Tracking ID/link of Related IEE:Tracking ID/link of Other, Related Analyses:

ORGANIZATIONAL/ADMINISTRATIVE DATAImplementing Operating Unit(s): (e.g. Mission or Bureau or Office)Lead BEO Bureau:Prepared by:Date Prepared:Submitted by:Date Submitted:

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW DATAAnalysis Type: EMMPAdditional Analyses/Reporting Required:

EMMR[Add others as appropriate]


PURPOSEEnvironmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plans (EMMPs) are required for USAID-funded projects when the 22CFR216 documentation governing the project (e.g. the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE)) imposes mitigation measures on at least one project or activity. EMMPs ensure that the ADS 204.3 requirements for incorporating and monitoring appropriate mitigative measures into project or activity design. Responsibility for developing the EMMP lies with USAID, but EMMPs are usually prepared by the Implementing Partner (IP). EMMPs are typically conducted after the IEE is complete, though they may be completed as part of the IEE. EMMPs are a vehicle for translating IEE conditions and mitigation measures into specific, implementable, and verifiable actions.

An EMMP is an action plan that clearly defines:

1. Mitigation measures. Actions that reduce or eliminate potential negative environmental impacts resulting directly or indirectly from a particular project or activity, including environmental limiting factors that constrain development.

2. Monitoring indicators1. Criteria that demonstrate whether mitigation measures are suitable and implemented effectively.

3. Monitoring/reporting frequency. Timeframes for appropriately monitoring the effectiveness of each specific action.

4. Responsible parties. Appropriate, knowledgeable positions assigned to each specific action.

USAID APPROVAL OF EMMP[The routing process and associated signature blocks may be customized by Bureau or Mission. Please follow Bureau- or Mission-specific guidance. Include signature blocks in accordance with Bureau and/or Mission policy. At a minimum include the noted required signatures. Add other signatures as necessary.]

1 Note: Monitoring indicators differ from performance indicators, which are the measures that USAID uses to detect progress towards the results included in a Results Framework.


Approval:______________________________________[Name], Activity Manager/A/COR [required]

____________________Date

Clearance: ______________________________________[Name], Mission Environmental Officer [as appropriate]

____________________Date

Clearance: ______________________________________[Name], Regional Environmental Advisor [as appropriate]

____________________Date

Concurrence:

______________________________________[Name], ____ Bureau Environmental Officer [as appropriate]

____________________Date

DISTRIBUTION: [Distribution lists may be customized by Bureau or Mission. Please follow Bureau- or Mission-specific guidance.]


1.0 PROJECT/ACTIVITY SUMMARY [This should be a concise summary of information in the IEE, modified to site-specific circumstances, with regard to mitigation and monitoring activities.]

2.0 INSTRUCTIONS[These instructions may be customized by Bureau or Mission. May include character/page limits, subsections for narrative on mitigation and monitoring activities, and other Bureau-specific EMMP requirements, including use of the EMMP Table in Section 3 below.]


3.0 EMMP TABLE FOR [PROVIDE NAME OF ACTIVITY] [Modify activity categories as appropriate.]

Project/Activity/Sub-Activity

Identified Environmental Aspects or Impacts

Mitigation Measure(s) Monitoring Indicator(s)

Monitoring and Reporting Frequency

Responsible Parties

Activity Category 1:






Add rows as

needed

Page 23 of 157

Note to USAID Staff, Consultants & Partners Regarding the: Africa Bureau ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FORM & INSTRUCTIONSAppropriate use1. The Environmental Review Form (ERF) can only be used when and as specifically authorized by the

IEE or EA governing the project or program in question. For IEEs, this authorization is made in the form of a negative determination with conditions. Authorized use of the ERF is limited to the specific class of activities enumerated in the determination.

2. The BEO will not clear an IEE or EA that authorizes use of the ERF unless ALL of the following are true: a. the general nature or potential scope of the activities for which the ERF will be used

are known at the time the IEE is written (e.g. small infrastructure rehabilitation, training and outreach for a specified purpose, etc.).

b. these activities will be executed under a grant or subproject component of a parent project/program. The ERF cannot be used in lieu of a request for categorical exclusion, IEE or IEE amendment when new activities/components are to be added to existing projects, programs or sector portfolios.

c. of their general nature, foreseeable adverse environmental impacts are small or easily controllable with BASIC MITIGATION TECHNIQUES that can BE SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMEMENTED BY FIELD STAFF.

d. of their general nature, the activities are NOT large-scale. There is no formal AFR standard for “small-scale activities.” Over time, AFR has developed some “rules of thumb” for activities that are BOTH small-scale AND pose very low risks of significant adverse impacts. These are used in the ERF itself: e.g. construction involving less than 10,000 sq. ft. total disturbed area and less than $200,000 total cost; road rehabilitation of less than 10km total length without change to alignment or right-of-way. Activities moderately larger than these “rules of thumb” are also small-scale, but are treated by the ERF as being of moderate/unknown risk, thus requiring an environmental review report. What does “moderately larger” mean? What about activities for which there is no “rule of thumb” built into the ERF? Absolute physical scale and funding level, physical scale relative to the surrounding built environment, population affected, and number of locations affected are among the factors relevant to determining whether a class of activities is “small scale.” The IEE must provide enough information for the BEO to assess whether the activities proposed for subproject review will be indeed be small scale within their implementation context.

Adaptation of the form1. Text in UNDERLINE & BLUE HIGHLIGHT MUST be customized to the particular project/mission. 2. Yellow highlighted text must be reviewed and then modified, deleted or retained, as appropriate. 3. Both the form AND instructions should be generally reviewed and modified to reflect the specific

project/program and implementation context. 4. The adapted form and instructions must be appended to the Initial Environmental Examination for

the overall project.5. For NRM-oriented programs (especially those involving CBNRM, ecotourism, enterprises exploiting

non-timber forest products, etc.) consider adaptation and use of the Supplemental Environmental Review Form for NRM sector activities.

Questions and GuidanceGeneral guidance on subproject review is available on the MEO Resource Center at www.encapafrica.org/meoEntry.htm. For specific questions, contact the Mission Environmental Officer or Regional Environmental Advisor. Good-practice examples of completed forms, environmental

Download at http://www.encapafrica.org/documents/AFR-EnvReviewForm-20Dec2010.docversion 20 Dec 2010

http://www.encapafrica.org/meoEntry.htm

review reports and environmental management plans are available from USAID/AFR’s ENCAP project: [email protected]; www.encapafrica.org.

Revision history:Major update on 24 June 2010 to clarify appropriate use, revise Env. Review Report structure, and update clearance requirements. Formatting and presentation revised 17 Jan 2005. Revised April 13, 2004, to include biosafety considerations and better reflect the Supplemental Environmental Review Form for NRM sector activities.

DELETE THIS PAGE BEFORE DISTRIBUTING THIS FORM

Page 2 of 157

http://www.encapafrica.org/

mailto:[email protected]

XXXXInstructions for environmental review of XXX Program Subprojects/Sub-grantsNote: These instructions accompany the attached “Environmental Review Form for USAID/XXX Program/Project Activities” (ERF). Follow, but DO NOT SUBMIT, these instructions.

Who must submit the Environmental Review Form (ERF)?ALL Implementing Partners seeking to implement [describe qualifying activities] under the XXX Program/Project must complete, sign and submit the ERF to [insert name & email of C/AOTR].

Authority: Use of the ERF for these activities is mandated by the governing Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) for the XXX Project/Program. The IEE can be downloaded at: [insert URL].

No implementation without an approved ERF The proposed activities cannot be implemented and no “irreversible commitment of resources” for these activities can be made until the ERF (including Environmental Review Report, if required, see Step 4, below) is cleared by the C/AOTR, the Mission Environmental Officer (MEO) and the Regional Environmental Advisor (REA).

NOTE: USAID may deny clearance to the ERF, or may require modification and re-submission for clearance.

Environmental management requirements resulting from the ERFIf the ERF requires preparation of an Environmental Review Report (see Step 4, below), any environmental management measures specified in the approved Environmental Review Report MUST be implemented.

Situations in which additional environmental review is requiredIf the ERF finds that one of more of the proposed activities has the potential to cause significant adverse environmental impacts, the activities must be redesigned or an IEE or full Environmental Assessment must be conducted and approved prior to implementation.

If USAID determines that the proposed activities are outside the scope of activities for which use of this form is authorized, the activities must be redesigned or an IEE or IEE Amendment will be required.

In either situation, USAID will confer with the partner to determine next steps. Note: If an IEE or EA is required, all environmental management measures specified in the IEE or EA must then be implemented.

Step 1. Provide requested “Applicant information” (Section A of the ERF)Step 2. List all proposed activitiesIn Section B of the form, list all proposed activities.

Activities are a desired accomplishment or output: e.g. seedling production, road rehabilitation, school construction. Each activity has entailed actions—for example, road

AFR Environmental Review Form Instructions20 Dec 2010

rehabilitation includes survey, grading, culvert construction, compaction, etc. Be aware of these entailed actions, but do NOT list them.

List activities DESCRIPTIVELY. For example, “training” is not a sufficient activity listing. The listing must specify WHO is being trained, and in WHAT.

Step 3a. Screening: Identify low-risk and high-risk activitiesFor each activity you have listed in Section B of the form, refer to the list below to determine whether it is a listed low-risk or high-risk activity.

If an activity is specifically identified as “very low risk” or “high risk” in the list below, indicate this in the “screening result” column in Section B of the form.

Page 2 of 157

Very low-risk activities (Activities with low potential for adverse

biophysical or health impacts; including §216.2(c)(2))

High-risk activities(Activities with high potential for adverse

biophysical or health impacts; including §216.2(d)(1))

Provision of education, technical assistance, or training. (Note that activities directly affecting the environment. do not qualify.)Community awareness initiatives.Controlled agricultural experimentation exclusively for the purpose of research and field evaluation confined to small areas (normally under 4 ha. /10 acres). This must be carefully monitored and no protected or other sensitive environmental areas may be affected).Technical studies and analyses and other information generation activities not involving intrusive sampling of endangered species or critical habitats.Document or information transfers.Nutrition, health care or family planning, EXCEPT when (a) some included activities could directly affect the environment (construction, water supply systems, etc.) or (b) biohazardous (esp. HIV/AIDS) waste is handled or blood is tested.Small-scale construction. Construction or repair of facilities if total surface area to be disturbed is less than 10,000 sq. ft. (approx. 1,000 sq. m.) (and when no protected or other sensitive environmental areas could be affected).Intermediate credit. Support for intermediate credit arrangements (when no significant biophysical environmental impact can reasonably be expected).Maternal and child feeding conducted under Title II of Public Law 480.Title II Activities. Food for development programs under Title III of P.L. 480, when no on-the-ground biophysical interventions are likely.Capacity for development. Studies or programs intended to develop the capability of recipients to engage in development planning. (Does NOT include activities directly affecting the environment)Small-scale Natural Resource Management activities for which the answer to ALL SUPPLEMENTAL SCREENING QUESTIONS (see Natural Resources supplement) is “NO.”

River basin developmentNew lands developmentPlanned resettlement of human populations.Penetration road building, or rehabilitation of roads (primary, secondary, some tertiary) over 10 km length, and any roads which may pass through or near relatively undegraded forest lands or other sensitive ecological areasSubstantial piped water supply and sewerage construction.Major bore hole or water point construction.Large-scale irrigation; Water management structures such as dams and impoundmentsDrainage of wetlands or other permanently flooded areas.Large-scale agricultural mechanization.Agricultural land leveling.Procurement or use of restricted use pesticides, or wide-area application in non-emergency conditions under non-supervised conditions. (Consult MEO.)Light industrial plant production or processing (e.g., sawmill operation, agro-industrial processing of forestry products, tanneries, cloth-dying operations).High-risk and typically not funded by

USAID : Actions affecting protected areas and species. Actions determined likely to significantly degrade protected areas, such as introduction of exotic plants or animals.Actions determined likely to jeopardize threatened & endangered species or adversely modify their habitat (esp. wetlands, tropical forests)Activities in forests, including: Conversion of forest lands to rearing of

livestock Planned colonization of forest lands Procurement or use of timber

harvesting equipment Commercial extraction of timber Construction of dams or other water

control structures that flood relatively undegraded forest lands

Construction, upgrading or maintenance of roads that pass through relatively non-degraded forest lands. (Includes temporary haul roads for logging or other extractive industries)

(This list of activities is taken from the text of 22 CFR 216 and other applicable laws, regulations and directives)

Step 3b: Identifying activities of unknown or moderate risk.All activities NOT identified as “very low risk” or “very high risk” are considered to be of “unknown or moderate risk.” Common examples of moderate-risk activities are given in the table below.

Page 3 of 157

Check “moderate or unknown risk” under screening results in Section B of the form for ALL such activities.

Common examples of moderate-risk activitiesCAUTION: If ANY of the activities listed in this table may adversely impact (1) protected areas, (2) other sensitive environmental areas, or (3) threatened and endangered species and their habitat, THEY ARE NOT MODERATE RISK. All such activities are HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES.Small-scale agriculture, NRM, sanitation, etc. (You may wish to define what “small scale” means for each activity)Agricultural experimentation. Controlled and carefully monitored agricultural experimentation exclusively for the purpose of research and field evaluation of MORE than 4 ha.

NOTE Biotechnology/GMOs: No biotechnology testing or release of any kind are to take place within an assisted country until the host countries involved have drafted and approved a regulatory framework governing biotechnology and biosafety.All USAID-funded interventions which involve biotechnologies are to be informed by the ADS 211 series governing "Biosafety Procedures for Genetic Engineering Research". In particular this guidance details the required written approval procedures needed before transferring or releasing GE products to the field.

Medium-scale construction. Construction or rehabilitation of facilities or structures in which the surface area to be disturbed exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. (1000 sq. meters) but funding level is $200,000 or less. (E.g. small warehouses, farm packing sheds, agricultural trading posts, produce market centers, and community training centers.)Rural roads. Construction or rehabilitation of rural roads meeting the following criteria: Length of road work is less than ~10 km No change in alignment or right of way Ecologically sensitive areas are at least 100 m

away from the road and not affected by construction or changes in drainage.

No protected areas or relatively undegraded forest are within 5 km of the road.

Title II & III Small-Scale Infrastructure. Food for Development programs under Title II or III, involving small-scale infrastructure with the known potential to cause environmental harm (e.g., roads, bore holes).Quantity imports of commodities such as fertilizers

Sampling. Technical studies and analyses or similar activities that could involve intrusive sampling, of endangered species or critical habitats. (Includes aerial sampling.)Water provision/storage. Construction or rehabilitation of small-scale water points or water storage devices for domestic or non-domestic use. Water points must be located where no protected or other sensitive environmental areas could be affected.

NOTE: USAID guidance on water quality requires testing for arsenic, nitrates, nitrites and coliform bacteria.

Support for intermediate credit institutions when indirect environmental harm conceivably could result.Institutional support grants to NGOs/PVOs when the activities of the organizations are known and may reasonably have adverse environmental impact.Pesticides. .Small-scale use of USEPA-registered, least-toxic general-use pesticides. Use must be limited to NGO-supervised use by farmers, demonstration, training and education, or emergency assistance.

NOTE: Environmental review (see step 5) must be carried out consistent with USAID Pesticide Procedures as required in Reg. 16 [22 CFR 216.3(b)(1)].

Nutrition, health care or family planning, if (a) some included activities could directly affect the environment (e.g., construction, supply systems, etc.) or (b) biohazardous healthcare waste (esp. HIV/AIDS) is produced, syringes are used, or blood is tested.

Step 4. Determine if you must write an Environmental Review ReportExamine the “screening results” as you have entered them in Table 1 of the form.

i. If ALL the activities are “very low risk,” then no further review is necessary. In Section C of the form, check the box labeled “very low risk activities.” Skip to Step 8 of these instructions.

ii. If ANY activities are “unknown or moderate risk,” you MUST complete an ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT addressing these activities. Proceed to Step 5.

Page 4 of 157

iii. If ANY activities are “high risk,” note that USAID’s regulations usually require a full environmental assessment study (EA). Because these activities are assumed to have a high probability of causing significant, adverse environmental impacts, they are closely scrutinized. Any proposed high-risk activity should be discussed in advance with USAID. Activity re-design is often indicated. In some cases, it is possible that reasonable, achievable mitigation and monitoring can reduce or eliminate likely impacts so that a full EA will not be required. If the applicant believes this to be the case, the Environmental Review Report must argue this case clearly and thoroughly. Proceed to Step 5.

Step 5. Write the Environmental Review Report, if requiredThe Environmental Review Report presents the environmental issues associated with the proposed activities. It also documents mitigation and monitoring commitments. Its purpose is to allow the applicant and USAID to evaluate the likely environmental impacts of the project.

For a single, moderate risk activity, the Environmental Review Report is typically a SHORT 4–5 page document. The Report will typically be longer for (1) multiple activities; (2) activities of high or unknown risk; and/or (3) when a number of impacts and mitigation measures are being identified and discussed.

The Environmental Review Report follows the outline below. Alternate outlines are acceptable, so long as all required information is covered.

A. Summary of Proposal. Very briefly summarize background, rationale and outputs/results expected. (Reference proposal, if appropriate.)

B. Description of Activities. For all moderate and high-risk activities listed in Section B of the ERF, succinctly describe location, siting, surroundings (include a map, even a sketch map). Provide both quantitative and qualitative information about actions needed during all project phases and who will undertake them. (All of this information can be provided in a table). If various alternatives have been considered and rejected because the proposed activity is considered more environmentally sound, explain these.

C. Site-specific Environmental Situation & Host Country Requirements. Describe the environmental characteristics of the site(s) where the proposed activities will take place. Focus on site characteristics of concern—e.g., water supplies, animal habitat, steep slopes, etc. With regard to these critical characteristics, is the environmental situation at the site degrading, improving, or stable? Also note applicable host country environmental regulations and/or policies. (For example, does the project require host country environmental review or permitting? Building approval? Etc.)NOTE: provide site-specific information in this section, NOT country-level information. General information about country level conditions should already be contained in the IEE governing the XXX project/program.

D. Environmental Issues, Mitigation Actions, and Findings. For ALL proposed activities

i. Briefly note the potential environmental impacts or concerns presented by the proposed activities (if any). For guidance, refer to Africa Bureau’s Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities; available at www.encapafrica.org/egssaa.htm.

Page 5 of 157

http://www.encapafrica.org/egssaa.htm

As per the Small-Scale Guidelines, consider direct, indirect and cumulative impacts across the activity lifecycle (i.e. impacts of site selection, construction, and operation, as well as any problems that might arise with abandoning, restoring or reusing the site at the end of the anticipated life of the facility or activity). Note that “environment” includes air, water, geology, soils, vegetation, wildlife, aquatic resources, historic, archaeological or other cultural resources, people and their communities, land use, traffic, waste disposal, water supply, energy, etc.)

ii. Assess the extent to which these potential impacts and concerns are significant in the context of the specific activity design and site.

iii. Set out the mitigation actions to be employed to address these issues. Mitigation actions are means taken to avoid, reduce or compensate for impacts. Mitigation measures must be reasonable and implementable by field staff. They should be consistent with the good practice guidance provided in Africa Bureau’s Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities; (www.encapafrica.org/egssaa.htm.) Cite this or other guidance used for mitigation design.

iv. Reach one of three findings regarding the potential impacts:a. Significant adverse impacts are very unlikely. Of its nature, the activity in question is very unlikely to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. Special mitigation or monitoring is not required. Note: this conclusion is rarely appropriate for high-risk activities.

b. With implementation of the specified mitigation and monitoring, significant adverse impacts are very unlikely.c. Significant adverse impacts are possible. That is, it is not possible to rule out significant adverse environmental impacts even given reasonable, attainable mitigation and monitoring. In this case, USAID and the partner will consult regarding next steps. If the activity is to go forward in its current form, additional analysis in the form of an IEE or EA will be required.

Format and structure of this section. Choose a format and structure that presents the necessary information clearly and succinctly.

Table formats can be used. In the example below, the proposed activity was construction of an institutional facility on a 7500m3 plot bisected by a seasonal stream providing drainage to the local area. One potential impact of the activity was reduction of or alteration to the drainage eco-service provided by the seasonal stream.

Issue or cause for concern

Analysis Finding and conditions/mitigation actions

The seasonal stream running through the plot drains an area of at least 2 km2 to the WNW.Diminution or

As indicated at left, this impact only arises if the drainage “service “ provided by the seasonal stream is diminished or

Per analysis at left, this potential impact is not significant, so long as the following mitigations are implemented:1. Total stream capacity cannot be diminished by the development of the compound. (Stream channel on average is 3m x 1m.)2. The stream must remain substantially in the same

Page 6 of 157

http://www.encapafrica.org/egssaa.htm

alteration to this drainage “service” could result in increased upstream pooling & flooding during the rainy season, with associated property damage and increased breeding habitat for disease vectors.

altered in some adverse manner.So long as compound design maintains the existing service level and construction is managed without disruption to stream flow, actual adverse impact will be negligible or zero.

channel and cannot, e.g., be re-routed around the property.3. If construction will result in an interruption to stream flow, provision must be made to provide a temporary bypass. Temporary damming of stream flow is not permissible.4. Post-construction, the stream bed within the property, including point-of-entry (e.g. via culvert under perimeter wall) must be maintained free of obstructions to flow.

E. Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP). Set out how compliance with mitigation actions will be monitored/ verified. This includes specifying WHO will be responsible for the various mitigation actions, and HOW implementation of the mitigation actions will be tracked/verified. Also specify how you will report to USAID on the implementation of mitigation actions. (You are REQUIRED to provide your C/AOTR with sufficient information on the status of mitigation implementation for USAID to effectively fulfill its oversight and performance monitoring role.)Again, choose a format and structure that presents the necessary information clearly and succinctly. EMMPs are typically in table format, and often include a compliance log or “monitoring record” section that records implementation status of the various mitigation actions. The EMMP with current monitoring log can then simply be submitted to the C/AOTR with the quarterly or 6-month project report, satisfying the environmental compliance reporting requirement.

The most basic EMMP format is: Mitigation action Responsible Party Monitoring/Verification

MethodMonitoring Record (date, result, corrective actions taken, if any)

For additional EMMP formats and examples, see the ENCAP EMMP factsheet, available via www.encapafrica.org/meoEntry.htm

F. Other Information. Where possible and as appropriate, include photos of the site and surroundings; maps; and list the names of any reference materials or individuals consulted. (Pictures and maps of the site can substantially reduce the written description required in parts B & C)

Step 6. Transcribe findings from the Environmental Review Report to the ERF For each high-risk or unknown/moderate-risk activity, transcribe your finding from the environmental review report to the last column of Section B of the ERF.

Step 7. Sign certifications (Section C of former.)

Step 8. Submit form to USAID C/AOTR. Be sure to attach the Environmental Review Report, if any.

Page 7 of 157

http://www.encapafrica.org/meoEntry.htm

Page 8 of 157

XXXXEnvironmental Review Form for XXX Program subprojects/subgrants Follow, but do not submit, the attached instructions.

A. Applicant information Organization Parent grant or

projectIndividual contact and title

Address, phone & email (if available)

Proposed subproject /subgrant(brief description)

Amount of funding requestedPeriod of performanceLocation(s) of proposed activities

B. Activities, screening results, and findingsScreening result

(Step 3 of instructions)

Findings(Step 6 of instructions.

