Uganda’s Key Biodiversity Areas: Mapping the Ground That Cannot Be Lost

Conservation almost never has sufficient funding or time. The more pressing question, then, is which places a nation cannot afford to lose.

A new study sought to answer that question for Uganda, a country that is both among Africa’s most densely populated and among its most biologically diverse.

Researchers mapped the remaining locations of threatened plants and animals, then determined which sites are most vital to their survival.

A nation rich in life

Uganda contains an extraordinary variety of life within a relatively small area. It ranks eighth for biodiversity among Africa’s 54 countries, while having the continent’s greatest species richness per unit area.

The country is home to 1,742 recorded terrestrial vertebrate species, including more than half of all African bird species.

It also has at least 4,816 plant species, as well as around 1,300 butterfly species and 260 dragonfly species.

Decades of persistent decline

This natural wealth has been diminishing for many years.

From 1975 to 1995, hunting and the conversion of forest, savanna and wetland caused Uganda to lose about half of its biodiversity value.

Since the 1930s, the human population has increased by two to three percent annually and is now close to 35 million.

As people occupied more land, several large mammals disappeared entirely, including black and white rhinoceros and oryx.

African wild dogs and cheetahs have not done much better. Fewer than 25 individuals of each are now believed to remain in the whole country.

Mapping what still matters

To identify the sites of greatest importance, the researchers assembled decades of survey data covering mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and plants.

Specialists used forest survey information from the 1990s alongside years of subsequent field research.

A substantial share of the material came from the Wildlife Conservation Society and records kept by Makerere University.

Each species was linked to the parks or fragments of natural habitat in which it had genuinely been recorded.

Sites the world should notice

The team then used the Global Standard for recognising Key Biodiversity Areas. These locations support globally important populations of threatened species or species with restricted geographical ranges.

The assessment identified 36 terrestrial Key Biodiversity Areas in Uganda, ranging from Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, home to eastern gorillas, to small reserves protecting rare shrews and trees.

Nine freshwater sites near Lake Victoria, evaluated by the IUCN, brought the overall figure to 45.

New places worth protecting

Twenty-three of Uganda’s current Important Bird Areas satisfied the revised Key Biodiversity Areas criteria.

The study additionally identified 13 new sites, many of which were prompted by plants, amphibians or mammals overlooked in earlier assessments.

Of the 36 terrestrial locations, 12 are outside any protected area. A considerable proportion of the country’s most valuable land has no official protection whatsoever.

Finding the irreplaceable ground

The researchers used a conservation-planning tool known as Marxan to identify the smallest set of sites capable of retaining every threatened species and habitat.

When run 100 times, the analysis repeatedly selected the same locations.

Protected areas in the western Albertine Rift were the most difficult to replace, together with the northern woodlands of Acholiland and southern Karamoja’s savannas.

Much of this territory sits outside park borders, where livestock are grazed but indigenous plants and animals continue to survive.

Where the money should go

Collectively, Key Biodiversity Areas and irreplaceable sites account for roughly 14.9 percent of Uganda, marginally below the international 17 percent target.

However, many of the most significant locations receive inadequate funding or lack protection altogether.

Eleven forest reserves and a series of unprotected sites require the greatest support, with several containing endemic aloes and cycads found nowhere else.

“Evaluating how spend may achieve different results in a return on investment framework forces conservation practitioners to be much clearer about what they actually hope to achieve,” said Dr. Andrew Plumptre, who led the study.

“Most species plans do not identify what they really aim to achieve and as a result cannot allocate funds optimally.”

Threats that keep growing

Pressure on these sites is not declining. Rapid population growth, increasing demand for agricultural land, and an emerging mining and oil sector are all placing further strain on the natural habitat that survives.

East Madi Wildlife Reserve, identified by the research as irreplaceable, has already experienced extensive settlement and degradation.

Where major development proceeds, the authors contend that companies should first avoid Key Biodiversity Areas, using offsets for their effects only as a final measure.

A plan worth updating

The researchers regard their map as a snapshot, not a definitive answer.

Further sites are likely to meet the criteria as new species are described and as additional groups of plants and animals undergo formal assessment.

The plan will need to be redrawn if protected areas continue to be lost or degraded.

For the moment, the study provides Uganda with something it previously lacked: a clear view of the land that still contains the country’s remaining reserves of wildlife.