Complete for all moderate/unknown and high-

risk activities ONLY)Proposed activities (Provide DESCRIPTIVE listing. Continue on additional page if necessary)

Very

Low

Risk

High

-Risk

*

Mod

erat

e or

un

know

n ris

k*

signi

fican

t ad

vers

e

impa

cts

are

very

unl

ikel

y

With

spec

ified

m

itiga

tion,

sig

nific

ant

adve

rse

impa

cts

are

very

Si

gnifi

cant

Ad

vers

e im

pact

s are

po

ssib

le

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

*These screening results require completion of an Environmental Review Report

AFR Environmental Review Form20 Dec 2010

C. Certification:I, the undersigned, certify that:1. The information on this form and accompanying environmental review report (if

any) is correct and complete.2. Implementation of these activities will not go forward until specific approval is

received from the C/AOTR. 3. All mitigation and monitoring measures specified in the Environmental Review

Report will be implemented in their entirety, and that staff charged with this implementation will have the authority, capacity and knowledge for successful implementation.

(Signature) (Date)

(Print name) (Title) Note: if screening results for any activity are “high risk” or “moderate or unknown risk,” this form is not complete unless accompanied by an environmental review report.

BELOW THIS LINE FOR USAID USE ONLY Notes: 1. For clearance to be granted, the activity MUST be within the scope of the activities for which use of the ERF is authorized in the governing IEE. Review IEE before signature. If activities are outside this scope, deny clearance and provide explanation in comments section. The Partner, C/AOTR, MEO and REA must then confer regarding next steps: activity re-design, an IEE or EA.

2. Clearing an ERF containing one or more findings that significant adverse impacts are possible indicates agreement with the analysis and findings. It does NOT authorize activities for which “significant adverse impacts are possible” to go forward. It DOES authorize other activities to go forward. The Partner, C/AOTR, MEO and REA must then confer regarding next steps: activity re-design, an IEE or EA.

Clearance recordC/AOTR Clearance given Clearance denied

(print name) (signature) (date)

USAID/XXXX MEO Clearance given Clearance denied


Regional Env. Advisor (REA) Clearance given Clearance denied


Bureau Env. Officer (BEO)* Clearance given Clearance denied


C/AOTR, MEO and REA clearance is required. BEO clearance is required for all “high risk” screening results and for findings of “significant adverse impacts possible.” The BEO may review.

Note: if clearance is denied, comments must be provided to applicant (use space below & attach sheets if necessary)

Page 2 of 157

Note to individuals adapting the:* Supplemental Environmental Review Form for NRM Activities

for use on a particular program/activity:

This supplement is oriented around major resource/issue clusters and asks “leading questions” about the actual potential for unintended harmful impacts, especially of CBNRM/ ecotourism activities.

Underlined & blue highlighted text MUST be modified to reflect project and mission name

Questions should be modified to respond to the needs of individual projects. This is intended to be a “living” document subject to adaptation.

DELETE THIS PAGE BEFORE MODIFYING/DISTRIBUTING THIS FORM

Supplement to the Environmental Review Formfor Natural Resources ActivitiesAdditional Screening Criteria for Natural Resource Activities under XXX Program

PurposeThis is a supplement to the “Instructions for environmental review of XXX Program/Project activities.” It is to be used for natural resources-based activities, including:

Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Ecotourism Natural resources-based enterprise development with micro- and small

enterprisesThis supplement provides additional questions to ascertain whether these proposed activities should be categorized as “very low risk:”

If the answers to ALL the questions that follow are “NO,” then the proposed natural resource-based activity is considered “very low risk.”

If the answer to ANY question is “YES,” the activity CANNOT be considered “very low risk.”

Screening criteria

Will the activities… YES NONatural Resources

Accelerate erosion by water or wind?Reduce soil fertility and/or permeability?Alter existing stream flow, reduce seasonal availability of water resources?Potentially contaminate surface water and groundwater supplies?Involve the extraction of renewable natural resources?Lead to unsustainable use of renewable natural resources such as forest products?Involve the extraction of non-renewable natural resources?Restrict customary access to natural resources?Reduce local air quality through generating dust, burning of wastes or using fossil fuels and other materials in improperly ventilated areas?Affect dry-season grazing areas and/or lead to restricted access to a common resource?Lead to unsustainable or unnecessarily high water extraction and/or wasteful use?

17 Jan 2005

Will the activities… YES NOEcosystems and Biodiversity

Drain wetlands, or be sited on floodplains?Harvest wetland plant materials or utilize sediments of bodies of water?Lead to the clearing of forestlands for agriculture, the over-harvesting of valuable forest species?Promote in-forest bee keeping?Lead to increased hunting, or the collection of animals or plant materials?Increase the risks to endangered or threatened species?Introduce new exotic species of plants or animals to the area?Lead to road construction or rehabilitation, or otherwise facilitate access to fragile areas (natural woodlands, wetlands, erosion-prone areas)?Cause disruption of wildlife migratory routes?

Agricultural and Forestry ProductionHave an impact on existing or traditional agricultural production systems by reducing seed availability or reallocating land for other purposes?Lead to forest plantation harvesting without replanting, the burning of pastureland, or a reduction in fallow periods?Affect existing food storage capacities by reducing food inventories or encouraging the incidence of pests?Affect domestic livestock by reducing grazing areas, or creating conditions where livestock disease problems could be exacerbated?Involve the use of insecticides, herbicides and/or other pesticides?

Community and Social IssuesHave a negative impact on potable water supplies?Encourage domestic animal migration through natural areas?Change the existing land tenure system?Have a negative impact on culturally important sites in the community?Increase in-migration to the area?Create conditions that lead to a reduction in community health standards?Lead to the generation of non-biodegradable waste?Involve the relocation of the local community?Potentially cause or aggravate land-use conflicts?

Page 3 of 157

APPENDIX 2:See below report Climate Risks to Conservation in Uganda: An Assessment of Selected Regions (May 2017).

May 2017

This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Chemonics for the ATLAS Task Order. This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Chemonics for the Climate Change Adaptation, Thought Leadership and Assessments (ATLAS) Task Order No. AID-OAA-I-14-00013, under the Restoring the Environment through Prosperity, Livelihoods, and Conserving Ecosystems (REPLACE) IDIQ. Chemonics contact:

TECHNICAL REPORT

ECTED REGIONSAN ASSESSMENT OF SEL

DACONSERVATION IN UGAN

CLIMATE RISKS TO

Chris Perine, Chief of Party ([email protected])- Chemonics International Inc. 1717 H Street NW Washington, DC 20006 ATLAS reports and other products are available on the ClimateLinks website (https://www.climatelinks.org/projects/atlas ) .

Cover Photo: ATLAS.

CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION IN UGANDA AN ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED REGIONS

May 2017 Prepared for:

United States Agency for International Development Climate Change Adaptation, Thought Leadership and Assessments (ATLAS)

Prepared by:

Chemonics International Inc.

This report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States government.

CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ···································································· III ACRONYMS ·································································································· V

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ················································································· VI

Purpose vi Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... vi Key Findings .................................................................................................................................... viii Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ ix

1. ASSESSMENT PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY ··········································· 1

1.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 2

Research Questions .......................................................................................................................... 2 Selection of Study Landscapes ......................................................................................................... 3 Team and Study Design .................................................................................................................... 4 Ratings of Landscapes On Several Criteria ....................................................................................... 5 Study Limitations and Assumptions ................................................................................................... 6

2. LANDSCAPE ANALYSES ············································································ 9

General Background ........................................................................................................ 9Climate Stressors ............................................................................................................................ 10 Non-climate Stressors ..................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 LANDSCAPE 1 ANALYSIS ········································································12 Kidepo Valley National Park (KVNP), Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve (WR), Lake

Bisina and Lake Opeta Wetlands Systems and Surrounding Communities ........ 12 Region: Dry Cattle Corridor ............................................................................................................. 12 2.1.1 Location and Description ........................................................................................................ 13 2.1.2 Unique Climate Characteristics .............................................................................................. 13 2.1.3 Climate Projections ................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.4 Non-Climate Stressors............................................................................................................ 13 2.1.5 Biodiversity Resources of Importance .................................................................................... 14 2.1.6 Livelihoods of Importance ....................................................................................................... 15 2.1.7 Ecosystem Services ............................................................................................................... 15

2.1.8 Climate Stressors, Risks, Impacts and Adaptive Responses ................................................. 15 2.1.9 Climate Change Risk Significance Rating .............................................................................. 23

2.2 LANDSCAPE 2 ANALYSIS ········································································24 Lake Mburo Conservation Area (LMCA) and Surrounding Communities ....................... 24

Region: Dry Cattle Corridor ............................................................................................................. 24 2.2.1 Location and Description ........................................................................................................ 25 2.2.2 Unique Climate Characteristics .............................................................................................. 25 2.2.3 Climate Projections ................................................................................................................. 25 2.2.4

Non-Climate Stressors............................................................................................................ 25 2.2.5 Biodiversity Resources of Importance .................................................................................... 26 2.2.6 Livelihoods of Importance ....................................................................................................... 26 2.2.7 Ecosystem Services ............................................................................................................... 27 2.2.8 Climate Stressors, Risks, Impacts and Adaptive Responses ................................................. 27 2.2.9 Climate Change Risk Significance Rating .............................................................................. 38

2.3 LANDSCAPE 3 ANALYSIS ········································································39 Rwenzori Mountains National Park (RMNP) and Surrounding Communities ................. 39

Region: Albertine Rift ....................................................................................................................... 39 2.3.1 Location and Description ........................................................................................................ 40

DRAFT ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING IN UGANDA | I

2.3.2 Unique Climate Characteristics .............................................................................................. 40 2.3.3 Climate Projections ................................................................................................................. 40 2.3.4 Non-Climate Stressors............................................................................................................ 40 2.3.5 Biodiversity Resources of Importance .................................................................................... 41 2.3.6 Livelihoods of Importance ....................................................................................................... 42 2.3.7 Ecosystem Services ............................................................................................................... 42 2.3.8 Climate Stressors, Risks, Impacts and Adaptive Responses ................................................. 43 2.3.9

Climate Change Risk Significance Rating .............................................................................. 51

2.4 LANDSCAPE 4 ANALYSIS ········································································52 Bwindi-Mgahinga Conservation Area (BMCA), Echuya Central Forest Reserve

(ECFR) and Surrounding Communities .............................................................. 52 Region: Albertine Rift ....................................................................................................................... 52 2.4.1 Location and Description ........................................................................................................ 53 2.4.2 Unique Climate Characteristics .............................................................................................. 53 2.4.3 Climate Projections ................................................................................................................. 53 2.4.4 Non-Climate Stressors............................................................................................................ 53 2.4.5 Biodiversity Resources of Importance .................................................................................... 54 2.4.6 Livelihoods of Importance ....................................................................................................... 54 2.4.7 Ecosystem Services ............................................................................................................... 55 2.4.8 Climate Stressors, Risks, Impacts and Adaptive Responses ................................................. 55 2.4.9


2.5 LANDSCAPE 5 ANALYSIS ········································································63 Queen Elizabeth Protected Area (QEPA), Murchison Falls Protected Area

(MFPA) and Surrounding Communities .............................................................. 63 Region: Albertine Rift ....................................................................................................................... 63 2.5.1 Location and Description ........................................................................................................ 64 2.5.2 Unique Climate Characteristics .............................................................................................. 64 2.5.3 Climate Projections ................................................................................................................. 64 2.5.4 Non-Climate Stressors............................................................................................................ 64 2.5.5 Biodiversity Resources of Importance .................................................................................... 65 2.5.6 Livelihoods of Importance ....................................................................................................... 67 2.5.7 Ecosystem Services ............................................................................................................... 67 2.5.8 Climate Stressors, Risks, Impacts, and Adaptive Responses ................................................ 68 2.5.9


REFERENCES ······························································································76

ANNEX A: LIST OF CONTACTS ······································································79

ANNEX B: DETAILED STUDY DESIGN ····························································81

DRAFT ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING IN UGANDA | II

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Figure 1. Map of Approximate Locations of the Five Study Landscapes and Two Study Regions .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2. Landscape 1: KVNP, Pian Upe WR and Surrounding Communities ...........................12 Figure 3. Landscape 2: LMCA and Surrounding Communities ..................................................24 Figure 4. Landscape 3: RMNP and Surrounding Communities .................................................39 Figure 5. Landscape 4: BMCA-ECFR and Surrounding Communities .......................................52

Figure 6. Landscape 5: QEPA-MFPA and Surrounding Communities .......................................63

Table 1. Selected Adaptation Response to Identified Landscape-Specific Climate Impacts ........ x Table 2. Definition of Criteria and Explanation of Ranking .......................................................... 6 Table 3. Landscape 1 – KVNP-Pian Upe Landscape Biodiversity Resources ...........................14 Table 4. Landscape 1 – KVNP-Pian Upe Landscape Ecosystem Services ...............................15 Table 5. Landscape 1 – Climate Stressors, Climate Risks, Impacts and Potential Adaptive Responses for Kidepo Valley National Park (KVNP), Pian Upe WR, Lakes Bisina-Opeta Wetlands and Surrounding Communities ..................................................................................16 Table 6. Landscape 2 – LMCA Landscape Biodiversity Resources ...........................................26 Table 7. Landscape 2 – LMCA Landscape Ecosystem Services ...............................................27 Table 8. Landscape 2 – Climate Stressors, Climate Risks, Impacts and Potential Adaptive Responses for Lake Mburo Conservation Area and Surrounding Communities ........................28 Table 9. Landscape 3 – RMNP Landscape Biodiversity Resources ..........................................41 Table 10. Landscape 3 – RMNP Landscape Ecosystem Services ............................................42

Table 11. Landscape 3 – Climate Stressors, Risks, Impacts and Potential Adaptive Responses for

Rwenzori Mountains National Park (RMNP) and Surrounding Communities ........................44

Table 12. Landscape 4 – BMCA-ECFR Landscape Biodiversity Resources ..............................54

Table 13. Landscape 4 – BMCA-ECFR Landscape Ecosystem Services ..................................55


Bwindi-Mgahinga Conservation Area (BMCA), Echuya Central Forest Reserve (ECFR) and

Surrounding Communities .........................................................................................................56 Table 15. Landscape 5 – QEPA-MFPA Landscape Biodiversity Resources ..............................66

ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING IN UGANDA | III

Table 16. Landscape 5 – QEPA-MFPA Landscape Ecosystem Services ..................................67


Queen Elizabeth Protected Area (QEPA), Murchison Falls Protected Area (MFPA) and

Surrounding Communities .........................................................................................................69

ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING IN UGANDA | IV

ACRONYMS ARCC African and Latin American Resilience to Climate Change projectATLAS Climate Change Adaptation, Thought Leadership and Assessments projectBINP Bwindi Impenetrable National ParkBMCA Bwindi-Mgahinga Conservation AreaCDCS Country Development Cooperation StrategyCWMA Community Wildlife Management AreaDRC Democratic Republic of the CongoECFR Echuya Central Forest ReserveETOA Environmental Threats and Opportunities AssessmentGMP General Management PlanHWC Human-wildlife conflictKVNP Kidepo Valley National ParkLMCA Lake Mburo Conservation AreaLMNP Lake Mburo National ParkLNRS Lake Nakivale Ramsar SiteMFNP Murchison Falls National ParkMFPA Murchison Falls Protected AreaMGNP Mgahinga Gorilla National ParkPA Protected AreaQENP Queen Elizabeth National ParkQEPA Queen Elizabeth Protected AreaRMNP Rwenzori Mountains National ParkUWA Uganda Wildlife AuthorityUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentWR Wildlife ReserveWWF World Wildlife Fund

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Effective biodiversity conservation requires understanding and addressing a range of challenges including natural resources management, human-wildlife conflict (HWC), traditional use of land and natural resources, population growth and urbanization. Climate change adds another

ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING IN UGANDA | V

challenge to the list, and is in some ways the greatest challenge, given the uncertainty of climate science and the consequent uncertainty of projections of specific climate change in particular geographic areas and for specific flora, fauna and ecosystems. Despite this uncertainty, making best efforts to understand and describe climate change in specific geographic areas, predict its impacts and distinguish those impacts from impacts caused by factors other than climate change is clearly important to effectively investing in biodiversity conservation interventions. When designing biodiversity conservation programs, a critical element of their durability is their resilience to climate change.

PURPOSE To this end, the Climate Change Adaptation, Thought Leadership and Assessments (ATLAS) project is working with USAID’s Bureau for Africa and the USAID/Uganda mission to assess the vulnerability of biodiversity in a set of protected areas and their surrounding landscapes. The aim is to identify climate risks to the biodiversity in those landscapes and to the livelihoods of people living in and around them. It is critical that livelihoods are examined along with biodiversity in the context of this analysis because the two are so inextricably linked. People in these areas rely on the natural resources and ecosystem services provided by these landscapes, so climate change impacts that affect one inevitably affect the other, directly or indirectly.

METHODOLOGY This assessment was completed by using existing climate information, including both historical climate trends and future climate projections, to extract climate risks and make judgments about the impacts that those risks will have on biodiversity and livelihoods in select landscapes. Based on identified climate impacts, the assessment suggests a set of adaptation responses to reduce them. The assessment also includes a set of ratings for each landscape (see below), providing expert judgment about the efficacy of taking action to address climate change in each landscape. These ratings are inherently qualitative but provide a rational basis for the recommendations provided at the end of this report.

RELATIVE CLIMATE RISK RATINGS OF LANDSCAPES Table ES1 summarizes the climate risk per landscape. These ratings are intended to help identify climate versus non-climate stressors, the current vulnerability of landscapes to climate change, the relative importance of biodiversity to livelihoods, and opportunities the landscape offers to invest successfully in adaptation interventions. The approach, rating system and criteria used are described in detail in section 1.2 and in the “Climate Change Risk Significance Rating” section of each landscape analysis.

Table ES1. Relative Climate Risk Ratings of Landscapes Risk

Region Landscape ExplanationRating

ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING IN UGANDA | VI

1. Kidepo Valley National Park(KVNP), Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve(WR), Lake Bisina and Lake OpetaWetlands Systems and SurroundingCommunities

High

Climate change risk is significant and landscape provides high potential for implementing successful model adaptive responses.

2. Lake Mburo Conservation Area(LMCA) and Surrounding Communities

High

Climate change risk is significant and landscape provides high potential for implementing successful model adaptive responses.

3. Bwindi-Mgahinga ConservationArea (BMCA) and Echuya CentralForest Reserve (ECFR) andSurrounding Communities

High

Climate change risk is less significant and landscape provides moderate potential for implementing successful adaptive responses that could be usefully applied elsewhere. However, given the uniqueness and fragility of the endemic mountain gorilla population and lack of available habitat into which gorillas could migrate to avoid projected warming, this landscape is rated “high” risk.

4. Rwenzori Mountains National Park(RMNP) and SurroundingCommunities

Medium

Climate change risk is moderately significant and landscape provides lower potential for implementing successful adaptive responses that could be usefully applied elsewhere.

5. Queen Elizabeth and Murchison Falls Protected Areas (QEPA andMFPA), Lake George and Albert NileDelta Wetlands Systems andSurrounding Communities

Medium

Climate change risk is not as immediately significant as non-climate stressors, but landscape provides potential for implementing successful adaptive responses that could be replicated elsewhere.

KEY FINDINGS Based on the landscape analyses, the study team identified the key findings below, which in turn form the basis for the assessment recommendations.

ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING IN UGANDA | VII

Dry

Cat

tle C

orrid

or

A

lber

tine

Rift

1. Climate change is one of many stressors, often not the most immediate, affecting biodiversity in Uganda. Non-climate stressors include: rapid population growth; human-caused fire; oil exploration, drilling and other energy development; industrialization, urbanization and infrastructure development; agricultural encroachment and demand for productive land; charcoal making/fuelwood demand; and illegal and unsustainable legal harvesting of resources, such as timber, non-timber forest products, water and wildlife (poaching for food). 2. It is very likely that non-climate stressors such as those mentioned under #1 are themselves being exacerbated by climate factors, therefore indirectly creating risks to biodiversity. Trends including urbanization, agricultural expansion into fragile areas (e.g., protected areas) and wildlife poaching may in part be reactions to climate impacts to livelihoods. However, the data available to make these causal links are extremely limited.

3. Based on trend data (notably higher temperatures, more erratic rainfall and more intense rainfall events), climate change impacts on biodiversity, livelihoods and ecosystem services appear to be significant. These include: decreased quality of tourism experience and revenue; fewer Protected Area (PA) resources for community use; increased human-wildlife conflict (HWC); increased disease transmission between wildlife and livestock and wildlife and people; reduced livelihood options, including livelihoods that rely on tourism, fishing and plant collection; and reduced water quality and quantity. 4. Trends of higher temperatures, more erratic rainfall and increased frequency of extreme rainfall events are the primary climate change stressors throughout the study area; by their nature these stressors pose a significant climate threat to biodiversity.0 These current trends in climate variability are fairly pronounced and represent a substantial challenge to biodiversity and underlying ecosystems throughout the study area. 5. The most pronounced indirect climate impacts on biodiversity include increased intensity and spread of fires. These fires result in changes in plant and animal species composition, distribution movements and abundance, and in increased spread of invasive species. 6. Fire-induced changes in plant and animal species composition, distribution movements and abundance and increased spread of invasive species affect habitat quality of Uganda’s PAs. They cause drying and shrinking of wetlands and open water bodies, affecting aquatic life and wildlife that rely on aquatic resources; increase disease incidence in wildlife; and increase risks from flood events. 0 In the BMCA-ECFR and QEPA-MFPA landscapes, an increase in extreme events and flooding is expected after 2050, which is beyond the scope of this assessment.

ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING IN UGANDA | VIII

7. Significant gaps in climate change knowledge exist. The trend data available are based on a limited number of years and this short time period makes it difficult to distinguish the climate change signal from typical interannual and decadal variability. Overall, in Uganda, analysis of the potential impact of climate change on biodiversity suffers from a pervasive lack of long-term, robust meteorological record and climate data to determine changes at varying temporal and spatial scales. For example, adequate attribution on the role played by nonclimate stressors and climate change in shifting vegetation belts in RMNP and BMCA does not exist. How climate change may alter the distribution and abundance of invasive species is also difficult to determine. The resulting effects of these habitat changes on specific species, including the mountain gorilla, are uncertain as well. 8. Knowledge gaps also exist regarding effective adaptation responses to climate change impacts on biodiversity. For example, experimental pilot programs have been in place for management of invasive species, yet due to funding shortfalls or other constraints, invasive species management has mainly been ad hoc. The effectiveness of management actions, especially in the long term, is unknown. Similarly, measures to effectively address HWC, one of the greatest challenges of Uganda’s PAs, fall short, in part due to the pilot and experimental nature of many interventions. 9. Climate variability and change may halt or reverse the sustainability of traditional conservation actions unless adequately considered. While stakeholders seem to place greater emphasis on the role of non-climate stressors in understanding vulnerability, it is clear that without considering climate risks, the potential success of traditional conservation activities may be compromised. 10. Climate change risks and impacts are already evident and significant and should be prioritized in the drier, savanna landscapes (the two dry landscapes in the cattle corridor, KVNP, Pian Upe, Bisina Opeta and Lake Mburo National Park-Lake Nakivale Ramsar Site (LMNP-LNRS). See “Relative Climate Risk Ratings of Landscapes” table above. 11. Non-climate stressors should be given higher priority in developing investment strategies in the Albertine Rift. Given the relatively high pressure from human activities surrounding the landscapes in this region, climate stressors are likely less a driver of landscape degradation than non-climate stressors. See “Relative Climate Risk Ratings of Landscapes” table above.

RECOMMENDATIONS The available evidence base identifying climate stressors and related potential climate impacts and capacity for adaptation response must be considered when designing and implementing

ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING IN UGANDA | IX

climate-resilient biodiversity conservation and related livelihood security interventions in biodiversity conservation programming. Adaptation interventions to help the country’s PAs address existing risks to both biodiversity and livelihoods are prioritized below. While these recommendations are based on a thorough desktop analysis and limited complementary field consultations, they could be strengthened by a more grounded assessment in each landscape. Recommendations are divided into immediate, medium term and longer term depending on the urgency of undertaking action (i.e., designing and implementing interventions), as judged by the study team, based on identified climate risk:

• Immediate recommendations are immediate needs for high-risk landscapes 1, 2 and 3.

• Medium-term recommendations are those that offer high potential for buffering these landscapes from risks posed by climate changes that are judged likely but not yet at a critical point.

• Longer-term recommendations focus on the lower-risk landscapes 4 and 5, with an eye toward monitoring climate risks and providing opportunities to intervene in an orderly manner.

Table ES2 provides a summary set of selected recommendations for all five landscapes, grouped into governance, information and pilots. The interventions included in this table are considered to be among the most practical, representing a subset of the interventions articulated in each of the landscape-specific tables. Many focus on research to better understand the complex climatic, ecological and socioeconomic relationships between climate, biodiversity and livelihoods. More robust information about these relationships will improve the evidence base for taking action.

Table ES2. Selected Adaptation Response to Identified Landscape-Specific Climate Impacts Landscape 1: Kidepo Valley National Park (KVNP), Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve (WR), Lake Bisina and Lake

Opeta Wetlands Systems and Surrounding CommunitiesClimate

AdaptationRecommendation Type

Building Block

Specific Action

Timeframe

Immediate MediumLonger Term

Governance

Invest in climate-smart protected area management practices.

Develop and implement a PA fire management plan to address identified climate riskrelated water scarcity; update the plan as new climate information is available.

X

Undertake collaborative PA management for communities to access resources like water, pasture, fruits and honey during climate shocks.

X

Invest in associations to promote climate-resilient management of limited resources.

Improve access to veterinary services and medications to address identified heat stress and less predictable rainfall.

X

InformationPromote weather-based information services for

Provide accurate weather forecast information to pastoralists/agro- X

ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING IN UGANDA | X

livestock holders to adopt or improve climate-resilient management techniques.

pastoralists by radio and/or SMS to address increasingly variable weather.

Pilots

Undertake climatesensitive watershed management practices.

De-silt existing wildlife watering points and establish new, welldistributed watering points to serve areas with high animal concentrations but with little water during the dry season.

X

Invest in rehabilitation of existing watering points for both wildlife and livestock and promote new watering points to buffer against a more unreliable rainfall pattern.

X

Invest in rehabilitation and expansion of physical infrastructure and vegetation to enhance flood protection of gardens, houses and other household assets from intense rainfall events.

X

Landscape 2: Lake Mburo Conservation Area (LMCA) and Surrounding Communities

ClimateAdaptation

Recommendation TypeBuildingBlock

Specific Action

Timeframe

Immediate Medium

Longer Term

GovernanceInvest in climate-smart protected area management practices.

Develop and implement a PA fire management plan to address identified climate riskrelated water scarcity; update the plan as new climate information is available.

X


X

Information

Support landscape inventory monitoring practices that include screening for climatelinked landscape changes.

Establish a monitoring system to control invasive species such as Acacia and Lantana whose spread is linked to climate change.

X

Promote weather-based information services for livestock holders to adopt or improve climate-resilient management techniques.

Carry out a resource inventory to collect data on PA resources used by communities to help determine sustainable harvest limits in the face of climate change.

X

Provide accurate weather forecast information to pastoralists/agro-pastoralists by radio and/or SMS to address increasingly variable weather.

X

ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING IN UGANDA | XI

Pilots

Promote investments in mechanisms to buffer against climate-induced drying of wetlands and reduced water sources.

Support well-distributed construction of valley dams and other methods of catching rainfall within LMNP to provide wildlife with water resources, given increasingly unreliable rainfall patterns induced by climate change.

X

Invest in improved watershed management to counter reduced water flows to catchment areas resulting from climate change.

Given increasingly unreliable rainfall patterns induced by climate change, restore landscapes especially in the upstream of rivers and wetland catchment areas. Restore river banks and create buffer zones around wetlands, particularly in cultivating communities.

X

Landscape 3: Rwenzori Mountains National Park (RMNP) and Surrounding Communities

ClimateAdaptation


Specific Action

Timeframe

Immediate Medium

Longer Term

Governance

Invest in social organization (e.g., social capital) to catalyze livelihood diversification where traditional livelihoods are threatened by climate change.

As a buffer against livelihood insecurity for households and communities whose primary livelihoods depend on resources adversely impacted by climate change, promote sustainable tourism development as an alternative income source.

X



X

Information

Support landscape inventory practices that include screening for climate-linked landscape changes.

Establish a monitoring system to document the spread (and control) of invasive species that are exploiting climate changes like higher temperatures.

X



X

Pilots

Invest in strategies that promote livelihood diversification, especially those related to ecosystem services threatened by climate change.

To reduce non-climate stress on flora and fauna experiencing climate stress, promote domestication and on-farm production of those PA resources used most by surrounding communities, in particular, bamboo.

X

ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING IN UGANDA | XII


Invest in rehabilitation and expansion of physical infrastructure and vegetation to enhance flood protection of gardens, houses and other household assets from intense rainfall events.

X

Landscape 4: Bwindi-Mgahinga Conservation Area (BMCA) and Echuya Central Forest Reserve (ECFR) and Surrounding Communities

ClimateAdaptation


Specific Action

Timeframe

Immediate Medium

Longer Term

Governance

Explore design options to establish climate-resilient buffer zones outside of park boundaries and study design options for wildlife corridors.

Update sustainable use agreements between PAs and communities that take into account emerging climateinduced fire regimes.

X



X

Information

Establish monitoring regime to track health of key species adversely impacted by changing climate.

Integrate climate screening into existing gorilla health monitoring programs to correlate changes in gorilla health and changing climate.

X



X

Pilots


To reduce the adverse impacts of climate change, support payment for ecosystem services with a fund that would benefitimproved catchment management and promote water conservation.

X

Landscape 5: Queen Elizabeth and Murchison Falls Protected Areas (QEPA and MFPA), Lake George andAlbert Nile Delta Wetlands Systems And Surrounding Communities

ClimateAdaptation


Specific Action

Timeframe

Immediate Medium

Longer Term

Governance

Develop adaptation plans to promote sustainable climate-resilient use of limited resources in nearby communities adjacent to the PAs.

Update sustainable use agreements between PAs and communities that take into account emerging climateinduced fire regimes.

X

Invest in climate-smart protected area management

Undertake collaborative PA management for communities to X

ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING IN UGANDA | XIII

practices.access resources like water, pasture, fruits and honey during climate shocks.

Information

Undertake an inventory of invasive plant and animal species (baseline and regular time series monitoring) to determine their climate changeinduced range expansion.

Scale up invasive speciesmanagement measures tocontrol invasive species that are exploiting climate changeinduced variability in temperature and rainfall patterns.

X



X

Pilots

Support participatory buffer zone management planning to improve climate resilience in close collaboration with communities.

Scale up HWC reduction interventions such as beekeeping along PA boundaries, chili growing and spraying, and planting of unpalatable cash crops (coffee, tea and trees) to counter climate stress on PA resources.

X

ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING IN UGANDA | XIV

1. ASSESSMENT PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY To support sustainable biodiversity conservation and livelihood security for communities dependent on natural resources, consideration of climate risk is critical. This assessment, based on selected landscapes in Uganda, analyzes biodiversity resources and livelihoods dependent on biodiversity, as well as the ecosystem services on which they both rely. Based on available climate projections for each of five landscapes, the study outlines potential climate impacts and adaptive responses to protect biodiversity and related livelihoods.

1.1 PURPOSE The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Uganda Mission is producing a Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) for 2016–2021. Concurrently, USAID/Uganda’s Environment Unit, within the Economic Growth Team, is undertaking analyses to inform future biodiversity conservation and climate change programming. As part of these activities, the Uganda Mission Environment Unit asked the USAID Climate Change Adaptation, Thought Leadership and Assessments (ATLAS) project to assess the following:

• Direct and indirect impacts of climate change on biodiversity • Direct and indirect impacts of climate change-induced biodiversity impacts

on livelihoods dependent on natural resources

• Indirect impacts to biodiversity resulting from climate-induced impacts to livelihoods

The aim of this assessment is to 1) create landscape analyses describing the status and risks for biodiversity and livelihoods in targeted areas (described below) based on climate change projections, and 2) use these analyses to support USAID/Uganda decision making on integrating biodiversity and climate change programming. The overarching goal is to consider the current risks for biodiversity while also taking into account the changing climate and related climate stresses affecting human livelihoods and the ecosystem services on which they rely. The assessment results are intended to provide actionable recommendations to make investments in biodiversity conservation and related livelihood security as climate-resilient as possible, regardless of the activity funding source.

ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS TO CONSERVATION PROGRAMMING IN UGANDA | 1

USAID/Uganda CDCSThe new CDCS (2016–2021) is organized around thematic areas. The Mission’s technical focus areas are integrated under each thematic area. Climate change and biodiversity figure prominently in two thematic areas:Development Objective 1. Resilience, including resilience to climate change (countrywide, community, household); and Development Objective 3. Systems, such as market, health and natural resources (includes biodiversity, how people use the environment and adaptation).

1.2 METHODOLOGY The assessment is primarily a desk study, with follow-up in-country consultations. It builds on existing information to examine the direct and indirect impacts of climate change on biodiversity and livelihoods. The study examines key components of ecosystems like water bodies, forests and grasslands and their relationship to biodiversity, and key ecosystem services like water supply, crops and fuel wood and their relationship to livelihoods. For both biodiversity and livelihoods, the causal links between key ecosystems and ecosystem services on one hand and climate stressors on the other are then examined. Importantly, the methodology uses all available climate information to identify climate risks and disaggregate them from more general development risks. The rationale for disaggregating this way is to help program developers and managers use funding designated for specific purposes in the most effective and defensible manner possible. For example, a landscape or portion of a landscape may be expected to experience increasing water scarcity over the next 30 years. However, it will be classified as a climate risk in this report only when available information indicates that climate variability and change, such as increased average temperatures or decreased annual rainfall, is a contributing factor in water scarcity. If available information does not link increased water scarcity to climate variability, it is attributed to non-climate risks, such as increased population or lack of coordinated watershed management. It is acknowledged that disaggregating risks into climate-related and non-climate related is inherently inexact, given the limitations of ecological and climate science. However, we have used the available climate information, both trend and projection data, to determine whether risks and potential impacts have causal links to climate risks. Ultimately, it is likely that climate and non-climate risks contribute to most or all impacts to ecosystems, biodiversity and livelihoods. However, attribution of these risks within the limits of available information is the boundary for this study. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The following questions guided the study:

• How certain and immediate are climate impacts, based on available science?

• What are the climate stressors on biodiversity and the relative magnitude of those stressors versus non-climate stressors on biodiversity?

• What are the impacts of climate stressors on biodiversity for people who depend on this biodiversity and the underlying ecosystem services for their livelihoods?

• To what extent are climate-induced impacts to livelihoods likely to produce new indirect impacts to biodiversity versus exacerbating identified direct impacts to biodiversity?

• What adaptation interventions can be undertaken to respond to current and projected climate variability and change on (a) biodiversity and (b) livelihoods that are biodiversitydependent?

• In which regions are adaptation actions most likely to be effective for conservation of biodiversity and support for related livelihoods?


SELECTION OF STUDY LANDSCAPES Because its purpose was to examine the impacts of climate change on biodiversity in Uganda with specific attention to how climate risks affect biodiversity and livelihoods, this study focuses on a limited number of highly biodiverse areas in and around protected areas (PAs) and their surrounding human communities. These areas encompass a variety of climates and socioeconomic profiles. This assessment’s target geographies fall within two distinct regions in Uganda: the Dry Cattle Corridor and the Albertine Rift.

Landscape 1: (Dry Cattle Corridor) Kidepo Valley National Park (KVNP), Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve (WR), Lake Bisina and Lake Opeta wetlands systems and surrounding communities

Landscape 2: (Dry Cattle Corridor) Lake Mburo Conservation Area (LMCA) and surrounding communities

Landscape 3: (Albertine Rift) Rwenzori Mountains National Park (RMNP) and surrounding communities

Landscape 4: (Albertine Rift) Bwindi-Mgahinga Conservation Area (BMCA) and Echuya Central Forest Reserve (ECFR) and surrounding communities

Landscape 5: (Albertine Rift) Queen Elizabeth and Murchison Falls Protected Areas (QEPA and MFPA), Lake George and Albert Nile Delta wetlands systems and surrounding communities


Figure 1. Map of Approximate Locations of the Five Study Landscapes and Two Study Regions

TEAM AND STUDY DESIGN A three-person assessment team, comprising a Climate and Conservation Team Leader, a Climate Change and Livelihoods Specialist and a Governance and Evaluation Advisor, developed and executed the following approach, described in detail in Annex B. The team:

• Conducted a literature review and gap analysis.

• Developed analyses for each of the five landscapes that describe (a) the current functions that ecosystem services perform for the biodiversity and livelihoods in the landscape; (b) the risks that climate change stressors pose for these services and the direct and indirect impacts of climate change on biodiversity; (c) the effects of biodiversity impacts on livelihoods and community vulnerabilities; and (d) potential adaptive responses. Non-climate stressors are also taken into account.

• Conducted in-country consultations (see Annex A) to fill gaps and confirm validity of landscape analyses. The team conducted site visits to Lake Mburo National Park (LMNP) and Lake Nakivale Ramsar Site (LNRS).


efforts have been challenging. conflict and poverty. Conservation farming. The region has seen decades of population that relies on subsistence Albertine Rift has a dense rural human

ans and plants. The of its amphibipercent of its mammals and 20 percent home to 50 percent of Africa’s birds, 40

biodiverse regions on the continent, The Albertine Rift is one of the most

ecosystems.some of the country’s most fragile

periodic, extreme drought. It includes experiences low, irregular rainfall and

pastoral livelihoods, this area -. Dominated by pastoral and agro)2(km

encompasses 84,000 square kilometers from the southwest to the northeast and Uganda’s drylands area, which stretches

Cattle Corridor is made up of The Dry

Study regions

• Finalized the landscape analyses and applied ratings criteria to each landscape (see below).

• Made recommendations for immediate, medium-term and long-term climate change adaptation interventions.

RATINGS OF LANDSCAPES ON SEVERAL CRITERIA To facilitate prioritization of landscapes for investment, risks were categorized using a simple “high to low” rating system. The risk criteria capture:

• Current vulnerability to climate change;

• Relative importance of biodiversity to livelihoods; and

• Opportunities the landscape offers to invest successfully in adaptation interventions.

Table 3 describes the criteria and the method used to assign a rating of high or low risk (1 = low; 2 = medium; 3 = high). A medium ranking was applied when a landscape did not fall on either extreme. The combined value of these ratings was used to offer an overall risk ranking for each landscape. A cumulative score of 7–10 = low; 11–15 = medium; 16–21 = high. While the categorization is inherently subjective and based on the team’s expert judgment, it offers a way to compare priorities systematically across landscapes.


Table 3. Definition of Criteria and Explanation of Ranking

CRITERIA DEFINITIONEXPLANATION OF RANKING

High Low

1. Importance of biodiversity

The richness of biodiversity in the landscape in terms of diversity, endemism and quality

Well-above-average diversity and high number of endemic or threatened species are present

PA was created more for its ecosystem services than for biodiversity or the actual richness of biodiversity present has changed since PA was created

2. Significance of climate change impacts onbiodiversity

The degree to which biodiversity is vulnerableto projected climate changes

Species in the area are endemic or adapted to specific conditions (i.e., less adaptable to change)

Species appear in various areas and/or have higher tolerance for changing temperature and precipitation

3. Importance of natural resources to livelihoods

The degree to which the landscape provides communities with ecosystem services that support livelihoods (water, herbal medicine, etc.)

A large number of people directly depend on the landscape to support livelihoods

A relatively small number of people depend directly on landscape, and/or they have accessible alternatives

4. Significance of climate change impacts on livelihoods

The degree to which livelihoods are vulnerableto projected climate changes

Projected changes will significantly impact livelihoods, reducing economic and/or food security of population

Projected changes will notsignificantly impact livelihoods, or population has sufficient adaptive capacity to respond

5. Significance of indirect impacts on biodiversity resulting from climaterelated direct impacts on livelihoods

The degree to which available data provide the analytical basis for making causal links between livelihood changes and impacts on biodiversity

Projected climate change will create change in livelihoods that will in turn create significant impacts on biodiversity

Projected climate change will create change in livelihoods for which it is unclear whether any significant impacts on biodiversity will occur

6. Relative impact of climate stressors compared to non-climate stressors

Assessment of whether climate stressors are a relatively greater threat than non-climate stressors

Climate stressors(temperature, rainfall, etc.) are the main threat to biodiversity and livelihoods

Non-climate stressors are the main threat to biodiversity and livelihoods

7. Imminence of climate impacts

The projected timescale of climate impacts

Climate impacts are being felt now; immediate action is necessary to prevent or slow irreparable damage

The situation is stable in the short term; threatsexist but are not causing permanent damage

8. Potential value in piloting adaptation response

Based on visibility of the landscape to public or decision makers, as well as the degree to which adaptive responses could provide a useful example for other landscapes in similar conditions

The landscape is high profile and/or the adaptive responses could serve asa model for other landscapes

The landscape is of a lower profile and/or is so unique that any lesson learned could not be directly applied to other situations


STUDY LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS • The assessment relies on a rapid screening of risks based on available literature and

information, and is limited in scope with regard to climate information and projections data.

• Field verification of desk analysis assumptions and qualitative assessment of community perceptions regarding biodiversity, natural resources and livelihoods was limited to a short field visit to a small subset of the study geography.

• Information about the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and livelihoods is limited; the science regarding the causal links is nascent and evolving rapidly. This constrains well-informed decision making. For example, information about invasive species management, in particular some species of Acacia and Lantana, is lacking (Onsite interview, Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), August 23, 2016).

• The links between climate change and livelihoods are better understood than those between climate change and biodiversity.

• Information regarding the links between climate-induced changes to livelihoods and how those livelihood changes affect biodiversity is limited.

Table 4 outlines these limitations in terms of gaps and uncertainties. For the most part, these apply across landscapes, but it is noted when relevant for a specific landscape.


Table 4: Gaps and Uncertainties GAPS AND UNCERTAINTIES NEEDS

Scientific data on climate and climate change and their relation to ecosystem changes

Installation of weather stations in the PAs and a system to monitor ecosystem changes correlated with climate change

Scientific data linking climate-induced changes to livelihoods and how those livelihood changes affect biodiversity

A long-term study focused on communities located adjacent to PAs or other sensitive landscapes to track the causal relationship between climate change, livelihoods and biodiversity conservation

Reasons for invasive species spread and most effective management measures

A study on invasive species and management measures

Location-specific information about effective humanwildlife conflict (HWC) management options and potential for establishing new wildlife corridors

Research into effective, sustainable HWC management based on climate change projections, and research into the potential for wildlife corridors to mitigate climate change effects on vegetation zone shifts

Appropriate tourism activities and infrastructure based on climate change projections

Research to identify and test alternative types of and locations for tourism infrastructure

Limited human resources to monitor, analyze and disseminate climate change data (USAID, 2011)

Strengthened institutional capacity (data, skills, infrastructure and financial resources) in responsible institutions, especially local governments, to undertake systematic monitoring of ecosystem changes due toclimate change, and to facilitate or support implementation of adaptation and mitigation interventions

The impact of climate change on vegetation zones and species ranges

Installation of weather stations to develop detailed baseline climate change data at the regional level (McGahey et al., 2013) and increased capacity to analyze climate data so they can be linked to species data from comprehensive monitoring programs (Seimon et al, 2012)

The impact of climate change on disease transmission among humans, livestock and wildlife More research on disease transmission

In landscape 2 (LMCA), information on the extent and effects of future upstream development in Mbarara and along the River Rwizi

A communication system between LMNP authorities and the districts so they can share information and together develop sustainable development approaches and plans

In landscape 3 (RMNP), unanalyzed multi-year records from weather station on the slopes of the Rwenzori massif

Trend studies on weather conditions in the park in relation to vegetation type cover changes (WWF, 2015;Seimon and Phillips, 2009; Barihaihi, 2010)

In landscape 4 (BMCA/ECFR), the impact of climate change on mountain gorillas (current research is conflicting on gorillas’ adaptive capacity) and response options for UWA

Management-oriented climate change research so that UWA can make management decisions taking into account the potential impacts of climate change on mountain gorillas

2. LANDSCAPE ANALYSES


In the coming century, climate change in Uganda has the potential to reverse development gains, in particular by exacerbating food insecurity, creating damage from extreme weather events such as floods and droughts, altering agricultural productivity and creating shifts in the occurrence of diseases such as malaria. Given Uganda’s existing development challenges and its heavy reliance on natural resources for livelihood security and economic growth, climate variability and change make this East African nation highly vulnerable to climate risks. This section provides climate information on Uganda overall, while the landscape analyses and recommendations present a more detailed picture of the historical and projected climate for each landscape. The landscape-specific analyses also describe the non-climate and climate stressors, outline important biodiversity resources and provide insight on the practicality of specific adaption interventions in those landscapes in the short, medium and long term.

GENERAL BACKGROUND The main climate threats to Uganda are rising temperatures, rainfall variability and extreme events. Table 3 summarizes the current climate of Uganda, trends over the past few decades and projections.

Table 3. Climate Observations, Trends and Projections for Uganda

CLIMATE OBSERVATIONS CLIMATE TRENDS SINCE 1950s

CLIMATEPROJECTIONS

BY 2030Temperature

• Moderate throughout the year and varied by altitude

• Falls below 0°C in the mountain ranges of Rwenzori and Mount Elgon

• Reaches 30°C in northern and northeastern areas of Gulu, Kitgum and Moroto

• Increase of minimum temperatures between 0.5°–1.2°C

• Increase of maximum temperatures between 0.6°–0.9°C

• Increase of 2°C in average temperatures

• Projected rates of warming are greatestin the coolest season, June– September

• Increase in the frequency of days and nights that are considered hot

Rainfall

• Two rainy seasons in the south (March–May and September–November) and one season in the north (April–October)

• Average annual rainfall ranges from 800–1500 mm, with the south receiving slightly more than the north.

• Naturally dynamic with high temporal and spatial variability (mainly due to large-scale oscillations); these make it challenging to find significant trends in the onset or length of the rainy season

• No significant change in average annual rainfall

• High variability in timing: the onset of rainy seasons can shift 15–30 days (earlier or later), while the length of the rainy season can

• Potential for increase in precipitation duringdry season

• Increase in the frequency of heavy rainstorms, flooding, etc.

change by 20–40 days year to year

Extreme events

Uganda experienced erratic rainfall over the past few decades, leading to floods, landslides and mudslides. Periods of heavy rainfall in 1961/62, 1997/98 and 2007 caused widespread infrastructure damage, human displacement and destruction of livelihood assets (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment, 2014). Prolonged dry seasons have also taken a significant toll, as recently as January 2016, when 640,000 people in the Karamoja region faced food shortages due to poor harvests. Existing rainfall variability is intensified


under a changing climate, and will continue to increase the intensity and occurrence of extreme events such as floods and droughts.

Sources: USAID, 2014; Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment, 2014; Baastel Consortium, 2015; FEWS NET, 2012

CLIMATE STRESSORS These current and projected climate changes directly impact ecosystems, natural resources and biodiversity (i.e., decline in Afro-alpine vegetation at higher altitudes or drying of wetlands), which indirectly impacts livelihoods that depend on services provided by ecosystems (tourism, food security, agriculture, etc.). The country’s ecological zones – the mountains, lowlands and cattle corridor – include a range of climates, biodiversity and livelihood systems. Each varies in its exposure, sensitivity and ability to respond to climate risks. For example, mountain ecosystems such as those of the Rwenzori range are home to endemic species whose unique range and habitat demands make them less able to migrate or adapt to rapidly changing temperatures. Similarly, livelihood systems in the cattle corridor (agriculture, fishing, etc.) that are heavily dependent on natural resources are susceptible to changing rainfall patterns. A more variable rainfall regime and higher temperatures could increase the contact between wildlife and local communities, potentially triggering increased disease transmission and human-wildlife conflict (HWC). Climate variability will also negatively affect agriculture and livestock production, forcing more people to supplement their reduced incomes by extracting resources from PAs (timber, wildlife, etc.). NON-CLIMATE STRESSORS Climate impacts will exacerbate existing non-climate stressors on biodiversity and livelihoods, such as high population growth (3.3 percent annually), conflict (e.g., in Karamoja) and environmental degradation from agricultural expansion, mining, oil exploration, use of timber for fuel and poor regulation of PAs. These stressors have important indirect impacts on PAs and their management. Eight-four percent of the country’s population lives in rural areas, where poverty rates are high (20 percent) and livelihoods rely on climate-sensitive rainfed agriculture and pastoralism (World Bank, 2016). Population growth puts pressure on PAs through border encroachment, unsustainable extraction of natural assets, conversion of wetlands to agriculture and other uses, and unplanned and unsustainable urban and peri-urban growth. These activities resulted in a decline in forest cover from 24 percent in 1990 to 18.3 percent in 2005 (Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment, 2014). The relative abundance of natural resources found in PAs also creates demands to reverse their protected status; these come primarily from communities who historically used these lands and investors who want to extract their resources at commercial scale.


DISEASE TRANSMISSIONWildlife might move outside PA boundaries more frequently in response to climate stressors such as shifting range of vegetation and prey, increased fire risk and reduced water resources. This dynamic would increase human-wildlife contact, resulting in increased transmission of Ebola, scabies, influenza and other viral and bacterial diseases that can be passed between humans and other animal species (UWA, 2016).

2.1 LANDSCAPE 1 ANALYSIS Kidepo Valley National Park (KVNP), Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve (WR), Lake Bisina and Lake Opeta Wetlands Systems and Surrounding Communities REGION: DRY CATTLE CORRIDOR

Figure 2. Landscape 1: KVNP, Pian Upe WR and Surrounding Communities


2.1.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION This landscape covers areas of northeastern and eastern Uganda. KVNP, established as a national park in 1962, covers 1,442 km2 of savanna landscape that extends far beyond the officially demarcated area. The Narus River Valley in the south and west of the park and the Kidepo River Valley in the east and northeast divide the park in two. At 2,304 km2, Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve (WR) is Uganda’s second largest WR, stretching from the foothills of Mount Kadam westwards to Lake Kyoga and Moroto District in the north. The Bisina-Opeta lakes and wetlands complex, an extensive flat grassland floodplain, comprises the Lake Bisina and Lake Opeta Ramsar Sites and other adjacent lakes and swamps, all of which drain Mount Elgon and south Karamoja into Lake Kyoga. 2.1.2 UNIQUE CLIMATE CHARACTERISTICS Unlike most of Uganda, which has a bimodal rainfall pattern, this landscape has a single, long rainy period between April and October/November. In KVNP, average rainfall is 800 mm annually. Rainfall is characteristically episodic, alternating with a prolonged severe dry season and considerable variation from year to year. Cyclic droughts occur every two to three years. The episodic nature of these events means that most of the region’s population is typically affected by long dry periods and heavy rainy periods. The dry season is characterized and dominated by very hot northeasterly monsoon winds, which result in extreme drought with no green vegetation and temperatures that average 30°C but can reach over 40°C. Extended dry periods over the last 10 years have exerted pressure on water availability in most parts of the landscape (Mubiru, 2010; UWA, 2012). 2.1.3 CLIMATE PROJECTIONS Climate change projections for Landscape 1 include:

• Increase of 2°C in average temperatures by 2030 (USAID, 2014).

• Higher temperatures for the periods corresponding to projected reductions in rainfall, with the highest increases projected for Moroto, Kaabong, Amudat and Nakapiripirit Districts.

• Rainfall projections are less certain than temperature projections, but assuming a persistence of current trends, predictions suggest a 50–150 mm reduction in rainfall between 2010–2039, with pronounced inter- and intra-annual variability (FEWS NET, 2012). Some models suggest that rainfall is projected to increase in total amount but with pronounced interannual variability.

2.1.4 NON-CLIMATE STRESSORS • Population pressure: Population growth, at 3 percent annually in this landscape, is

leading to conflicts over land and water rights between crop farmers and pastoralists.

• Overstocking and overgrazing: Of Uganda’s 11.4 million cattle population (counted in the 2008 national livestock census), the majority are concentrated in Kotido, Nakapiripirit, and Kaabong Districts (Uganda Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries et al., 2010).


• Open access of wetlands: Wetland resources are accessible and available to all users. Wetlands are being drained for cultivation and used by pastoralists as grazing and watering points.

• Cutting trees for fuel wood: As woody biomass disappears in other parts of Uganda, charcoal making is becoming a lucrative enterprise in this landscape.

• Incursions into the PAs and wetlands to access pasture and water: Dinkas, Toposa and Mening tribes from South Sudan and the Dodoth and Napore cattle-keeping communities in Uganda illegally enter the Kidepo-Pian Upe PAs and Bisina-Opeta wetlands. Pokot Karamojong clans drive their livestock into Pian Upe and to the Lake Opeta wetland system adjacent to the WR. While in the PAs and wetlands, they poach game for food (UWA, 2012), compete with wildlife for water and pasture, and may kill or chase wildlife so their livestock can safely access resources.

2.1.5 BIODIVERSITY RESOURCES OF IMPORTANCE Biodiversity resources of importance for Landscape 1 are found in Table 4.

Table 4. Landscape 1 – KVNP-Pian Upe Landscape Biodiversity Resources AREA HABITATS BIODIVERSITY

KVNP

• 1,442 km2 of savanna, with rugged arid and semi-arid valleys and plains interspersed with hills, rocky outcrops and forested mountain ranges.

• The forested mountains of Morungole,Zulia and Nyagea, all part of Napore

Central Forest Reserve (CFR) andKarenga Community Wildlife Management Area (CWMA), stretch from the park southwards covering an area of 956 km2. They provide dispersal areas and migratory corridors for wildlife from KVNP.

• Over 462 species of birds, 86 species of mammals and 192 tree species.

• 28 mammal species currently found nowhere else in Uganda, including striped hyena, aardwolf, caracal, greater and lesser kudu and Bright’s gazelle.

• Exceptional for its 58 species of birds of prey, including Verreaux eagle and Pygmy falcon.

The park has some of East Africa’s rarest birds, sought by birdwatchers, adapted to the dry eastern habitat and found in no other national parks in Uganda.

• Flagship species present, such as elephants, buffalo, lion, giraffe, zebra and various antelope.

Pian UpeWR

2,304 km2 of savannah grassland in the north and a wetland ecological system in the south.

• UWA 2014 wildlife surveys found most surviving large mammals (waterbuck, gazelle, hartebeest, Uganda kob, buffalo and eland) in the south of the reserve along the Greek River, which drains into Lake Opeta.

• Migratory route for birds moving southwards from Europe during winter.


Lakes Bisina and Opeta wetland systems

• Lake Opeta wetland system is a shallow freshwater lake with a thin strip of fringing papyrus swamp.

• Only significant permanent wetland in this landscape and one of the few remaining intact wetlands in Uganda.

• Water lilies, a declining habitat in most of Uganda’s water bodies, dominate the shallow areas of Lake Bisina, and provide feeding grounds for wading birds.

• Important for conservation of both resident and migratory birds: Nature Uganda’s 2009 ecological survey recorded 194 species of birds, including 41 migratory species, 26 threatened species of conservation concern, 6 threatened species of global concern and 20 species of regional concern (Nature Uganda, 2009).

• Critical for bird species such as globally vulnerable shoebill stork and Fox's weaver, Uganda's only endemic bird; critical habitat for migratory bird species from Europe.

• Important refuge for fish species that have gone extinct in the main lakes, including Lakes Victoria and Kyoga.

Sources: UWA 2012; UWA, 2015b. 2.1.6 LIVELIHOODS OF IMPORTANCE Local communities in Landscape 1 include pastoral Karamojong people of the Dodoth subgroup and the Ik, a hunter-gatherer tribe whose survival is threatened by poverty, food insecurity and lack of access to services. Cattle herding is the livelihood of the Karamojong, who rely on the landscape for pasture and water for livestock. The Ik rely on the landscape for plants, water and wildlife. According to the 2014 Uganda National Census, the six districts that share the Lakes Bisina and Opeta wetlands complex support over 1.5 million people. The surrounding communities also rely on the wetlands complex for fishing, transport, supply of water for domestic use and livestock, seasonal grazing and cultivation of crops including paddy rice, maize, millet and plantain.

2.1.7 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Ecosystem services of importance for Landscape 1 biodiversity and livelihoods are found in Table 5.

Table 5. Landscape 1 – KVNP-Pian Upe Landscape Ecosystem Services TYPE SERVICES

Provisioning Services

The Morungole and Zulia mountain ranges, together with the Nyangea-Napore hills, are an important water catchment for the Karamoja region. Rivers flowing from these mountains include Nalakas, Kidepo and Narus. These provide water for wildlife inside the park and adjacent communities.

The Narus Valley provides the only permanent water source in the KVNP and Lake Opeta wetland complex, a permanent wetland. The Narus Valley is the only part of the park that has water throughout the dry season; wildlife congregate there for water and pasture.

The park is an important source of firewood, honey, herbal plants, salty grass and ordinary grass, sand and stones for building, and water for domestic use and livestock. It is also used for grazing livestock and artisan gold mining.

Communities rely on wetland resources such as fish, craft materials, thatching, herbal plants and vegetables, especially plant resources used for food in the dry seasons, such as rhizomes (Nymphea genus) critical for human nutrition during droughts.


Cultural Services

The KVNP provides direct and indirect employment opportunities through tourism-based enterprises. Pian-Upe WR has potential for big game viewing and bird watching. A shared concession between UWA and a private sector partner is enhancing revenue generation and local employment opportunities, while strengthening conservation of the WR.

The expansive rangelands in Karenga CWMA have great potential for community-based tourism enterprise development.

2.1.8 CLIMATE STRESSORS, RISKS, IMPACTS AND ADAPTIVE RESPONSES Table 6 details climate stressors based on projected climate changes for Landscape 1, associated climate risks and potential impacts to biodiversity and livelihoods. Also included are potential adaptive responses for biodiversity and livelihood impacts.


Table 6. Landscape 1 – Climate Stressors, Climate Risks, Impacts and Potential Adaptive Responses for Kidepo Valley National Park (KVNP), Pian Upe WR, Lakes Bisina-Opeta Wetlands and Surrounding Communities

CLIMATESTRESSORS CLIMATE RISKS DIRECT IMPACTS TO

BIODIVERSITY

INDIRECT IMPACTSTO LIVELIHOODSFROM BIODIVERSITYIMPACTS

INDIRECT IMPACTSTO BIODIVERSITYFROM LIVELIHOODIMPACTS

POTENTIALADAPTIVERESPONSES

Higher temperatures

Droughts (generally between April andJune)

Severe dry spells and erratic rains (particularlybetween May and July)

Increased incidence and spread of fire; the savanna grassland ecosystem that dominates KVNP is highly susceptible to fire.

• Destruction of vegetation; additionally, regeneration of vegetation will be slower due to the increased length of dry periods. Most affected wildlife are: ostrich(breeding grounds) and grazers such as zebra, kudu, hartebeest and eland. Since these animals are prey for lion, cheetah and leopard, predator populations would be affected. (KVNP GMP, 2012).

• Animal mortality.• Relocation of

wildlife outside ofPA boundaries (may be temporary).

• Additional loss of habitat for the last population of the roan antelope, which is threatened with extinction.

• Decreased qualityof tourism experience and decreased revenue due to increased dispersal and decreased number of animals and diversity of species.

• PA resources, such as honey, herbal plants, salt grass for grazing and vegetables could be destroyed; communities that rely on these resources would be affected.

As droughtsintensify, rainfall patterns change and temperaturesincrease, undercutting traditional pastoralist, fishing and farming livelihoods practiced, populations will be compelled to accelerate draining of wetlands and cutting of trees, both adjacent to PAs and to encroach on the PAs themselves, exacerbating biodiversity impacts noted in the “Direct Impacts to Biodiversity” column.

Responses to biodiversity impacts:• Integrate PA fire

managementplanning intoGMPs to address fire threats.

• Train PA staff in fire management/ controlled burning.

Responses to livelihoods impacts:• Identify alternative

locations as tourismdestinations within the PAs.

• Support tourisminfrastructure development at alternative sites.

• Supportdomestication/onfarm production of resources used by communities.

• Update sustainable use agreements between the PAand communities that take into account effects of the new fire regime on PA resources.

• Undertakecollaborative PA



BIODIVERSITY




Higher temperatures

management for communities to access resources like water, pasture, fruits and honey during climate shocks.


Droughts (generally between April andJune)

Severe dry spells and erratic rains (particularly between May and July)

Increased spread of woody invasive species.

• Harrisoniaabbysinica, a fire/drought-resistant plant species, is currently colonizing the Narus Valleyand other parts ofKVNP (KVNP GMP, 2012).

• Transition of pasture to woody vegetation forces wildlife to move away from water in search of food, and move away from food in search of water. The increased movement raisesthe risk of poaching. Grazing populations could be compromised due to these stresses.

• Reduction in the area of mating grounds, such as for Uganda kob, which need large open areas (Onsite

• Decreased qualityof tourismexperience and revenue. If wildlife disperses in search of pasture, the Narus Valley, KVNP’s maintourist attraction, may no longer be ideal for game viewing.

• Increased HWC asa result of wildlife, especially grazers, moving outside the PAs in search of more palatable food. Already antelope commonly raid crops (as do buffalo, elephant and baboon) around KVNP(UWA, 2012).

Responses to biodiversity impacts:• Support promising

invasive species control measures, especially in the Narus Valley.

Responses to livelihoods impacts:• Identify alternative

locations as tourismdestinations within the PAs.

• Support tourisminfrastructure development at alternative sites.

• Scale up the Karenga CWMAplanning to coverall subcounties inCWMA andimplement the conservancy andother managementactions identified in the currentmanagement plan for the two subcounties. A second priority site for


BIODIVERSITY





interview, UWA, August 2016).

management planning and conservancy implementation isthe Iriri/Amudat CWMA adjoining Pian Upe WR.

Scale up measuresto control wildlifemovement outside the PA (physical boundaries, vegetation boundaries, unpalatable crops, re-vegetating areas in the PA with palatable grasses, etc.).

Increased drying of wetlands and other water sources.

• The Narus Valley may no longer provide dry season water for wildlife.

• Exacerbated by unsustainableutilization, reduction in breeding and feeding areas for avifauna, fish and wildlife that rely on wetlands.

• Drying of the Bisina-Opeta wetland complex could degrade or destroy this globally important habitat for migratory birds.

• Increased HWC,affecting livelihoods of livestock keepers in the surrounding communities and/or pastoralists.

• Reduction of wetland resources, such as craft materials, thatching, herbal plants, vegetables and other plants used for food in the dry seasons. This could in turn diminish community support for the PAs and for

Responses to biodiversity impacts:• De-silt existing

wildlife watering points in the KVNP to make them functional.

• Establish new,well-distributed watering points (to serve areas with high animal concentrations but with little water during the dry season, e.g., the northern sector inthe KVNP) to keep wildlife inside the PA.



BIODIVERSITY




Increasedpoaching in dry seasons, when pasture and water is scarce outside the PAs.0

wetland conservation.• Reduced livelihood

options, especially in the Bisina wetland, due to reduced fish catch.

• Reduced water andpasture for cattle, threatening cattle survival and cattle herding, thelivelihood of the Karamojong people.

• More frequent clashes between pastoralists and park management with incursions of pastoralists into the park to access pasture and water (UWA, 2012). Tensions also often occur between tribes, or even across districts as they compete for water and pasture

• Construct physical barriers and drainage structures to improve/ increase drainage to wetlands.

• Promote integrated watershed managementapproaches

Responses to livelihoods impacts:• Promote regulated

wetlands access and resource use through zoning and enforcement of bylaws, particularly among fishermen and the pastoral and agro-pastoral communities that use the BisinaOpeta wetlands complex.

• Reduceoverstocking and overgrazing.

• Install automatic weather stations and Provide timely & accurate weather forecast

0 Dinkas, Toposa and Mening tribes from South Sudan, often armed and in large numbers, invade the KVNP-Pian Upe landscape for grazing during dry seasons. As they move in the park they poach game for food. During prolonged dry seasons, with scarce pasture and water outside the PAs, tribes would remain in the PAs for a longer period, with poaching likely to increase. The Dodoth and Napore cattle-keeping communities in Uganda also move their livestock into the PAs during severe dry conditions. They also poach wildlife there (UWA, 2015b). Similarly, the Pian, and Pokot Karamojong clans around Pian Upe WR drive their livestock into the reserve to graze and water their animals in the Lake Opeta wetland complex adjacent to the WR, where they poach wildlife.



BIODIVERSITY




information to pastoralists/agropastoralists by radio and/or SMS.

• Carry out a resource inventory in the PAs to collect data on salt grass, honey harvesting, firewood, local vegetables and local herbs to determine sustainable harvest limits based on drier conditions.

• Promote wetland-based, ecologically friendly enterprisesthat contribute to household incomes while helping to conserve the Bisina-Opeta wetlands.


Increased intensity ofextreme events

Floods, particularly between July andSeptember

Increased siltation of wetlands and water sources.

• Degraded habitatfor fish and wildlife.

• Flooding could somewhat balance the drying, but overall, wetland surface area is expected to shrink (Government ofUganda, 2009, in Mubiru, 2010).

• Reduced qualityand quantity of water for domestic use and for supplying the River Nile.

• Impacts oncroplands that are irrigated from these systems.

• Reduced fish catchresulting from degraded water quality; would

Responses to biodiversity impacts: To control sedimentation:• Construct physical

barriers• Plant vegetation

barriers• Construct drainage

structures

Responses to livelihoods impacts:


BIODIVERSITY





especially affect livelihoods of fishermen in the Bisina wetland.

Adverse impactsfor craft makers and other livelihoods dependent on wetland resources.

• Restore landscapes especially in the upstream of rivers and wetland catchment areas. Restore river banks and create buffer zones around wetlands, particularly in cultivating communities.

• Improve water harvesting and storage mechanisms for irrigation, domestic use and livestock within communities outside the PAs, including rainwater harvesting, microirrigation schemes and other watersaving technologies to minimize demands on PAs for water.

• Construct aquaculture ponds.

• Invest in rehabilitation and expansion of physical infrastructure and vegetation to enhance flood protection of gardens, houses


BIODIVERSITY





and other household assets from intense rainfall events.

Supportenvironmentally sound alternative livelihood options (see above).


2.1.9 CLIMATE CHANGE RISK SIGNIFICANCE RATING Landscape 1 – Kidepo Valley National Park, Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve (WR), Lakes Bisina-Opeta Wetlands, and Surrounding Communities

CRITERIA

1 Importance of biodiversity

Significance of climate change 2

impacts on biodiversity

Importance of natural resources 3

to livelihoods


impacts on livelihoods

Relative impact of climate 5 stressors compared to

nonclimate stressors

6 Imminence of climate impacts

Potential value in piloting 7

adaptation response

Overall Significance**

*Ratings: High (3), Medium (2), Low (1) **Overall Significance: Sum of criteria scores; 7

RATING* NOTES

When taken as a whole, the three contrasting major ecosystems of this landscape present extraordinary diversity.

3 Dozens of species occur only in this park, accompanied by stocks of large mammals such as elephant, lion and giraffe, as well as migratory birds and endemic fish. Destruction and slower growth of vegetation. Changes in

3 climate favoring invasive species. Increasingly, fire has been affecting wildlife and vegetation. Drying of water sources and human-wildlife competition increases.

Very important for many livelihoods. Resources include: food, 3 firewood, grazing, mining, raw materials and water.

BisinaOpeta wetlands support over 1.5 million people. Projected higher temperatures and rainfall variability will significantly increase the vulnerability of pastoralists in this

3 major cattle area. Heavy and unpredictable rains pose threats to non-irrigated agriculture and to the use of wetlands in droughts. Reduction in tourism and income likely.

3 Climate change is more significant than non-climate change stressors.

Area has already been experiencing higher temperatures and increased unpredictability of rain. Failure of crops and decline

3 in livestock productivity cause population to turn to other income-generating activities which can include cutting trees for charcoal as well as entering PAs for extraction of resources such as honey.

2 Can be applied to other ecosystems in the cattle corridor but not necessarily all of Uganda.

Climate change risk is significant and landscape High provides high potential for implementing successful (20) model adaptive responses.

–10=low; 11–15=medium; 16–21=high.

2.2 Landscape 2 Analysis Lake Mburo Conservation Area (LMCA) and Surrounding Communities REGION: DRY CATTLE CORRIDOR


Figure 3. Landscape 2: LMCA and Surrounding Communities

2.2.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION UWA recognizes Lake Mburo National Park (LMNP) and the Lake Nakivale wetland system, part of a large wetland complex, as the Lake Mburo Conservation Area (LMCA). LMNP is a demarcated National Park covering 370 km2. Although the Lake Nakivale wetland system does not have designated boundaries, it includes a designated Ramsar Site. Together with 13 other lakes, the LMCA is part of a 50 kilometer-long wetland system. Lake Mburo is a critical component within the River Rwizi catchment. During dry periods, it is the only source of permanent water for wildlife and livestock in the area. The River Rwizi, the main river in this landscape, flows eastward through and from Mbarara which, at nearly 200,000 people, is the second largest city in Uganda and the second fastest growing. Sanga is growing fast and is another large urban area in the


vicinity. From Sanga to the north along the MasakaMbarara highway, a string of small but growing villages continue along the paved and unpaved road to the park gate. 2.2.2 UNIQUE CLIMATE CHARACTERISTICS LMNP has the tropical climate found in the Ankole-Southern climatic zone. It lies in a rain shadow area between Lake Victoria to the east and the Rwenzori Mountains to the west. The park has two marked seasons, a rainy and a dry season, and receives annual rainfall of 500 to 1,000 mm. Temperatures range from 23° to 25°C. 2.2.3 CLIMATE PROJECTIONS Projections for Landscape 2 by 2030 include0 (USAID, 2014):

• Increase in average temperatures by 2°C, with rates of warming greatest in the coolest season, June–September.

• Increases in the frequency of days and nights that are considered hot.

• Potential for increase in precipitation during the dry season.

• Increase in the frequency of heavy rainstorms, flooding, etc.

2.2.4 NON-CLIMATE STRESSORS • Population pressure. Mbarara, previously a smaller urban conglomeration, is

now a major city with all of its demands on resources: water, land and fuelwood. Other communities around LMNP are also growing and placing pressure on the park. The population around the Lake Nakivale Ramsar Site (LNRS) continues to grow and management authorities are called upon regularly to remove people who are encroaching on the wetland.

• Upstream development. Development upstream, such as soda and beer bottling and dairies, requires water, decreases the flow in Rwizi River and reduces water quality by introducing nutrients that are byproducts of the production process into the water courses.

• Livestock production. This is the dominant livelihood in the landscape; the high stocking rate causes competition for limited resources.

• Lack of local community buy-in to PA creation and management. This leads to a culture of distrust and, at times, conflict and/or ignoring of rules.

• Wetland encroachment and conversion. The wetland has been encroached on and turned into farmland or used for pasture or settlements. Lower water quality and quantity and eutrophication of the lake result.

• Refugee camp. Nakivale has the added pressure of being adjacent to the very large refugee camp, which has about 60,000 people who place demands on wetland resources.

0 No specific climate projections are available for this landscape, so the general climate projections from the 2013 USAID ARCC Vulnerability Assessment were used.


• Fire risk. Poachers and refugees from Oruchinga and Nakivale set fires to hunt or clear agricultural land.

2.2.5 BIODIVERSITY RESOURCES OF IMPORTANCE The LMCA wetland system was designated a Ramsar Site and an Important Bird Area. Biodiversity resources of importance for this landscape are found in Table 7. A variety of ecosystems including lakes, wetlands, open grasslands, forests and woodlands support high biodiversity, according to the LMCA General Management Plan (GMP) (2015–2025).

Table 7. Landscape 2 – LMCA Landscape Biodiversity Resources AREA HABITATS BIODIVERSITY

LMNP

• Once covered by open savanna, LMNP now contains extensive woodland.

• In the western part of the park, the savanna is interspersed with rocky ridges and forested gorges.

• Patches of papyrus swamp and narrow bands of lush riparian woodland line many lakes.

• Wetland habitats comprise 20% of the park's surface.

• Smallest of Uganda’s savanna national parks.

• Acacia is increasingly one of the dominant tree species though it is considered invasive.

• Five species of wetland-dependent plants belonging to five genera have been recorded in the Lake Mburo area.

• Home to 350 species of birds as well as zebra, impala, eland, buffalo, oribi, Defassa waterbuck, leopard, hippo, hyena, topi and reedbuck.

• Only park in Uganda with significant populations of impala, eland and topi; the only one in southern Uganda with zebra.

Lake Nakivale wetland system

Unique habitat, lying at the convergence of two biological zones, giving it very high biodiversity.

• Supports globally threatened bird species such as the papyrus yellow warbler and shoebill stork.

• Provides refuge for 22 species of Palaearctic and Afro-tropical migrant birds, especially during adverse conditions.

• Supports two of the endangered cichlid fish species that have gone extinct in the main lakes of Uganda.

• Habitat for other animal species such as hippopotamus, sitatunga and Nile crocodile.

Source: UWA, 2003.

2.2.6 LIVELIHOODS OF IMPORTANCE Tourism is important to the region. Given that LMCA is the only national park in the Ankole region, substantial opportunity exists for further tourism development (UWA, 2003). UWA reports the number of visitors in 2013 as nearly 25,000, split about evenly between Ugandans and foreigners. The benefits of tourism, however, are said to accrue mainly to private sector tourism operators and lodge owners rather than to communities. 2.2.7 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Ecosystem services of importance for Landscape 2’s biodiversity and livelihoods are found in Table 8.

Table 8. Landscape 2 – LMCA Landscape Ecosystem Services TYPE SERVICES



During dry periods, cattle ranchers request access to Lake Mburo, the area’s only permanent water source. PA management allows access specifically by permit and only for watering, not grazing.

LMNP now employs community members to remove Acacia and grants permits for removal and sale of the wood biomass, including for making charcoal. This benefits the livelihoods of local people, while also benefitting biodiversity by removing this invasive plant that is changing the overall landscape from grassland to woodland.

LMNP contributes directly to fishermen’s livelihoods. UWA park management oversees fishing, monitors catch and licenses boats. UWA allows local communities to collect plants and wood, which are used for thatch, fuelwood and handicrafts, as well as for caps for milk containers, important for both nutrition and culture.

Surrounding communities, including inhabitants of the Nakivale refugee camp, use Lake Nakivale wetland resources, such as fish, pasture for domestic animals, papyrus reeds for crafts and construction, water for livestock and domestic use, firewood and medicinal plants and as cultural sites.

Regulating Services

Wetlands, through which the River Rwizi passes before Mburo, provide ecosystem services such as filtration of silt (and perhaps toxins) as well as flood control. These activities improve the quality of the river and lakes for cattle, fishing and other uses.

As a critical water body within the River Rwizi catchment area that drains into Lake Victoria, Lake Mburo provides direct and indirect values, including moderating the climate in the surrounding environment and communities.

Cultural Services Traditional and cultural relationships between the protected fauna and flora and the surrounding communities.



Table 9. Landscape 2 – Climate Stressors, Climate Risks, Impacts and Potential Adaptive Responses for Lake Mburo Conservation Area and Surrounding Communities


BIODIVERSITY




Higher temperatures

Droughts

Severe dry spells

Erratic rains

Increased incidence and spread of fires dueto hotter, drier conditions.

• Destruction of vegetation; additionally, regeneration of vegetation will be slower due to the increased length of dry periods.

• Animal mortality.• Relocation of wildlife

beyond the PA boundaries, perhaps only temporarily.

• Reduced pasture for grazers.

• Decreased qualityof tourism experience and revenue. Wildlife could move to more favorable areas to access food and water, which could be across the border to Tanzania, toagricultural fields or to swamps, thusmaking the LMNPless attractive to tourists.

Reduced PAresources for community use. Plant resources that communities rely on and that are found in the PA could be destroyed.

As droughtsintensify, rainfall patterns change and temperatures increase, the needs of substantial and increasing populations surrounding the conservation area will compel these populations to increase the cutting of trees within the conservation area, accelerate draining of wetlands surrounding the conservation area for conversion to farmland and increase poachingwithin the conservation area, exacerbating biodiversity impacts noted in the “Direct Impacts to Biodiversity” column.



• Train PA staff in fire management/ controlled burning. Responses to livelihoods impacts:

• Support tourisminfrastructuredevelopment at alternative sites, such as at conservancies.

• Strengtheninstitutional and technical capacities of conservancies. The African WildlifeFoundationBiodiversity Projecthas made progress, but continued support is needed for thesenascent institutions.

Supportdomestication/onfarm production of resources used by communities.



BIODIVERSITY




Higher temperatures

Droughts

Severe dry spells

• Update sustainable use agreements between the PA and communities that take into account effects of the new fire regime on PA resources.

• Undertakecollaborative PA management for communities to access resources like water, pasture, fruits and honey during climate shocks.


Erratic rains

Increased spread of invasive species (e.g., Acacia, Lantana camara).0

Reduced habitatfor grazers. The

western part of LMNP, whichprovided habitat for grazers such as zebra, buffalo and eland now hasbecome Acacia forest, and only supports monkeys. This trend would be expected to continue, and the transition may be more rapid with higher temperatures and drier conditions.

Increased HWC due to spread of invasive species. Since wildlife is unable to get through Lantana thickets, they may go outside the park in search of easier grazing and watering. This can result in HWC especially since cattle ranchers and farms are now located adjacent to park boundaries. Wildlife eat from farm plots, especially banana, a staple crop in the landscape. At LMNP, with drier conditions, zebra are

Response to biodiversity impacts:• Support promising

invasive species management measures.

• Support theintroduction and reintroduction of certain species, such as giraffe, recentlytranslocated, which browse Acacia.

Response to livelihoods impacts:• Scale up best

measures to


BIODIVERSITY




0 Palatable grasses are currently transitioning to unpalatable woody vegetation, such as Acacia (whose seeds need fire to sprout). The LCMA GMP reports that invasive species have increased in LMNP in recent years, mostly Acacia species (A. hockii and A. geradii).


Higher temperatures

Droughts

Severe dry spells

Erratic rains

Decreasedaccessibility of water sources. Lantana camara, a perennial shrub, has spread into LMNP. It forms dense thickets, blocking tracks that animals take down to the lake (the only water source in dry seasons) which is now inaccessible in many areas of the park. Animals instead go outside the park or go to the swamps, wherethey get stuck in the mud and sometimes die.

more often found in ranches, resulting in increased HWC. The typically shy eland, which had never before gone to banana plantations to feed, now are found eating matoke (Onsite interview, August 2016).

Disease transmission. When wildlife wander outside PA boundaries, they come into contact with livestock, and disease transmission can result. Wildlife carry ticks and tick-borne diseases that can be transferred to wildlife and treating livestock to kill ticks is expensive. Tick-borne disease in livestock are already a problem for livestock keepers in the surrounding communities, and would be expected to continue and possibly worsen.

control wildlifemovement outside the PA (removal of Lantana around PA water sources, physical boundaries between the PAand communities at risk, vegetation boundaries, unpalatable crops, revegetating areas in the PA with palatable grasses, etc.).

Support district veterinary officers to monitor and manage tick-borne diseases and other diseases transmissible from wildlife to livestock.

Disruption of seasonal patterns.

Disruption of birth and movement ofwildlife, previously attuned to changes in vegetation and the start and end of the rainy and dry



BIODIVERSITY




Higher temperatures

Droughts

Severe dry spells

Erratic rains

seasons that may be unable to adapt to new regimes.

Decreasedprevalence of bees, which may be in part attributable to climate change. Colonization of hives is slower, which could be linked to flowers that used to bloom in May but now bloom at different times (Onsiteinterview, District Natural Resources Officer, August 2016).

Increased drying of wetlands and other water sources. LMNP and LNRS wetlands may dry up and shrink and Lake Mburo’s water level may

More movement of wildlife due to drier conditions. As a dry season coping strategy, many wildlife species in

• Increased human-wildlife conflict dueto wildlifemovement in search of water.

• Disease

Response to biodiversity impacts:• Support well-

distributed construction of valley dams and other


drop.0

Ecosystem services typically provided by healthy, intact wetlands will be adversely affected (water source, flood attenuation, filtering contaminants).

LMNP migrate to Tanzania or undertake morelocalized movements to swamps. Wildlife is at risk during migration, as well as during shorter

transmission from wildlife to livestock (as a result of wildlife movement).

• At LNRS, reducedlivelihood options for fishermen, craft makers, and other livelihoods

methods of catching rainfall within LMNP to provide wildlife with water resources, especially during the dry season.

• Continue the buffer zone demarcation


BIODIVERSITY




0 In LNRS, the wetland level has dropped (this is also attributed to reasons other than climate change, such as unsustainable uses).


movements; they are more susceptible to poaching and being hit by vehicles, and once outside of LMNP, they may be killed by farmers or livestock keepers.

• At LMNP, evenlocalized movement is becoming more hazardous since swampy areas are drying, and when animals move toward these water sources, they get stuck in the mud. Unless PA staff rescue them, they die.

• Overgrazing, diminished food availability and animal mortality as a result of animals converging in smaller areas where water is available.

• Fish and wildlife that breed, feed and hide along shorelines will be affected if the level of Lake Mburo drops. Catfish

dependent on wetland resources.

• Fewer PAresources for community use. Among other plants used by community members (thatch and material for handicrafts), a plant used to capmilk containers isless common due to drying of wetlands. This is a livelihood and vulnerability issue linked to nutrition.

• Adverse impactson quality and quantity of water for domestic use and for croplands that are irrigated from this landscape’s water sources.

and protection program that was started in 2013 around LNRS to mitigate lower water levels in the lake.

• For LNRS, develop and implement more strictly enforced land use planning along with an awarenessraising program on the value of ecosystem services that the lake provides.

• Evaluate pilot programs and scale up successes that restore fragileriverine ecosystems. A public-private partnership of Ugandan anddonor entities in Mbarara District has shown some success.

Response to livelihoods impacts:• Support

construction of valley dams and other water conservation



BIODIVERSITY




numbers are already declining because of decreased rainfall,which is drying swamps andaffecting catfish reproduction (Onsite interview, August 2016).

Impacts onfisheries, bird life and other animals that rely on LNRS.

schemes in communities surrounding LMNP.

• Restore landscapes especially in the upstream of rivers and wetland catchment areas. Restore river banks and create buffer zonesaround wetlands, particularly in cultivating communities.

• Improve water harvesting and storage mechanisms for irrigation, domestic use, and livestock within communities outside the PAs, including rainwater harvesting, microirrigation schemes and other watersaving technologies to minimize demands on PAs for water.

• Construct aquaculture ponds.

• Invest in rehabilitation and expansion of physical infrastructure and vegetation to



BIODIVERSITY





enhance flood protection of gardens, houses and other household assets from intense rainfall events.

• Support district veterinary officers to monitor and manage tick-borne diseases and other diseases transmissible from wildlife to livestock.

• Promote wetland-based, ecologically friendly enterprises related to ecotourism, fish farming and craft making thatcontribute to household incomes while helping to conserve the LNRS wetlands.

• Carry out a resource inventory to collect data on PA resources used by communities to help determine sustainable harvest limits.

• Supportdomestication and on-farm production of PA resources



BIODIVERSITY





that are most used by communities.

• Promote regulated wetlands access and resource use through zoning and enforcement of bylaws, particularly among fishermenand the communities that use LNRS.

• Promote the healthand productivity of land outside the PA, including good farming practices, crop-livestock integration (e.g., establishment of field borders and more effective use of manure) and soil and water management.

Increased intensity ofextreme events

Floods

Increased silting of wetlands, lakes and rivers.0

Ecosystem services typically provided by healthy, intact wetlands are being affected (water source, flood attenuation, filtering contaminants).

Degraded habitat for fish and wildlife.

• At LNRS,livelihoods of fishermen, craft makers and others dependent on wetland resources will be adversely affected.

• Reduced waterquality and quantity.

Response to biodiversity impacts: To control sedimentation:• Construct physical

barriers.• Plant vegetation

barriers.• Construct drainage

structures.


BIODIVERSITY




0 This is worsened by upstream development. Hard rainfall will bring sediment off of the formerly forested agricultural lands and developed hard surfaces.


Fewer PAresources for community use.

Response to livelihoods impacts:• Evaluate pilot

programs and scale up successes that restore fragile riverine ecosystems (see above).

• Promote wetland-based, ecologically friendly enterprises (see above).

• Supportenvironmentally sound alternative livelihood options, such as: fish farming, alternatives to illegal firewood andcharcoal production, suchas certification of charcoal producers and wood lot enterprises; and wildlife and other biodiversity-based enterprises, such as ecotourism and support for conservancies.

• Carry out a resource inventoryto collect data on PA resources used by communities to help determine


BIODIVERSITY





sustainable harvest limits.

Supportdomestication and on-farm production of PA resources that are most used by communities.


2.2.9 CLIMATE CHANGE RISK SIGNIFICANCE RATING Landscape 2 – Lake Mburo Conservation Area and Surrounding Communities

CRITERIA


Significance of climate change

2 impacts on biodiversity

Importance of natural resources

3 to livelihoods

Significance of climate change

4 impacts on livelihoods





adaptation response



RATING* NOTES

LMNP is the only park in Uganda with significant populations of impala, eland, topi and zebra. LMCA ecosystem includes a 2 Ramsar Site (Lake Mburo itself & parts of Nakivale) that is an Important Bird Area for endemic, threatened and migratory species.

Projected change in temperature and variability of rainfall will cause additional stress on animals and loss of flora to which 2

they are adapted. Because of the very small size of the PA (370 km2) and the fact that it is completely surrounded by communities, migration of species is constrained. LMNP is the only source of permanent water in the area, providing water for both wildlife and livestock. It is thus very important for pastoralists, agro-pastoralists and fishermen. In 3 addition to the nearly 50,000 people living in communities

bordering LMNP (UWA 2003), as many as 60,000 people live in the Nakivale refugee camp. Nearly all residents are directly dependent on the local natural resources. Projected change in temperature and in variability of rainfall

3 will cause additional stress on animals and loss of flora to which they are adapted. Non-climate change stressors such as population growth,

2 upstream industrial development and refugees are as significant as climate change stressors at present. Impacts of delayed and diminished rainfall and higher

3 temperatures on water availability, crops and animals are currently affecting population.

Other landscapes in Uganda have many of the same issues 3 and this is a well-circumscribed, high-visibility example.

Climate change risk is significant and landscape provides High high potential for implementing successful

model (18) adaptive responses.

–10=low; 11–15=medium; 16–21=high.


2.3 LANDSCAPE 3 ANALYSIS Rwenzori Mountains National Park (RMNP) and Surrounding Communities REGION: ALBERTINE RIFT

Figure 4. Landscape 3: RMNP and Surrounding Communities

2.3.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION This landscape encompasses the Rwenzori Mountains National Park (RMNP), a constituent PA of the Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, and surrounding


communities. A World Heritage site, RMNP covers nearly 100,000 hectares in western Uganda and comprises the main part of the Rwenzori Mountain chain, which includes Africa's third highest peak (Mount Margherita, 5,109 meters). The Rwenzori Mountains is a cross-border ecosystem shared with the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). It is one of the largest and most important water catchment areas in western Uganda.

2.3.2 UNIQUE CLIMATE CHARACTERISTICS The climate of Landscape 3 is tropical, affected by seasonal movements of the intertropical convergence zone, altitude and topography. The two rainy seasons are from March to May and August to December. The daily temperature range is small, ranging from a maximum of 7°C to a minimum of –1°C, with lower temperatures during the rainy season (UWA, 2016).

2.3.3 CLIMATE PROJECTIONS Using Albertine Rift-wide data,0 projections by 2050 include (Seimon and

Phillips, 2011): Rising temperatures. • Variability in rainfall seasonality, with slight decreases in monthly rainfall

averages; when combined with warming trends, could be indicative of increasing threat of drought.

• Increase in rainfall by 2050 and beyond.

2.3.4 NON-CLIMATE STRESSORS • Population pressure. The area around RMNP is one of the most densely

populated rural areas in Africa, with 150 to 450 people per km2 (UWA, 2016). In 1992, approximately 300,000 people lived in the area but by 2002 the population around the mountain had increased to 1 million people (UWA, 2016). The high levels of poverty, low literacy rates, limited income-generating activities and high levels of unemployment for people living around the park translate into a significant demand for park resources.

• Fire. During the dry season, cultivators set fires, as do illegal honey collectors and regular footpath users. Fires spread into RMNP.

• Illegal activities. These include:

— Cutting of trees: Boundary trees, especially in Mbata, Mukumba and Kasangali areas, and trees inside the park are harvested for domestic and commercial purposes. The species most commonly harvested are Podocarpus, mahogany and bamboo.

0 Weather data are collected on a quarterly basis from automatic weather stations installed at different altitudes in RMNP; however, no projections specific to RMNP are available.


— Collection of raw material for pharmaceuticals: demand for Prunus africana bark is now threatening the existence of this species in RMNP.

— Poaching: Communities living around RMNP believe that wild meat is medicinal and a delicacy. The most poached animals are rock hyrax, duiker and primates.

— Livestock grazing. — Collection of traditional medicinal plants and plants for cultural use.

• Mining. In 2013, the government signed a 25-year concession deal with Chinese Tibet Hima Limited to extract approximately 4.5 million tons of copper still underground within Kilembe geographical area. The concession area is adjacent to RMNP and mining could affect park resources.

• Hydropower development. Greenewus Energy Africa Ltd. submitted a proposal to develop the Kakaka Mini Hydropower Project along the River Rwimi at Kakaka Falls inside RMNP. (The falls are about 500 meters long and 50 meters wide.) The feasibility study report conducted by VS Hydro, a Sri Lankan firm, recommended that the intake weir (mini flow diversion dam) and part of the headrace channel/canal, which directs the water to the power house downstream, be located inside the forest, 300–500 meters inside RMNP. A detailed environmental impact assessment was conducted to address and mitigate the potential environmental and social impacts of the proposed hydropower project (UWA, 2016).

• Other development. Other development projects are planned for RMNP and the surrounding area, including over 30 gravity flow water schemes and tourist developments such as tourist camps, bridges and boardwalks along trails in the park (UWA, 2016).

• Boundary/buffer zone issues. The park has a total boundary of 218 km and most of this is a hard edge with community gardens next to the park boundary. The lack of buffer between park boundary and community gardens often leads to encroachment by communities into the park. Most of the park boundary is marked with pillars and 70 percent of it is reinforced with planted eucalyptus trees. However, some sections of the boundary do not have live markers reinforced with concrete pillars (UWA, 2016), making these areas more at risk of incursions. The park also has a 56-km border with DRC running from the Itako River in Kasese to Malindi in Bundibugyo. The international boundary is porous and unmarked; as a result, the park has experienced incidences of insurgency. Insecurity is still a threat.

2.3.5 BIODIVERSITY RESOURCES OF IMPORTANCE Biodiversity resources of importance for Landscape 3 are found in Table 10.


Table 10. Landscape 3 – RMNP Landscape Biodiversity Resources AREA HABITATS BIODIVERSITY

RMNP

• Forest (78%), savanna (11%), grassland (2%) and other artificial and unknown habitats.

• Nine identified vegetation zones within the Rwenzori Mountain range: i) high altitude moorland with heather, ii) high altitude forests including bamboo, iii) medium altitude semi-deciduous forests, iv) forests/savanna mosaics, v) moistAcacia savanna, vi) moistCombretum savannas, vii) dry

Combretum savannas, viii) dry Acacia savannas, and ix) grass savannas.

• Close to 200 tree species (about 18% of the country's known tree species) have been recorded in the Afromontane forest region of the park.

• Prunus africana, important for many uses, is common throughout the forest, though its status is vulnerable.

• Of the 278 woody plant taxa found in the Afro-alpine zone, 81% are endemic to East Africa.

• Fifty-four Albertine Rift endemic species: 18 species of mammals, 21 species of birds, 9 species of reptiles and 6 species of amphibians.

• Five species found in the RMNP are endangered, 14 are threatened and 4 have restricted ranges.

• Restricted range species in the park include theRwenzori/Kivu climbing mouse, the Rwenzori duiker

AREA HABITATS BIODIVERSITY Above the Afromontane forest is a

bamboo forest, gradually transitioning to Mimulopsis elliotii flowering shrub. At higher altitudes, Ericaceous forest grows on the narrow ridges and beyond this, Helichrysum begin to appear.

and the Uganda clawed frog. Threatened animals include the Rwenzori black-fronted duiker, African elephant (found in the Rwenzori forest up to 2,440 m), L’Hoest’s monkey, chimpanzee and the dwarf ottershrew.

One of the most important bird communities in Uganda, with between 214 to 240 species.

Sources: Carr et al., 2013; Barihaihi, 2010; Lush, 1993, in Barihaihi, 2010; UWA, 2016.

2.3.6 LIVELIHOODS OF IMPORTANCE Communities around RMNP mainly rely on agriculture for their livelihoods. Cassava, banana, maize, Irish potato and vanilla are the most common crops. Coffee is the main cash crop. Some community members are involved in ecotourism/community-based tourism and trekking activities; local people mainly serve as porters, guides and cooks. Hima Cement Factory employs a significant number of people. The proposed reopening of the old Kilembe Copper Mines in the Rwenzori Mountains is projected to provide employment for over 3,500 people. The potential for community-based tourism around RMNP has not been fully developed (UWA, 2016). Mountain guiding is a main source of income for the Bakonzo and other communities. The Rwenzori Mountains Community Tourism Development Association, an umbrella organization uniting all community tourism operators in the Rwenzori region, is trying to organize and build the capacity of community-based tourism organizations.

2.3.7 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Table 11. Landscape 3 – RMNP Landscape Ecosystem Services

TYPE SERVICES



The population supplements livelihoods (mainly agricultural) with resources from the park. Sustainable use agreements between communities and UWA allow access to RMNP plant resources and help strengthen relationships and minimize conflicts between RMNP and surrounding communities. Prunus africana, important for its many uses (traditional medicine, a hardwood used for axes, hoes, construction), is common throughout the forest, though its status is vulnerable.

For the Bakonzo, who live on the slopes of the mountains, RMNP is an important source of resources such as bamboo (the most important resource), fibers (smilax and acalpha for basket making), medicinal plants, mushrooms, building materials, water and honey.

Regulating Services

Glaciers and wetlands are important for water provision and flood attenuation. The Rwenzori Mountains are one of the largest and most significant water catchment areas in Uganda. More than 50 rivers emerge from these mountains, flowing through the neighboring communities and beyond. Their glaciers supply clean water to over 1 million people in the DRC and Uganda (Kaggwa et al., 2009) and the catchment area provides irrigation water to communities surrounding the PA. Agricultural lands surrounding the park are fed partly by mountain runoff and partly from direct rainfall regulated by the Rwenzori forest. The mountain’s water catchment benefits the fisheries of Lakes George and Edward, irrigation schemes, hydroelectric power generation and domestic water supply to adjacent communities (UWA, 2016).

According to the RMNP GMP 2016–2025, the RMNP serves as a carbon sink and helps with climate amelioration.

Cultural Services The history, culture and beliefs of the Bakonzo are tied to the RwenzoriMountains, including Kingdom rituals and management of sacred sites. Nzururu –

TYPE SERVICESglacial ice – is the father of the spirits Kitasamba and Nyabibuya, who are responsible for the continuity and welfare of human life.

Mountain climbing and snow-capped glaciers are the main tourist attractions in this landscape. Existing community-based tourism initiatives around RMNP include nature trails, eco-lodges, campsites, village walks, cultural performances and craft enterprises.

2.3.8 CLIMATE STRESSORS, RISKS, IMPACTS AND ADAPTIVE RESPONSES Table 12 details climate stressors based on projected climate changes for Landscape 3, associated climate risks, and potential impacts to biodiversity and livelihoods. Also included are potential adaptive responses for biodiversity and livelihood impacts.


Table 12. Landscape 3 – Climate Stressors, Risks, Impacts and Potential Adaptive Responses for Rwenzori Mountains National Park (RMNP) and Surrounding Communities


BIODIVERSITY





Higher temperatures

Longer dry periods

Increased incidence and spread of fires.

Fire is a particularthreat in the alpine zones and bogs due to drying conditions associated with climate change (Fredric, 2014).

• Death and/ordispersal of animal life. Animals that are unable to escape will die. Relocation of some wildlife beyond the PA boundaries (perhaps only temporarily).

• Degradation andpossible destruction of vegetation, including the fragile vegetation of the alpine zones and bogs, which provide habitat for several endemics and other species of biodiversity importance. These require significant recovery time.

• Destruction of ground cover resulting in increased erosion and possibly landslides, which could result in increased siltation

• Decreased tourism revenue, tourismlivelihood options and community support for RMNP. With increased incidence and spread of fires, tourism infrastructure would be at risk; this would affect income-generation potential of RMNP (UWA, 2016) and of surrounding communities, as well as communitysupport forRMNP.0

• Reduction ofalready limited livelihood options.

• Fewer PAresources for community use. Plant resources used by surrounding communities could be destroyed byfire, and this coulddecrease community support

As droughtsintensify, rainfall patterns change and temperatures increase, the needs of substantial and increasing populations surrounding the conservation area will compel these populations to increase the cutting of trees within the conservation area, accelerate draining of wetlands surrounding the conservation area for conversion to farmland and increase poachingwithin the conservation area, exacerbating biodiversity impacts noted in the “Direct Impacts to Biodiversity” column.




• Develop and implement a habitat restoration plan with a focus on re-vegetating/restorin g fragile areas.

• Install automatic hydro-met monitoring stations for flood and drought earlywarning systems


• Support tourisminfrastructure development at alternative, less vulnerable sites.

• Support alternativetourism activities, such as cultural

0 The number of tourists visiting RMNP has been steadily increasing since the park reopened, from about 500 in 2003 to almost 3,000 in 2014 (UWA, 2016). This trend would be expected to continue; however, climate change impacts could neutralize or reverse the trend, with significant opportunity costs.



BIODIVERSITY




Higher temperatures

Longer dry periods

of the Semiliki River catchment, affecting fisheries and other aquatic resources, and the wildlife that rely on these species for food.

• Spread of vegetation adapted to fire regimes; these are most often invasive species. (TheRMNP GMPmentions no specific invasive species or invasive speciesmanagementactions.)

• Given the high number of endemics and restricted range species, fires and the resulting erosion and possible landslides could destroy whole populations in the RMNP.

for RMNP andincrease conflict between the PA and communities.

Increased contact between humansand wildlife, resulting in disease transmission through the remains ofdamaged crops,injuries to domestic animals, and killing and eating of primate meat. Primates may be carriers of zoonotic diseases, such as Ebola, scabies, influenza and other viral and bacterial diseases (UWA, 2016).

tourism, birding, adventure tourism and caving.

• Updatesustainable use agreements between the PA and communities that take into account effects of the new fire regime on PA resources.

• Promotedomestication and on-farm production of those PA resources used most by surrounding communities, in particular, bamboo.

• Undertakecollaborative PA management for communities to access resources like water, pasture, fruits and honey during climate shocks.


Higher temperatures

Longer dry periods

Reduced snow cover, disappearance of glaciers.

Reduced year-round water flow in rivers and streams draining the mountain.

Affects the hydrological cycle of the Rwenzori

Reduced waterflow in the catchment would affect:- Quality and

quantity of potable water

Responses to biodiversity impacts: Construct physical

drainage structures and revegetate/restore habitat to control


BIODIVERSITY





Mountainscatchment.0

This wouldadversely affect downstreamhabitats, aquatic biodiversity and the wildlife that rely on aquatic species for food.

available forcommunities;

- Amount ofirrigation water available forcrops;

- Hydroelectric powergeneration;

- Livelihoodoptions,

especially income generationfrom fisheries;

- Available protein source forsurrounding communities(fish).

• Projected disappearance of glaciers will impact tourism experience and revenue. The decline in ice cover also makes mountain guiding more treacherous and requires improved mountain safety measures.

• The projected lossof glacial ice,

water flow into rivers and streams. Responses to livelihoods impacts:• Support payment

for ecosystem services with a fund that would benefit improved catchment management and promote water conservation.

• Support the development and implementation of district land use plans to better manage resources throughout the catchment.

• Support water conservation and rainwater collection measures.

0 According to the RMNP GMP (UWA, 2016), field research in the 1950s by Menziel, in the 1990s by Kaser and in 2006 by Tailor indicate that the area covered by alpine glaciers reduced from 7.5 km2 in 1906 to less than 1.0 km2 in 2003. Within the next two decades, glaciers could disappear at the current rate of recession of approximately 0.7 km2 per decade (Kaser, 2002, and Taylor, 2006, in UWA, 2016).



BIODIVERSITY




Nzururu, is highly significant to the traditional belief system of the Bakonzo.

Vegetation belts may be shifting. Animal ranges may constrict due to hotter, drier conditions. (Research into the causes of vegetation belt shifts is inconclusive.0)

Wildlife habitat, especially for species that prefer higher elevations, may shrink as vegetation belts move upslope. As wildlife moves upslope to preferred vegetation, they will move into habitat of other species, which could result in increased competition. Elephants and other mammals may move out of the park in search of preferable habitat, potentially coming into contact with

• Increased risk of disease transmission if wildlife move outside PA boundaries in response to fire.

• Increased HWCresulting from wildlife moving outside PA boundaries. According to theRMNP GMP, communities around the park are already experiencing crop damage and loss due to wildlife roaming out of the park. Vervet monkeys, red colobus monkeys, baboons, chimps

Responses to biodiversity impacts:• Support

development ofwildlife corridors based on climate change projections of vegetation belt shifts.


• Supportcollaborative efforts between health andveterinary sectors, UWA, and the communities to monitor and control zoonotic diseases.

• Scale up best measures tocontrol wildlife

0 Shifts have been noted in the distribution ranges of some of the plant species within the RMNP. For example, Eilu and Galabuzi (2015) found Prunus africana was recorded as high as 2,560 meters, while Hagenia abyssinica now grows in a considerably wider area (100 meters up the slope and 200 meters down). In addition, the distribution of Hypericum spp. appeared to have reduced by 80 meters, whereas Dendrosenencio spp. increased by 157 meters. The distribution of Lobelia spp. increased by 180 meters, while Helichrysum spp. was recorded as high as 4,280 meters. The upward shift in the geographical ranges for some of the plant species that are commonly found growing in warmer environments could suggest that the mountain is becoming warmer. Eilu and Galabuzi state that historical climate data show that this is the trend, although available current climate data are not sufficient to suggest climate change.



BIODIVERSITY




human settlements.Wildlife that live at higher altitudes would be most affected by this shift.

• The Rwenzorileopard and the Rwenzori red duiker (only found in the Rwenzoris) are at risk from hottertemperatures since they usually live at altitudes above 3,000 m at colder climates (MWE, 2007, in UNDPUNEP, 2004).

• Ranges of uniquespecies of chameleons, including the threehorned chameleon, are already at risk. Their range is shifting upwards, possibly as a resultof rising temperatures.

• Areas that support bamboo may be reduced.

and blue monkeys are the species most often responsible for crop damage and loss. HWC in communities adjacent to RMNPwould further damage community-park relations.

Shifting vegetation belts could reduce the types and amount of plant resources used by surrounding communities.

movement outsidethe PA.0

• Updatesustainable use agreements between the PAand communities that take into account effects of shifting vegetation belts.

• Promotedomestication and on-farm production of those PA resources used most by surrounding communities, in particular, bamboo.

• Support alternativetourism activities, such as cultural tourism, birding tourism, adventure tourism and caving.

• Support training in first aid and other safety precautions for UWA and community tourism enterprises.

• Strengthen the UWA revenue-

0 Currently, RMNP management promotes growing crops in the buffer zone that are unpalatable to wildlife, such as green pepper, onions and garlic and planting of Mauritius thorn as a live fence barrier to stop incursions. Some of these crops are successful, but with climate change, wildlife may eat these less palatable crops.



BIODIVERSITY




Muhweezi (2014) notes that the bamboo die-back (possibly climate change-related) occurring in Echuya Forest(see BMCALandscape) could occur in the Rwenzoris as well.According to theRMNP GMP(UWA, 2016), the bamboo belt is already shifting as a result of climate change.

sharing fund program to partially mitigate the loss of cultural resources.

Changes in rainfall patterns, increased intensity and number of flood events

Increased amount of precipitation

Increased volumes of water flowing into the Semiliki River.

Increased incidence of landslides triggered bytorrential rainscompounded by melting snow.

• Flooding of permanent and seasonal wetlands and possibly destruction of wetland habitats (WWF, 2015).

• Destruction of vegetation, and possibly death of animals from landslides. This is especially a concern given the high number of endemics and restricted range species found inRMNP.

• If drier and hotter conditions (resulting in

Increased flood events could place tourism infrastructure atrisk, leading to decreased tourism revenue, tourism livelihood options and community support for RMNP.

Responses to biodiversity impacts:• Construct physical

drainage structures and revegetate/restore habitat to control water flow into rivers and streams.

Responses to livelihoods impacts:• Support the

development and implementation of district land use plans to better manage resources throughout the catchment.

• Invest in


rehabilitation and


BIODIVERSITY




increased incidence and spread of fires, creating bare ground) alternate with increased intensity of flood events, significant erosion and landslides could occur.

expansion of physical infrastructure and vegetation to enhance flood protection of gardens, houses and other household assets from intense rainfall events.

• Support tourisminfrastructure development at alternative, less vulnerable sites.

• Support alternativetourism activities, such as cultural tourism, birding, adventure tourism and caving.

• Construct physical and vegetation barriers to protecttourism infrastructure.

• Install automatic hydro-met monitoring stations for flood early warning systems.


2.3.9 CLIMATE CHANGE RISK SIGNIFICANCE RATING Landscape 3 – Rwenzori Mountains National Park and Surrounding Communities

CRITERIA





to livelihoods







adaptation response


*Ratings: High (3), Medium (2), Low (1) RATING* NOTES

Important Bird Area, high number of endemics, endangered 3 and rare species of regional and global importance.

Changes in temperature will shift vegetation zones and, since this is a mountainous area, zones will move up and constrict,

3 particularly affecting endemics. Loss of glaciers and water will change downstream conditions for fish and aquatic animals. With temperature rise and changing rain, fires will increase, further changing vegetation. The glaciers of the Rwenzori Mountains supply clean water to over 1 million people in the DRC and Uganda. Agriculture is dependent on water generation and communities’ access resources under agreements. Tourism, while still not

3 completely developed, is a more important industry in the Albertine Rift and directly dependent on the condition of the natural resources. Most communities around RMNP are agricultural for both subsistence and also cash crops such as coffee. Loss of water and changing vegetation have already caused wildlife to move outside of PAs, which increases conflicts with

2 agriculturalists and transmission of diseases between wildlife and humans. Loss of glaciers and unique landscape will directly affect tourism income. Non-climate stressors are as significant in this sub-landscape as climate stressors. The area is under development for

2 mining, hydropower, harvesting of valuable trees in industrial/market development as well as poaching and other raw material extraction that go with proximity to fast-growing and relatively poor local populations. The extent and role of climate change is unclear. The retreat of

the glaciers is documented but the nature of the area is of 2 unique microclimates; not enough study has been conducted to

know what is happening now and in the near future in other aspects.

The Rwenzoris are unique in Uganda, which could more likely 2 provide a model; possible applications exist outside the

country.

Climate change risk is moderately significant and High landscape provides lower potential for implementing (17) successful adaptive responses that could be

usefully applied elsewhere. **Overall Significance: Sum of criteria scores; 7–10=low; 11–15=medium; 16–21=high.

2.4 LANDSCAPE 4 ANALYSIS


Bwindi-Mgahinga Conservation Area (BMCA), Echuya Central Forest Reserve (ECFR) and Surrounding Communities REGION: ALBERTINE RIFT

Figure 5. Landscape 4: BMCA-ECFR and Surrounding Communities

2.4.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION UWA has placed Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (BINP) and Mgahinga Gorilla National Park (MGNP) under one management unit, referred to as Bwindi-Mgahinga Conservation Area


(BMCA). BINP, a World Heritage site, consists of a large primeval forest covering an area of 3,270 km2; MGNP is 33.7 km2. Echuya Central Forest Reserve (ECFR), encompassing 40 km2, is considered the most important forest in Uganda for its rare flora and fauna.

2.4.2 UNIQUE CLIMATE CHARACTERISTICS Annual precipitation in BINP ranges from 1,130 mm to 2,390 mm. The heaviest rains occur from March to April and September to November. The coldest period is June to July. Overall temperatures range from about 7°C to 20°C. The Mgahinga area is characterized by two rainy seasons, March to April and September to December, and two dry seasons, January to February and May to August. The Virunga Mountains (which include Mgahinga), generally receive higher rainfall than the surrounding areas. MGNP temperatures range from 4°C at the highest elevations to 18°C at the lowest points (UWA, 2008).

2.4.3 CLIMATE PROJECTIONS Using Albertine Rift-wide data, projections by 2050 include (Seimon and

Phillipps 2011): Rising temperatures.

• Variability in rainfall seasonality, with slight decreases in monthly rainfall averages; when combined with warming trends, could be indicative of increasing threat of drought.


2.4.4 NON-CLIMATE STRESSORS • Population pressure. The 1991 population census indicated densities at 301

people/km2 in Kisoro District, 246 people/km2 in Kabale District and 151 people/km2 in Rukungiri District. These densities are higher in some areas immediately adjacent to the parks. For example, a density of 639 people/km2 was recorded for Gisozi Parish, 330 people/km2 for Rukongi Parish and 274 people/km2 for Gitenderi Parish, all adjacent to MGNP. Population density is much higher now, given the estimated annual average increase since 1991 of about 2.7 percent in the three districts around BINP and 3.5 percent in Kisoro District. Dependence on park resources has increased with a growing population; illegal access for hunting, logging and plant collection has risen.

• Land shortage, coupled with intensive use for subsistence agriculture without any buffer zone. With increased population, there may be increased pressure to remove the area’s protected status and convert it to agriculture and other uses.


• Fuelwood and other resource use. The communities around BMCA account for the highest consumption of wood for fuel in Uganda.

• Unsustainable agriculture practices. Low use of inputs, in combination with the growing, unskilled population, results in increasing demand for productive land to grow crops.

2.4.5 BIODIVERSITY RESOURCES OF IMPORTANCE Biodiversity resources of importance for Landscape 4 are found in Table 13. Of note, approximately 880 mountain gorillas remain and are located in two isolated populations in Central/East Africa. One is the Virunga Volcanoes region of Rwanda and the MGNP. The other is the Democratic Republic of the Congo and BINP (McGahey et al., 2013).

Table 13. Landscape 4 – BMCA-ECFR Landscape Biodiversity Resources AREA HABITATS SPECIES

BINP

• Large primeval forest0 covering 327,000 hectares.

• Vegetation is a continuum from lowland in the north to montane forest in the southern sector (2,607 m).

• Forest is broadly classified as medium altitude, moist evergreen and high altitude forest.

• Over 200 tree species identified, 10 of which occur nowhere else in Uganda; 17 others have a limited distribution in the country.

• Home to 120 species of mammals, 346 species of birds, 310 species of butterflies and 27 species of frogs.

• Endangered species include mountain gorilla, chimpanzee, Demidoff’s galago and needleclawed galago.

• Elephants in the southern sector, but reduced by poaching.

• Other southern sector species include: bush pig, giant forest hog, black-footed duiker, yellowbacked duiker, clawless otter, side-stripped jackal, civet, genet and numerous bat and rodent species.

MGNP

• 4,750 hectares, of which approximately 3,000 hectares are forest.

• Only a small area of pure montane forest remains (at base of Mt. Muhabura) due to encroachment in the 1950s.

• Bamboo zone (Arundinaria alpine) located above the mountain forest belt.

• Thirty-nine recorded mammal species, but possibly 89 species occur in park.

• Larger mammals include mountain gorilla, buffalo and elephant. The rare golden monkey and the blue monkey are found in MGNP.

• Seventy-nine recorded bird species, including several endemic to the East Congo Montane region.

ECFR

• Encompasses 4,000 hectares.• Includes a permanent high altitude swamp,

Muchuya, which stands at 2,300 m in a narrow valley surrounded by steep forested hillsides.

High species diversity, including 152 bird species, 18 of which are endemic to the reserve; 54 butterfly species, 43 moth species and 127 species of trees and shrubs, some of which are endangered.

Sources: UWA, 2008

2.4.6 LIVELIHOODS OF IMPORTANCE Subsistence farming is the most common livelihood in this landscape, with some livestock and banana, tea and, to a lesser extent, coffee planted as a cash crop. Above 1,800 meters, only annual crops are planted, mainly sorghum, sweet potatoes, millet 0 Afromontane forest according to UWA (2008).


and Irish potatoes; on higher slopes, peas and wheat are planted. Irish potatoes, peas and wheat are also important cash crops. Cultivated land covers most hilltops. Wetlands have been drained to grow crops; very little of the original forest outside the parks still remains. To a lesser extent, communities adjacent to these national parks rely on ecotourism, with most activities connected to the two national parks and less so to ECFR, which is starting to become a popular tourist destination. However, according to the BMCA GMP, except for the two community campgrounds located at Buhoma in Bwindi and at Ntebeko in Mgahinga, little attempt has been made to help the communities adjacent to BMCA play a larger role in tourism, though UWA makes a concerted effort to hire many of the staff involved in gorilla tracking from the adjacent communities.

2.4.7 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Ecosystem services of importance for Landscape 4’s biodiversity and livelihoods are found in Table 14.

Table 14. Landscape 4 – BMCA-ECFR Landscape Ecosystem Services TYPE SERVICES

Provisioning Services The surrounding communities, particularly the indigenous forest Pygmies, theBatwa, have requested access to fish in the Ivi and Ishasha Rivers within BINP.The Batwa have also requested access to harvest wild yams and wild honey from BMCA. These requests by the Batwa have been rejected because of the unsustainable ways of harvesting these resources (UWA, 2008).

Communities around BINP have requested access to park streams for clean water: the Buhoma community accesses water from a stream in the park, and Rubuguri, in the southern part of BINP, has a water supply system with intake and reservoir in the park.

The ECFR is a crucial livelihood resource for the surrounding densely populated communities, who depend on it for fuel, water, soil conservation, and building and handicraft materials. Bamboo from the ECFR is used as live fencing material, for construction, in handicrafts and for furniture. Its range of other uses is just becoming known in Uganda, such as pipe for irrigation and in stoves for fuel.

Regulating Services Due to the extremely porous soils in parishes adjacent to MGNP, communities often face water shortages. UWA and partners rehabilitated the Kabiranyuma gravity water scheme (originally built in the 1950s) to supply water to about 35,000 people living in nine parishes at the base of MGNP. The water is drawn from a permanent swamp in a saddle between Muhabura and GahingaVolcanoes. Water collection from Rugezi swamp (saddle between Sabyinyo and Gahinga) supplies water to Ntebeko village (UWA, 2008)

In the saddles between MGNP’s three volcanoes are swamps that retain water year-round. River Kabiranyuma drains the swamp, is an important source of water for the surrounding population, and is the only river that does not dry up completely in the driest months of June to August.


Cultural Services Most tourism activities are connected to the two national parks and less so to ECFR, though it is now starting to become a popular tourist destination.

The effect of climate change on mountain gorillas is uncertain, but if mountain gorillas disperse, tourism revenue could be adversely affected. Since BINP provides much of the budget for the UWA PA system, revenue for all PAs would decline. This could have a significant impact on the entire PA system of Uganda and the wildlife therein. Impacts to gorilla tourism will affect the entire PA network in Uganda, not only the BMCA; tourism revenue is pooled at UWA Headquarters from where it is disbursed back to PAs.

MGNP provides cultural resources to the Batwa.



Table 15. Landscape 4 – Climate Stressors, Risks, Impacts and Potential Adaptive Responses for Bwindi-Mgahinga Conservation Area (BMCA), Echuya Central Forest Reserve (ECFR) and Surrounding Communities


BIODIVERSITY





Higher temperatures

Decreased precipitation

Longer dry periods

Increased incidence and spread of fires due to higher temperatures and less precipitation.

• Animals unable to escape fires will die;some will be temporarily or permanently relocated beyond the PA boundaries.

• Destruction of ground cover, resulting in increased erosion and possibly landslides, which could result in increased siltation of streams, rivers and wetlands, including the swamps that hold water yearround, affecting fisheries and other aquatic resources, and the wildlife that rely on these species for food.

• Fires could destroy whole populations in BMCA and theECFR, especially those with restricted ranges.

• Decreased qualityof tourism experience, revenue and tourism livelihood options. If mountain gorillas and other wildlife disperse, tourism revenue would decrease, and this would affect livelihoods of local people who rely directly and indirectly ontourism.0

• Fewer PAresources for community use. Plant resources used by surrounding communities could be destroyed by fire, and this coulddecrease community support for the BMCA andECFR and

Given the extremely small size and unique climatic, topographic and ecological characteristics of the MGNP, encroachment by humans into the park have graveimplications for the endangered mountaingorilla. If climatechange causes human populations living adjacent to the park to encroach upon the park to extend farming for example, this will put substantial pressure on the gorilla population, forcing gorillas into smaller and potentiallyunviable habitat within MGNP and/or permanent migration into adjoining protected land in Rwanda. Such encroachment also will exacerbate other biodiversity impacts noted in the “Direct


managementplanning intoGMPs to address fire threats, and include PA staff training and realtime fire monitoring in gorilla habitat.

• Develop and implement a habitat restoration plan with a focus on revegetating/restorin g fragile areas.

• To raise revenue for the PA system, support gorilla habituation and diversify the tourism products of BMCA to be compatible with the potential impacts of climate change.

• Integrate climate screening into

0 Assuming all days and groups are booked, each gorilla group could generate more than US$1 million a year (Onsite interview, Gladys Kalema, August 2016, supported by calculations of cost/gorilla permit x 8 permits per day, per group x 365 days). Currently, 11 groups are allowed per day, with eight permits allowable per group. A permit is currently US$600 for foreign non-residents and US$500 for foreign residents). There is some criticism of how much ecotourism benefits local people. A study in MGNP found that the amount of revenue from gorilla tourism that reaches local communities was not enough to counteract the effects of a loss of farming and grazing land and access to the forest (Adams and Infield, 2003 in Carr et al., 2013). But as tourism numbers increase, community tourism’s share grows as well. Therefore, the future potential for community benefit from tourism could be reduced.



BIODIVERSITY




Higher temperatures


Longer dry periods

increase conflict between the PAs and communities.

• Increased disease transmission between people and wildlife as wildlife are forced from the PA.

• Decreasedrevenue in the community revenue-sharing program.

Impacts to Biodiversity” column.

existing gorilla health monitoring programs.

Responses to livelihoods impacts:• Support alternative

tourism activities, such as adventure and cultural tourism, caving, hot springs and water-based activities on lakes.

• Update sustainable use agreements between the PAs and communities that take into account effects of the new fire regime on PA resources.

• Promotedomestication and on-farm production of PA resources used most by communities (e.g., bamboo).

• Supportcollaborative efforts between health andveterinary sectors, UWA and the communities to


Higher temperatures

monitor and control zoonotic diseases.

• Undertakecollaborative PA


BIODIVERSITY





management for communities to access resources like water, pasture, fruits and honey during climate shocks.


Longer dry periods

Reduced water in wetlands, rivers and streams.

Wetlands may dry up and rivers and streams will have lower flow.

• Adverse effects onaquatic life that relies on these resources.

• Impacts on wildlife whose diet comprises aquatic resources.

• Shift in bamboo cover and bamboo die-back in ECFR linked to an increase in temperature and lower water table.

• Reduced waterflow in the catchment, which would affect:- Quality and

quantity of potable water available for communities

- Amount ofirrigation water available forcrops

- Hydroelectric power generation

- Livelihoodoptions,

especially income generationfrom fisheries

- Available protein source forsurroundingcommunities(fish resources)

• Water provisionprojects, current and future, could be at risk due to

Responses to biodiversity impacts:• Construct physical

drainage structures and revegetate/restore habitat to control water flow into rivers and streams.

Responses to livelihoods impacts:• Support payment

for ecosystem services with a fund that would benefit improved catchment management and promote water conservation.

• Support the development and implementation ofdistrict landuse/watershed management plans to better manage resources throughout the catchment.

• Construct physical and vegetation


BIODIVERSITY





reduced water in the catchment. This could affect PA relations with surrounding communities.

Reduced livelihoodoptions. In addition to losing income generation fromtourism, communitiesdependent on fisheries resources, particularly the already marginalized Batwa, could be further affecteddue to reduced flow in this landscape’s waters.

If mountain gorillas and other wildlife move outside PA boundaries in search of water, increased HWC islikely.0

barriers to control erosion and sedimentation of streams and rivers.

• Supportenvironmentally sound alternative livelihood options, such as fish farming and community tourism activities.

• Support measures to mitigate HWC, such asconstruction of live or electric fences, creation of crop protection groups (human-gorilla conflict resolution), planting of morepalatable food inthe BMCA,creating a buffer zone managed by the park and communities that discourages crossing to farmers’ fields andalso benefits the community by planting subsistence and cash crops that are

0 Settlements and gardens abut BMCA boundaries, and communities surrounding BMCA already experience extensive crop damage from gorillas, monkeys and elephants. Some gorilla groups spend more time in people’s gardens than in the forest. Other wildlife species implicated in HWC around BMCA are porcupines, chimpanzees, buffalo, baboon, vervet monkeys and bush pigs.



BIODIVERSITY





unpalatable to gorillas.

A large upward displacement of species ranges and vegetation zones of approximately 600–700 m relative to 1990 levels.0

• Sensitive specieswill try to migrate toward available and preferable habitat and food sources, and if unable to adapt, they may die.

• An increase in temperature and lower water table is linked to a shift inbamboo cover and bamboo die-back in Echuya Forest. Shift of the bamboo belt andbamboo die backare likely to increase in ECFR and to be seen in BMCA as well.

• Diseasetransmission is expected to increase due to animals moving outside PA boundaries in search of preferred habitat.

• HWC is expectedto increase due toshifts in species ranges and vegetation zones (in part attributed to climate change).

• Fewer PAresources for community use. Plant resources such as Smilaxanceps (enshuli)from BMCA usedfor craft making are likely to be adversely affectedby shifting vegetation belts. Bamboo, with its many uses, many of which are only now becoming known andpopular, will also

Responses to biodiversity impacts:• Support

development ofwildlife corridors based on climate change projections of vegetation belt shifts.


• To raise revenue for the PA system, support gorilla habituation and tourism diversification to strengthen and diversify the tourism products of BMCA compatible

with the potential effects of climate

change onbiodiversity resources.

• Support efforts to address disease transmission.

• Support efforts to manage HWC.

• Promotedomestication and


BIODIVERSITY




0 According to the Wildlife Conservation Society, more detailed species distribution models are needed to confirm this.


be adversely affected by shifting vegetation zones. Fewer resources for community use could decrease community support for BMCA and ECFR andincrease conflict between the PAs and communities.

on-farm production of those PA resources used most by surrounding communities, in particular, bamboo. On-farm production of bamboo would minimizeincursions intoBMCA and ECFR to harvest already stressed bamboo resources.

Increased disease incidence.

Increased gorilla (and possibly other animals) morbidity and mortality. (Onsite interview,August 2016.)

With increased disease incidencein wildlife, mountain gorillas in particular, disease transmission from gorillas to people is more likely to occur.

Responses to biodiversity impacts:• Support UWA to

monitor disease incidence in mountain gorilla populations and community animal health workers to monitor and treat zoonotic diseases in communities to minimize potential for transmission.

Responses to livelihoods impacts:• Support efforts to

address disease transmission (see above).


2.4.9 CLIMATE CHANGE RISK SIGNIFICANCE RATING Landscape 4 – Bwindi-Mgahinga Conservation Area (BMCA), Echuya Central Forest Reserve (ECFR) and Surrounding Communities

CRITERIA





to livelihoods







adaptation response



RATING* NOTES

Mountain gorilla habitat; high species diversity in all families; 3 high endemism; regional and global importance. Echuya Forest is

unique with unusual ecosystems and endangered and endemic species. As in Rwenzori and elsewhere in Albertine Rift, upward shifts

2 in vegetation zones with temperature rises and decreases in rain or increases in its variability may also result in and worsen fires. All populations in the area are directly dependent on natural

3 resources for subsistence. Farming is mostly subsistence with precarious sustainability; most land outside of the PAs is already cleared and farmed. Less reliable water and PAs that suffer in quality would provide fewer resources to local populations who access these both

2 legally and illegally. Loss of gorilla habitat would be a major stress on local population income. Loss of habitat would greatly increase human-wildlife interaction and spread of disease (in this case with gorillas). Non-climate stressors, particularly population growth, the

1 shortage of productive land outside of the PAs and poor agricultural practices, are currently more significant in this sublandscape than climate stressors.

2 The extent and role of immediate climate change and its effects on the gorilla population are unclear. No other comparable sub-landscapes exist in Uganda. However, as gorilla tourism plays a very prominent role in

1 Uganda tourism image and revenue generation, success here could have major positive repercussions, even if there is less utility as a model for Uganda. Climate change risk is less significant and landscape

Medium provides moderate potential for implementing successful (14) adaptive responses that could be usefully applied

elsewhere.

–10=low; 11–15=medium; 16–21=high.

2.5 LANDSCAPE 5 ANALYSIS


Queen Elizabeth Protected Area (QEPA), Murchison Falls Protected Area (MFPA) and Surrounding Communities REGION: ALBERTINE RIFT

Figure 6. Landscape 5: QEPA-MFPA and Surrounding Communities

2.5.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION This landscape is composed of two core sites. A biodiversity hotspot, the Queen Elizabeth Protected Area (QEPA) includes Queen Elizabeth National Park (QENP) and Kyambura and Kigezi Wildlife Reserves (WRs) together with the Lake George wetland system. QEPA covers 223,000 hectares. Lake George, a shallow equatorial lake, has around its fringe a wetland designated in 1988 as Uganda's first Ramsar Site. Most of the wetlands around the lake are included within QENP but the open water of the lake is not part of the park.


Murchison Falls Protected Area (MFPA) includes Murchison Falls National Park (MFNP) and Karuma and Bugungu WRs and the Albert Nile Delta wetland system (a Ramsar Site). MFNP covers 39,000 hectares. In the west is Karuma WR; to the south, Bugungu WR. A large medium altitude, semi-deciduous forest, the Budongo Forest Reserve (FR), overlaps with the two WRs. Murchison Falls-Albert Nile Delta wetland system stretches from the top of Murchison Falls, where the River Nile flows through a rock cleft, to the delta at its confluence with Lake Albert. MFPA and the associated Ramsar Site support endangered, rare, endemic and threatened species of flora and fauna.

2.5.2 UNIQUE CLIMATE CHARACTERISTICS This landscape has a savanna tropical climate with moderate average temperatures of 28°C and high mean annual rainfall of over 1,200 mm. At locations situated near the equator (e.g., the Greater Virunga Landscape), the two rainy seasons are centered on May and September. North of the equator, around MFPA (approximately 0.5°–2° north), a bimodal rainfall pattern exists, but the shifts between wet and dry periods are less pronounced than at QEPA (Carr et.al., 2013).

2.5.3 CLIMATE PROJECTIONS Using Albertine Rift-wide data,0 projections by 2050 include (Seimon and Phillips,

2011): Rising temperatures. • Variability in rainfall seasonality, with slight decreases in monthly rainfall

averages; when combined with warming trends, could be indicative of increasing threat of drought.


2.5.4 NON-CLIMATE STRESSORS • Population pressure. The high population growth rate in the areas adjacent to

QEPA and MFCA, and in the Albertine Rift in general, has already resulted in a shortage of affordable land for agricultural production. Over 3 million people live in the districts surrounding the QEPA-Lake George Ramsar Site landscape and adjacent PAs (UBOS, 2014), and they place significant pressure on PA resources, including demand for land, water, timber and non-timber forest products, and bushmeat.

• Mining. Extraction of copper, cobalt, limestone and gold results in contaminated drainage and associated wastes containing heavy metals, which are contaminating PA waters.

• Limestone quarrying. The current extraction site lies along a migratory corridor used by elephants moving between QEPA and Kibale National Park.

0 Weather data are collected on a quarterly basis from automatic weather stations installed at different altitudes in RMNP; however, no projections specific to RMNP are available.


• Hydropower generation. MFNP is a target for hydropower development on the waterfalls along the River Nile that will involve land takes, contributing to fragmentation, reduced wildlife habitats and interference with corridors (USAID, 2015).

• Oil exploration and drilling. Exploration and production activities have several associated negative impacts including: land take for drill sites, camps, seismic surveys, drilling and road networks; habitat/niche destruction; increased human and vehicular traffic; and noise from heavy machinery. Although mitigation is included in oil exploration and drilling plans, these activities will impact wildlife behavior and distribution.

• Fishing village settlements. Human populations in the fishing villages are growing. In 1999, the total population was estimated at 30,000 (UWA 2015a). By 2011, the population was estimated at 80,000. This not only places more pressure on fish resources, it also exerts more pressure on other park resources such as wood for fuel, grass, poles, wildlife hunted for food, and medicinal plants. Waste management in fishing villages has also been a challenge and degrades water quality and land.

• Overharvesting of wetland products and conversion of wetlands. Unsustainable harvesting of papyrus and ambatch, overexploitation of fish, and drainage and filling of wetlands compound the effects on wetlands of climate change.

• Poaching. Poaching is the main problem affecting wildlife populations in the Albert Nile Delta wetland system.

• Human-wildlife conflict: Although HWC can be attributed partly to impacts related to climate change (spread of invasive species), HWC around QEPA and MFPA is also attributed to population increase, agricultural plots that abut the PAs and blocked animal migration corridors. In QEPA, bush pig, olive baboon, elephant, buffalo, lion, hyena, crocodile and hippo are most often implicated in HWC. The areas most affected by elephants are 1) the Kyambura corridor between Kashoyi-Kitomi and Kyambura WR in Kyabakara and Katerera, and 2) in the southeast around Kigezi WR and Kichwamba escarpment. Crocodile attacks on fishermen and women and children collecting water are common in Katwe and Kabatoro fishing villages on the shores of Lake Edward. Attacks on livestock by wildlife are a concern in the fishing villages of Kasenyi, Hamukungu, Katwe, Kabatoro, Kahendero and Katurungu. Areas commonly affected by elephant crop raiding are communities to the north of MFNP and on the eastern boundary (UWA, 2013). Crops affected include mainly cassava, maize, rice, sweet potatoes, jack fruit and sugarcane.


2.5.5 BIODIVERSITY RESOURCES OF IMPORTANCE Biodiversity resources of importance for this landscape are found in Table 16.

Table 16. Landscape 5 – QEPA-MFPA Landscape Biodiversity Resources AREA HABITATS SPECIES

QEPA

• Lies on the convergence zone of two distinct vegetation types: the Central African rainforest and East African grassland biomes.

• Range of diverse habitats, including open grassland, grassland with thickets, thick bush, forests, wetlands and 250 km of lakeshore.

• Vegetation within the Lake George Ramsar Site consists of grassland, woodland and three major swamp types: papyrus, reeds and grass. Papyrus swamps edged by hippo grass are the dominant wetland type.

• Over 96 species of mammals, including 10 primate species (e.g., chimpanzee, elephant, hippopotamus, buffalo) and 10 predator species (e.g., lion, leopard, hyena).

• With over 610 bird species, QEPA supports more than half of Uganda’s recorded bird species.

• The UWA wildlife censuses of 2006 and 2010 showed a decline in all large mammal populations in QEPA. This was partly attributed to changes in habitats and increased poaching. Although wildlife surveys in 2014 noted increases in the large mammal populations in QENP, elephant and Uganda kob are still declining.

• Lake George Ramsar Site supports:- Fauna including elephant, hippopotamus and antelope.- Over 150 species of birds, including the rare saddle-

billed stork, wintering Palaearctic water birds and 7 species endemic to papyrus ecosystems.

- More than 50 species of fish including tilapia, catfish, lungfish, the electric fish and cichlid.

- Two species of rare plants, the cycad and a sedge that are found only at Lake George and in the Kigezi region of southwestern Uganda.

MFPA

• Situated at the northwestern point of the Albertine Rift, consisting of forest, savanna, wetland and shrubland.

• Only PA where the tall grass savanna of the Albertine Rift is extensively represented.

• The park is the main representation of the Sudanian vegetation form in East Africa, characterized by a mosaic of woodlands often dominated by red bushwillow trees (Combretum caffrum) and Acacia species extending from Senegal to Ethiopia.

• Albert Nile Delta wetland system Ramsar Site is dominated by papyrus swamps on both sides of the Victoria Nile.

• Home to 76 species of mammals, including huge herds of buffalo, increasing elephant populations, leopard, a healthy population of lion, giraffe, hippo and Uganda kob. Also home to the largest population of Jackson’s hartebeest in Uganda, a species drastically reduced or entirely eliminated in other Ugandan PAs.

• Six species of primates, of which the savanna-dwelling patas monkey is found only in MFNP and KVNP.

• The rare soft-shelled turtle is found in MFNP.• Many indigenous and endemic fish species in Lake

Albert.17.• The stretch of river between Murchison Falls and the Delta

has one of the highest concentrations of Nile crocodile in the world and the last viable breeding populations in Uganda of Nile crocodile andRothschild’s giraffe. The wetlands are inhabited by numerous species of water-dependent mammals such as the hippopotamus, kob, waterbuck and Nile lechwe (Kobus megaceros).

• Due to its large size and wide range of habitats, the Murchison Falls-Albert Nile Delta wetland system supports over 460 species of birds. The Lake George and Murchison-Albert Nile Delta wetlands and watercourses are a major flyway for birds migrating between the Mediterranean Sea and Europe and the equatorial region of Lake Victoria and the Rift Valley lakes.

Sources: UWA, 2015a; Mafabi, P., 1996; UWA, 2013


2.5.6 LIVELIHOODS OF IMPORTANCE Tourism is important to livelihoods in this landscape. QEPA and MFCA wetlands, lakes and river habitats are some of the most popular tourist destinations. As UWA remits 20 percent of the revenue collected from park entrance to local governments, losses could impact relationships between the PAs and local communities. QENP was designated as a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve in 1979 in recognition of the role it plays in providing an opportunity to explore and demonstrate approaches to biological diversity conservation alongside sustainable resource utilization in the 13 fishing enclaves on Lakes George and Edward and the Kazinga Channel. Fishing is for both subsistence and commercial use; fish are sold in the neighboring and regional urban areas in the surrounding districts and exported to the DRC. About 18,000 fishermen are involved in the fishing business on Lake Albert.

Plantains and cassava are the main subsistence crops grown in the landscape.

2.5.7 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Ecosystem services of importance for this landscape’s biodiversity and livelihoods are found in Table 17.

Table 17. Landscape 5 – QEPA-MFPA Landscape Ecosystem Services TYPE SERVICES

Provisioning Services The swamps, rivers and lakes of this landscape are used as a source of water supply for domestic and livestock use and crop production. The PAs and the Ramsar Sites supply many materials and resources for surrounding communities. As required by statute, resource use in the PAs is only allowed once an assessment is completed to determine the availability of the resources within the target area, the amount of offtake that is sustainable, and the ability of PA management and the community to effectively control resource use. Based on the assessment, communities may use PA resources such as papyrus forconstruction material and for making mats, baskets and fuel briquettes; sediment from wetlands for brick making; dead wood for firewood; medicinal plants; and the plant, ambatch, by fishermen as buoys.

Regulating Services The Murchison Falls wetland system purifies and maintains water quality by retaining sediments and nutrients from runoff from the escarpments down the Rift Valley. It also helps to control floods during rainy seasons, releasing water slowly to Lake Albert and the Albert Nile. Despite strong seasonal variation in rainfall, storage of water in the extensive wetlands of the Albertine Rift helps to maintain year-round flow in the River Nile and provides water to the communities living within the landscape.

The Murchison Falls-Albert Nile Delta wetland system is an important spawning and breeding ground for Lake Albert fisheries. The system contains many indigenous and endemic fish species, several of which are related to the lower Nile species. The fish fauna of Lake Albert are different from that of LakesVictoria and Kyoga because Murchison Falls is a barrier to fish distribution. The Murchison Falls wetland system therefore supports important endemic fish species of conservation interest. It forms a feeding and watering refuge for wildlife in MFNP during the dry season.


Cultural Services QEPA and MFPA are the two most visited tourist destinations in Uganda. The two parks are known for game viewing and boat rides on the Kazinga Channel and River Nile, respectively. MFNP has been proposed for UNESCO World Heritagestatus. The tourism and recreation sector employs people from local

TYPE SERVICEScommunities, who operate and work in lodges, provide crafts, food, and cultural services to the lodges and directly to tourists as part of community tourism, and provide guiding services.

2.5.8 CLIMATE STRESSORS, RISKS, IMPACTS, AND ADAPTIVE RESPONSES Table 18 details climate stressors based on projected climate changes for Landscape 5, associated climate risks, and potential impacts to biodiversity and livelihoods. Also included are potential adaptive responses for biodiversity and livelihood impacts.


Table 18. Landscape 5 – Climate Stressors, Risks, Impacts and Potential Adaptive Responses for Queen Elizabeth Protected Area (QEPA), Murchison Falls Protected Area (MFPA) and Surrounding Communities


BIODIVERSITY




Higher temperatures


Longer dry periods

Increased incidence and spread of fires.

• Fire will directly affect wildlife by killing animals that are unable to escape and by destroying habitat, especially of species with highly specific niches.

• While mostgrazers, such as Uganda kob, thrive when fire stimulates new grass shoots for grazing, drier and hotter conditions would mean that vegetation will take longer to return and bare ground will remain for longer periods, adversely affecting grazers.

• Decreasedrevenue and quality of tourism experience due to increased dispersal of wildlife anddecreased number of animals within the PAs.

• Fewer PAresources for community use. PA resources could be destroyed due to increased incidence and spread of fires; communities that rely on these resources will be affected; and community support for the PAs could decrease.

As droughtsintensify, rainfall patterns change and temperaturesincrease, undercutting traditional pastoralist, fishing and farming livelihoods practiced, populations will be compelled to accelerate draining of wetlands and cutting of trees, both adjacent to PAs and to encroach on the PAs themselves, exacerbating biodiversity impacts noted in the “Direct Impacts to Biodiversity” column.




Responses to livelihoods impacts:• Support tourism

infrastructure development at alternativelocations, where wildlife congregates.

• Supportdomestication/onfarm production of resources used by communities.

• Update sustainable use agreements between the PAs and communities that take into account effects of the new fire regime on PA resources.

• Undertakecollaborative PA management for



BIODIVERSITY




communities to access resources like water, pasture, fruits and honey during climate shocks.

Spread of invasive species due to hotter, drier conditions that favor colonization by invasive species, mainly bush and woodland encroachment into savanna habitats.0

Reduction ofpalatable rangeland, with impacts on wildlife ecology and population dynamics. Invasive species include:- Lantana

camara, an invasive species that displaces

grassland andis resilient to dry conditions;

- Imperatacylindrica, which

germinates quickly after fire and flowers early to seed the soil, and for which older plants are unpalatable to grazers; and

• Increased HWC. Although manyHWC incidents in QEPA and MFPA are from reasons other than climate change (see NonClimate Stressors), the spread of invasive species is transforming savanna habitat tobush and woodland, causing wildlife, especially grazers, to move outside PA boundaries to find palatable food (USAID, 2015).

• Increased disease transmission.Livestock numbers in the communitiesaround QEPA andin the fishing villages have been increasing. If wildlife moves outside PA

Responses to biodiversity impacts:• Scale up promising

invasive species management measures.

Responses to livelihoods impacts:• Scale up promising

HWC managementinterventions such as beekeeping along PA boundaries, chili growing and spraying, and unpalatable cash crops (coffee, tea and trees).

• Support key wildlife corridors around QEPA and MFNP.This would involve re-establishing wildlife corridors and initiating collaborative partnerships with the private sector

0 Already, bush has colonized a large part of the southern area of the MFNP and Karuma Reserve, making these areas uninhabitable for some species, such as the Uganda kob, which require open areas for breeding (Onsite interview, October 2015). Many parts of northern QEPA are being overtaken by invasive species.



BIODIVERSITY




- Maerwadocumens, which is resistant to fire and drought, is widespread and reduces forage forherbivores. 0

boundaries in search of pasture, direct contact between wildlife and livestock could result in increased disease transmission. This is already occurring, and has resulted in death of livestock.

Parthenium hysterophorus (congress weed) coverage is increasing, linked to drier soil conditions due to increases in temperature, a lowered water table and high-intensity fires. While most invasive species listed here reduce palatable rangelandand affect wildlife ecology and population dynamics, this species is a public health concern because it can

and communities to manage the corridors through tourism-based enterprises; entering intomanagement agreements with local communities for establishment of conservancies; and collaborativemanagement of

wildlife in the corridors.

Support district veterinary officers to monitor and manage diseases transmissible from wildlife to livestock.

0 Dense growths of Lantana, associated with Acacia, are taking over Ishasha sector (QEPA, and the northern parts of QEPA in Nyamugasani, Kamulikwizi and Nyakatonzi areas. Lantana camara is mainly dispersed by birds though it may also be dispersed by cattle that graze illegally in the park. Imperata cylindrica, commonly known as spear grass, has colonized large sections of QENP, creating a system of impereta grasslands. Maerwa documens is found in the northern circuit of Ishasha sector and is believed to be dispersed by baboons that feed on the fruit.



BIODIVERSITY




exacerbate asthma and associated allergies.

Higher temperatures


Longer dry periods

Higher temperatures


Reduced water in wetlands, rivers, and streams.

• Increased hippopotamus deaths in QEPAand MFPA.0

• Decreasedpopulation numbers of sitatunga, an endangeredantelope that livesin papyrus wetlands.

• Decreasedpopulations of birds dependent on these habitats, such as the shoebill stork.

• Reduced health and increased mortality of crocodile populations in these PAs, already shown during extended dry periods.

• Animal mortality or relocation outside of PA boundaries due to water shortages.

• Decreasedrevenue andquality of tourism experience. QEPA and MFPAwetlands, lakes and river habitats are some of the most popular tourist destinations in the PAs and these could be at risk if water levels are reduced. This would affect income generation for UWA, as well as opportunities for people in surrounding communities, where communitybased tourism developments rely on wetland, river and lake tours.

• Fishermen,including those who live in QEPA and adjacent areasand fishing communities around Lake Albert and River Nile in

Responses to biodiversity impacts:• Construct watering

points in priority sites (areas widely used by wildlife but without a permanent source of water, or a source that dries up during dry conditions), including Bugungu WR and northern bank-Tebito areas in MFNP to minimize wildlife movement outside the reserve and the park during the dry season.

• Re-vegetate buffer areas of wetlands and construct drainage structures to improve water flow and retention in wetlands.


• Identify and support alternative tourism

0 This has happened in Katavi National Park, Tanzania, during years of extreme drought (Kulkarni 2009 in Carr et al., 2013).


Longer dry periods


BIODIVERSITY





Reduced overall breeding and nursery sites for some fish species; may affect the overall productivity of the landscape’s lakes (Water ResourceAssessment forRiver Mpanga,2009, in DWRM,2011).0 Falling lake levels will also affect the area covered by wetlands, which serve as a refuge for juvenile and adult fishes, including species such as the lungfish (P.aethiopicus).0

Health anddistribution of fish and

other aquatic life in rivers in the

landscape may be adversely affected by reduced runoff. Fish that breed within certain temperature

MFPA, may experience a reduction in fishery yields, and the fishery may be unable to support the current number of fishermen.

• Reduced waterquality and quantity.Communities around MFPA and QEPA rely on water from the PAs for domestic, livestock and agricultural use. Receding water levels in the lakes and water flows in the rivers, including the River Nile, will affect water quality, particularly on the shorelines and river mouths, such as the Murchison Falls-Albert Nile Delta (DWRM, 2013).

• Fewer PAresources for community use.

destinations and activities.

• Promotelivelihoods other than fishing that are environmentally sound, such as domestication of medicinal and cultural plants, establishment of woodlots to recover degraded areas while providing wood products, fish farming, beekeeping, highvalue horticultural crops, poultry and production of energy-saving stoves.

• Support water conservation and harvesting systems, such as construction of valley dams and rainwater collection tanks in the communities

0 Shallow inshore waters are the most productive area in lakes, serving as breeding, nursery and feeding areas for fish. 0 A 2011 Ministry of Water and Environment assessment for an improved integrated water management project for River Mpanga noted that residents of all fishing villages on Lake George stated that the level of the lake had gone down. The decline may be attributed to increased sedimentation from poor agricultural and other practices, as well as to increased length and occurrences of dry spells triggered by climate change.



BIODIVERSITY




thresholds may be affected.

Cultural and medicinal wetlandbased resources could be adversely affected. Plant resources, such as ambatch, that grow on shorelines of lakes and artisanal salt mining on Lake Katwe are at risk with decreased flow of water in wetlands, rivers and lakes.

Increased HWC. With decreased water flow in wetlands and lakes, crocodile and hippo attacks may increase as they move in search of areas with water. Speciesmoving closer to humansettlements, where they are killed or chased, result in conflict between PAs and the communities and calls to remove the areas’ protected status.

surrounding the PAs.• Support

domestication/onfarm production of resources used by communities.

• Update sustainable use agreements between the PA and communities that take into account effects of reduced water in wetlands, rivers and lakes.

• Scale up best measures tocontrol wildlifemovement outside the PA, such as fencing water points where communities fetch water.


2.5.9 CLIMATE CHANGE RISK SIGNIFICANCE RATING LANDSCAPE 5 – Queen Elizabeth and Murchison Falls Protected Areas (QEPA and MFPA) and Surrounding Communities

CRITERIA RATING* NOTES Ecosystems of mountains, lakes and grassland form a varied and unique assemblage. Rich in birdlife and mammals,

1 Importance of biodiversity 3 including elephant and hippo, rare and endemic species; regional and global importance. QEPA supports more biodiversity than any other PA in Uganda. Rising temperatures will mean increased evaporation and loss of water exacerbated by projected inconsistent rains.

Significance of climate change 2 Changing conditions will favor invasive species over those 2

impacts on biodiversity species adapted to the area. Lower availability of water will directly affect wetlands and lakes, which can also induce more HWC, including of fishermen with crocodile. Over 3 million people live in and around the sub-landscape and depend on the PAs for livelihoods (fishing, livestock,

Importance of natural resources 3 tourism, agriculture, crafts and medicinal plants). Important for 3 to livelihoods hydropower production, it is also one of the main sources of the River Nile, important in Uganda and

beyond. Decreased tourism from declining conditions for wildlife and recreation will directly affect incomes. Fishing is a significant livelihood and has already shown signs of decreasing. Lower-

Significance of climate change 2 quality PAs affect extraction of resources such as plants. 4 impacts on livelihoods

Direct HWC will increase (crop raiding, crocodile attacks, etc.) and wildlife interactions will increase disease transmission to domestic animals. Non-climate stressors are more significant in this sub-

Relative impact of climate landscape than climate stressors. As elsewhere in the 5 stressors compared to non- 1 Albertine Rift, high population density and growth, low levels of climate

stressors development and unsustainable practices persist. Unique to this area is oil exploration.

6 Imminence of climate impacts 2 Impacts are already being felt, including reductions in lake water levels and a shift to savanna climate.

Potential value in piloting 2 Uganda, solution’s habitats s to problems experienced would be are similar to many other places in a good As this area

7 adaptation response model. QEPA has the highest profile of PAs in Uganda.

Climate change risk is not as immediately significant as Medium non-climate stressors, but landscape provides potential

Overall Significance** (15) for implementing successful adaptive responses that

could be replicated elsewhere. *Ratings: High (3), Medium (2), Low (1)

**Overall Significance: Sum of criteria scores; 7–10=low; 11–15=medium; 16–21=high.

REFERENCES


Baastel Consortium, (2015), Economic assessment of the impacts of climate change in Uganda: Key results. Climate and Development Knowledge Network. Retrieved from http://cdkn.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/UGANDA_Economic-assessment-of-climate-change_WEB.pdf

Barihaihi, M., (2010), Country Level Literature Review, Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance (ACCRA), Kampala, Uganda.

Carr, J. et.al. (2013), Vital but vulnerable: Climate change vulnerability and human use of wildlife in Africa’s Albertine rift, IUCN, Gland. CLIM CLIMATE RISK SCREENING Directorate of Water Resources Management (DWRM), (2011), Involving local communities in preparing a long-term CC and IWRM action plan to enhance their adaptive capacity to climate change, and integrate improved water management in the Mpanga Catchment of the Nile Basin in Uganda, Uganda PROTOS and Ministry of Water and Environment, Kampala, Uganda.

DWRM, (2013), National Water Resources Assessment, Ministry of Water and Environment, Kampala, Uganda. Eilu, G. and Galabuzi, C., (2015), Changes in Vegetation types in response to climate change in Rwenzori Mountain National Park, Research Gate. Retrieved at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277571576

FEWS NET, (2012), A Climate Trend Analysis of Uganda, USGS and USAID. Retrieved from http://www.fews.net/east-africa/uganda/climate-change/june-2012

Kaggwa, R., et. al. (2009), Enhancing the Contribution of Weather, Climate and Climate Change to Growth, Employment and Prosperity, UNDP/NEMA/UNEP Poverty Environment Initiative, Uganda.

Mafabi, P. (1997), Case Study 5: Uganda; Lake George, in Wetlands, Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention: The Role of the Convention on Wetlands in the Conservation and Wise Use of Biodiversity. Ed. A.J. Halls. Retrieved at http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/wetlands_biodiversity_and_the_rams ar_convention.pdf

McGahey, D., et al., (2013), Investigating climate change vulnerability and planning for adaptation: Learning from a study of climate change impacts on the Mountain Gorilla in the Albertine Rift, Vol.5, No.5A, 10–17, Natural Science. Retrieved at: https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ns.2013.55A002

Mubiru, D, N. (2010), Climate Change and Adaptation Options in Karamoja, European Commission and Food and Agriculture Organisation, Kampala, Uganda.

Muhweezi, A. (2014), An Overview of Climate Change and Biodiversity in Uganda, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), ARCC.

Nature Uganda, (2009), Ecological Baseline Surveys of Lake Bisina, Lake Opeta, Lake Mburo and Nakivali Wetlands Systems, The East African Natural History Society, Kampala, Uganda.


Seimon, A., and Phillipps, G., (2009), Climatological Assessment of the Albertine Rift for Conservation Applications, Wildlife Conservation Society.

Seimon, A., and Phillipps, G., (2011), Regional Climatology of the Albertine Rift, Nova Science Publishers, Inc. ISBN: 978-1-61122-780-2, New York.

Seimon, A. et.al, (2012), Building Consensus on Albertine Rift Climate Change Adaptation for Conservation: A Report on 2011–12 Workshops in Rwanda and Uganda, WCS Workshop report, World Conservation Society, New York.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics, (2014), National Population and Housing Census 2014, Summary Provisional Results, UBOS, Kampala, Uganda.

Uganda Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries; Uganda Bureau of Statistics; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; International Livestock Research Institute; and World Resources Institute, (2010), Mapping a Better Future: Spatial Analysis and Pro-Poor Livestock Strategies in Uganda. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, and Kampala, Uganda.

Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment, (2014), Uganda’s Second National Communication to the UNFCCC; Global Environmental Facility and United Nations Environment Program.

Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), (2003), Lake Mburo Conservation Area General Management Plan 2003–2013, Kampala, Uganda.

UWA, (2008), Bwindi-Mgahinga Conservation Area Management Plan 2001–2011, Revised edition 2008, Kampala, Uganda.

UWA, (2012), Kidepo Valley National Park General Management Plan 2012–2022, Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities, Kampala, Uganda.

UWA, (2013), Murchison Falls Protected Area General Management Plan 2012–2022, Kampala, Uganda.

UWA, (2015a), Queen Elizabeth Protected Area General Management Plan 2011–2021, Kampala, Uganda.

UWA, (2015b), State of Uganda’s Wildlife Resources, Ecological Monitoring and Research Unit; Conservation Department, Kampala, Uganda.

UWA, (2016), Rwenzori Mountains National Park General Management Plan 2016–2025, Kampala, Uganda.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), (2004), Policy Brief: Climate Change, the Environment and Human welfare; Lessons Learnt from the Lake Kyoga Catchment Area, Nairobi, Kenya.

United States Agency for International Development (USAID), (2011), Climate Change and Conflict in Uganda: The Cattle Corridor and Karamoja, CMM Discussion Paper No. 3, USAID.

USAID, (2014), Uganda Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Report, USAID.


USAID, (2015), Uganda Environment Threats and Opportunities Assessment, USAID . World Bank, (2016), Databank: Uganda. Retrieved at http://data.worldbank.org/country/uganda World Wide Fund (WWF), (2015), Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment: Improving the Ability Of The Ecosystems And Communities In The Albertine Graben To Respond Adequately To Threats Of Climate Change, Uganda Country Office, Kampala, Uganda.


ANNEX A: LIST OF CONTACTS NAME ORGANIZATION POSITION

Margaret A. Mwebaze FSSD/Ministry of Water and Environment Assistant Commissioner/REDD+ Focal Point

Sheila Kiconco UN-REDD+ National Technical Advisor

Olive Kyampaire FSSD/REDD+ Secretarial Communications Specialist

Abiaz Rwamiri USAID-AW Biodiversity Project Communications Officer

Sam Mwandha USAID-AW Biodiversity Project Chief of Party

George Okwaro USAID-AW Biodiversity Project Conservation Planner

Dr. Isiah Owiunji WWF Uganda Coordinator Energy and Climate Programme

Ibrahim Mutebi WWF Uganda Energy Manager

Martin Asiimwe WWF Uganda Project Manager

Polycarp Mwima IUCN Programme Manager

Edgar Buhanga Uganda Wildlife Authority Deputy Director Planning

Richard Kapere Uganda Wildlife Authority Ag. Planning Coordinator

Nelson Guma Uganda Wildlife Authority Conservation Area Manager-Kibale Conservation Area

Aventino Bekunda Fisheries Department-Ministry ofAgriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries

Principal Fisheries Officer

Geoffrey Dheyongera Fisheries Department-Ministry ofAgriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries

Senior Fisheries Inspector

Patrick Byamukama Fisheries Department-Ministry ofAgriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries

Senior Fisheries Officer

Francis Ogwal National Environment Management Authority

Levi Etwodu National Forestry Authority Director of Natural Forests

Noel Abaho Lake Mburo National Park Ag. Warden Community Conservation

Robert Mbagaya Lake Mburo National Park Ag. Warden Law Enforcement

Shillah Ampeire Lake Mburo National Park In Charge Intelligence unit

Micheal Murinda Lake Mburo National Park EN&R Lake Mburo Conservation Area

Moses Matsiko Lake Mburo National Park Head Guide

Abdu Kamoga Isingiro District Local Government Assistant Environment Officer

Emmanuel Bwenge Isingiro District Local Government District Natural Resources/District Forest Officer

Celestine Makaaka Lake Kalulimbi/Nakivale Restoration and Monitoring Committee

Committee Chairperson

Musingwire Jeconious Mbarara District Local Government District Natural Resources Officer/Secretary River


Rwizi Catchment Management Committee/Focal

Person National Environmental Management Authority, South western region

Michael Opige Nature Uganda

Steven Muwaya MAAIF SLM/UNCCH Focal Point

Vicent Barugahare Wetlands Department-Ministry of Water and Environment

Principal Wetlands Officer

Community Groups and Resource Users

Rwamuku Community Conservation Association-Lake Mburo National Park

Cattle keepers and members of Nshara Wildlife and Sport Hunting Association

Rubare Fishing Community at Rubare gazetted fish landing site inside Lake Mburo National Park


ANNEX B: DETAILED STUDY DESIGN STUDY PURPOSE The study’s purpose was to explore direct and indirect effects of climate change on biodiversity and livelihoods in Uganda and to make recommendations regarding USAID/Uganda conservation and climate adaptation programming.

Because its purpose was to examine the impacts of climate change on biodiversity with specific attention to the role that climate risks play in biodiversity and livelihoods, this study focuses on a limited number of highly biodiverse areas in and around protected areas (PAs) and their surrounding human communities. These areas encompass a variety of climates and socioeconomic profiles. This assessment’s target geographies fall within two distinct regions in Uganda: the Dry Cattle Corridor and the Albertine Rift.

Landscape 1: (Dry Cattle Corridor) Kidepo Valley National Park (KVNP), Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve (WR), Lake Bisina and Lake Opeta wetlands systems and surrounding communities

Landscape 2: (Dry Cattle Corridor) Lake Mburo Conservation Area (LMCA) and surrounding communities

Landscape 3: (Albertine Rift) Rwenzori Mountains National Park (RMNP) and surrounding communities

Landscape 4: (Albertine Rift) Bwindi-Mgahinga Conservation Area (BMCA) and Echuya Central Forest Reserve (ECFR) and surrounding communities

Landscape 5: (Albertine Rift) Queen Elizabeth and Murchison Falls Protected Areas (QEPA and MFPA), Lake George and Albert Nile Delta wetlands systems and surrounding communities GENERAL METHODOLOGY


PHASE 1 – Desk Study

1. Review literature The overall goal of the literature review is to identify expected climate change at target locations and key climate stressors, related to climate variability and change, on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the study area. Specific actions will be to:

• Identify the baseline situation of climate change knowledge and impacts on target locations, gaps and predictions.

• Review and analyze existing studies to identify the expected/predicted/ potential) climate change at target locations.

• Review the Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment (ETOA), the ARCC (African and Latin American Resilience to Climate Change project) assessment, Climate Change and Biodiversity in Uganda, etc. (see references–-Wildlife Conservation Society documents) to establish the baseline information/how climate change is expected to affect the target locations.

2. Identify and analyze the direct and indirect impacts of climate change on

biodiversity The analysis will take into consideration that impacts occur over time and space; some impacts are immediate while others are delayed. Some impacts occur as a direct result of an activity; others occur as secondary or higher-order impacts resulting from changes in other environmental components. When available, quantitative data will be used, but data will be analyzed for gaps, shortcomings and methodology in developing the data.

Analysis of Direct Impacts Using the ARCC Climate Change-Biodiversity (CC-BD) Study as a starting point, the CC-BD Specialist will analyze (based on existing literature) direct impacts of climate change on biodiversity in the target regions and describe the impact pathways (how and where climate change affects target locations and their biodiversity resources). This analysis will be specific to each target location.

Direct impacts of climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem services will include but not be limited to:

• changes in the composition of vegetation, including increased spread or prevalence of invasive plants and possibly other genera

• changes in rainfall and temperature that would (more directly) impact plants and animals (e.g., lack of food, diseases)

These analyses will take into consideration: • assemblages of biodiversity as found inside and outside protected areas (PAs),

irrespective of their demonstrable economic value species of economic importance: — such as gorillas/chimps (chimps' use of riparian corridors) — fish and other aquatic biodiversity likely to be impacted by changes in quantity,

quality and availability of water and health of wetlands


• high-value timber such as mahogany • sensitive species that might be forced to migrate (due to temperature regime,

precipitation, water availability, availability of food, etc.) • ecosystem services such as water provision, watershed protection, erosion control and

provision of fuel wood Analysis of Indirect Impacts The CC-BD Specialist will use the direct impact analysis to identify the indirect impacts of climate change on biodiversity. As above, the CC-BD Specialist will use existing assessments to review, analyze and discuss each indirect effect. Together the Team will discuss and based on the literature make assumptions of likely indirect impacts at each target landscape.

Indirect impacts of climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem services (from direct effects) will include clarifying specific pathways for impact:

• agricultural expansion that is leading to pressures on protected areas — which could include farming communities or individual farmers — as well as coffee (the biggest cash crop) in Mt. Elgon and Mt. Rwenzori

• fields (not just coffee) moving up the mountains (for both expanded land and to seek cooler climates)

• other resource extraction from PAs including forest reserves (over 500 in Uganda with a variety of governance structures and resources and in a range of conditions)

• conversion of critical habitat, both forest and open systems, to bush-dominated habitats, likely exacerbated by the spread of invasive species, resulting in increased humanwildlife conflict.

3. Analyze how the climate change impacts on biodiversity will affect people and

their livelihoods This step will analyze how the direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity will affect people, including livelihoods and human vulnerability aspects. The BD-CC will review the ARCC Uganda Vulnerability Assessment (January 2013), the ETOA, and other existing assessments.

Examples include: • lack of water/pasture leading pastoralists to bring cattle into highly biodiverse and

sensitive ecosystems (e.g., PAs, IBAs, Ramsar Sites) leading to increased conflict • nature tourism • agriculture, etc. — this is where the climate change vulnerability assessment would help–

Mission’s vulnerabilities based on its chosen sectors • disaster management: extreme weather events or weather variability that triggers

landslides and flooding, which can impact biodiversity and functioning of ecosystem services

• water availability issues directly affecting biodiversity — dependence on glacial melt loss (already estimated at as much as 90 percent) directly

affects dependent farming


— other water resources – lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, etc. 4. Validate information and develop scenarios Together the Team will review, discuss, revise and finalize the Analysis Framework (direct and indirect impacts of climate change on biodiversity and the expected effects on people) and come to agreement on the findings. The Team will then develop location-specific scenarios that describe, in detail and as specifically as possible, direct and indirect impacts of climate change on biodiversity and the resulting effects on people (including the ecosystem services that affect livelihoods and vulnerabilities) and will include non-climate stressors (see below). Non-climate stressors on biodiversity that could affect vulnerabilities and livelihoods will be described, including:

• interaction with population growth • interaction with oil/mining exploration • interaction with unclear land tenure • interaction with food security, water scarcity, conflict • interaction with natural resource governance • interaction with expansion of agriculture into PAs

The scenarios will be developed by compiling and analyzing existing studies and through Team discussions. They will be validated during step 5, below. They will be developed in a way that will allow USAID to clearly envision the situation at each target landscape; to understand the options for addressing impacts (adaptation measures); and to compare the situation between target landscapes. 5. Rank significance of impacts based on multiple scales The Team will develop

criteria comprising: • biodiversity/ecosystem services importance (low, medium, high) • livelihood importance (low, medium, high) • scale of effects (slight, moderate, grave) • timeframe (imminence) of threat (short, medium, long) • other (previous or existing USAID programming?)

PHASE 2 – Field Work and Analysis 6. Visit the field Prior to leaving, the Team will:

• Determine appropriate methods to validate and confirm the scenarios--whether consultations in Kampala, site visits or focus groups.

• Together and in consultation with USAID, identify stakeholders to interview and sites to visit. Local specialist will identify stakeholders based on the information in the table and will arrange meetings, including a focus group. The Team will then develop an itinerary,


which will include an in-brief and an exit brief for USAID staff, sites to visit and purpose for each site visit.

• Use study questions to develop an interview guide for consultations (key informant questions, focus group discussions) including questions for different stakeholders and for focus groups.

Upon arrival of the full Team in-country, they will carry out consultations and site visits. The focus group (which would include USAID as observers) will meet after the bulk of consultations and the site visits have been completed, and will be used to validate the analyses, findings and conclusions. 7. Incorporate findings from the field and propose actions/ recommendations The

BD-CC Specialist will incorporate findings from field consultations into the scenarios, revising as needed. The full Team will review the Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS); Executive Order on climate change; USAID climate change guidance; Biodiversity Handbook; and other USAID guidance. Based on the scenarios of direct and indirect impacts, the impacts to livelihoods and significance rankings, the Team will identify: • the main concerns that need to be addressed • measures to better manage ecosystem services and biodiversity to help reduce human

vulnerability to climate change and • specific recommendations for use of USAID/Uganda global climate change and

biodiversity funds (as opposed to using other funds or building interventions into other activities)

8. Make recommendations The Team will analyze the landscape analyses and make recommendations for Mission programming promoting climate change adaptation generally, and using climate change adaptation funding specifically. Recommendations will include quick wins or low-hanging fruit, actions not requiring collaboration, catalytic and transformational work, etc. at various levels including local, regional and national.


99

www.usaid.gov 3524-Fax: (202) 216 0000-Tel: (202) 712

Washington, DC 20523 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW1300

U.S. Agency for International Development

| DOCUMENT TITLE