Mount Napak

UGATPA31
Mount Napak

Country: Uganda

Administrative region: Northern (Region)

Central co-ordinates: 2.08333 N, 34.29707 E

Area: 153km²

Qualifying IPA Criteria

A(i)Site contains one or more globally threatened species, A(iv)Site contains one or more range restricted endemic species that are potentially threatened, B(ii)Site contains an exceptional number of species of high conservation importance

IPA assessment rationale

Napak CFR qualifies as an IPA under criteria A. Sub-criterion A(i) is triggered by the presence of Aloe wilsonii, a globally Vulnerable species, as well as populations of the threatened Aloe tweedieae (VU), and Angraecopsis holochila (VU). Additionally, it triggers sub-criterion A(iv) due to the presence of the endemic and range restricted Euphorbia petraea (LC), which is only known to occur at this site. Lastly, Criterion C(iii) is triggered due to the presence of 14.36 km2 of the nationally threatened Afromontane dry forest (CR) habitat, making up 6.14% of the natural resource.

Site description

Mount Napak was gazetted as a Central Forest Reserve (CFR) in 1948 and regazetted in 1963. It covers an area of 153 km2 with a boundary length of 59 km, all artificial and adjoining community lands. It lies between 1,150 to 2,537 m asl (MWE 2002). The reserve lies adjacent to Iriri town in Napak District in Karamoja, approximately 60 km southwest of Moroto and 80 km northeast of Soroti (Davenport et al. 1996). In the Flora of Tropical East Africa classification, this IPA is situated in the U1 region of Uganda within the Sudanian Regional Centre of Endemism (White 1983).

Botanical significance

The reserve harbours important populations of Vulnerable species Aloe wilsonii (MTWA 2018, Baldwin et al. 2022). Aloe wilsonii is distributed on either side of the northern Kenya-Uganda border; from Mount Elgon to Karamoja on the Uganda side and from Mt Chaichai in Kenya (Baldwin et al. 2022). This species occurs on rocky slopes of isolated hills, at 1,525–3,000 m in altitude (Carter et al. 2011). A second aloe species within this reserve has an even more limited distribution. Aloe cheranganiensis (LC) is only known from Karamoja and adjacent West Pokot County in Kenya (Cole & Forrest 2017). Mount Napak is therefore one of the only sites globally from which this species is known.

The site is one of the most important for Ugandan endemic species Euphorbia petraea (LC), a succulent shrub largely limited to Karamoja sub-region. Mount Napak is one of two sites nationally from which this species is known, the other being Toror Hills. Napak, however, is the only site in which this species is completely within a protected area. This site therefore represents one of the best opportunities currently to protect this unique species.

Afrocarpus gracilior, a nationally Endangered tree species is also known from this reserve (WCS 2016). While this species is globally assessed as Least Concern, in Uganda it is threatened by tree felling for charcoal production and expansion of agricultural activity around the lower slopes of Mount Napak.

In a study by Wasswa et al. (2011), Napak IPA was reported as one of the most appropriate locations for in situ conservation and germplasm collection for Acacia senegal because maximum diversity can be secured from the population at this site. Acacia senegal produces high-quality gum arabic and dominates international trade (Fagg & Allison, 2004). Gum arabic has a wide variety of uses, primarily food production, but is also an ingredient in local medicine.

Napak is also one of five best sites nationally for the critically endangered Afromontane dry forest. It contains 14.36 km2 of this nationally threatened habitat. This comprises 6.14% of all Afromontane dry forest habitat found within Uganda.

A total of 224 species of trees and shrubs (18% of known trees and shrubs in Uganda) have been recorded from Mt Napak IPA (Davenport et al. 1996). Out of these species, 24% (54 species) were Forest-dependent species (FF-species) while 33% (75 species) were Forest non-dependent species (Fn-species). The sporadic regional insecurity caused by armed cattle rustlers in Karamoja subregion, has hampered botanical surveys in this site (Davenport et al. 1996; Ojelel 2022). However, there is a probability of uncovering higher species richness in this IPA if more extensive botanical surveys are conducted with the inclusion of all growth habits.

Habitat and geology

Mt. Napak is an extinct volcano in Napak District, Uganda located on the northern edge of the Bokora Corridor Wildlife Reserve. It is a deeply dissected Carbonatite-Nephelinite Volcano of Early Miocene age (20.5 – 19 Ma) in northeastern Uganda, posed impressively on the rigorously flat Karamoja Plains beneath (IUGS 2022). Additionally, it is one of the few volcanoes in Africa that exposes its innards as well as parts of the edifice and the central plug.

The IPA has forested valleys and patches of forest on the plateau, but most of the spurs are sparsely wooded with species such as Diospyros mespiliformis, Astropanax abyssinucus, Blighia unijugata, while woodlands are dominated by Acacia-Commiphora. The rivers running southwards supplying the permanent water holes around the foot of Napak have narrow strips of gallery forest on either side.

The soils in this IPA are characterized by a very high proportion of clay and silt and the more well-drained soils on foothills (Aleper & Lotyang 2006). They may be classified into two groups namely the reddish-brown clays and the black cotton clays; the former occur at the base of the foothills, are fairly well drained while the latter occur further out on the plain, are poorly drained, intractable soils, which crack to a great depth as they dry (Aleper & Lotyang 2006).

The climate in Karamoja sub-region is characterized by high rainfall variability and evapotranspiration. The sub-region’s rainfall regime ranges between 350-1000 mm per annum. This precipitation is usually sporadic and falls in one rainy season. The sub-region generally suffers from poor rainfall distribution rather than from low rainfall totals. However, it is the intensity and the variability, particularly the existence of sporadic intense wet periods followed by drought events that has always had debilitating impacts on the sub-region (Egeru et al. 2014).

Conservation issues

Mount Napak has been designated a Central Forest Reserve since 1963. This site also falls partially within Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve, covering the southern slopes up to the main ridge of the mountain. Its boundary has not been maintained for a long time, but some old concrete cairns and directional trenches used for its demarcation still exist.

Several human activities are carried out in this IPA albeit illegally. For instance, settlement and crop cultivation (especially the Nabwal and Iriri sub-counties), collection of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as wild edible plants, charcoal production and firewood collection, harvesting of construction materials, livestock grazing and indiscriminate bush burning (Ojelel 2022). In early studies, Rudagya et al. (2010) reported that there were 1,400 people settled around the base of Mount Napak inside the reserve, which puts pressure on the integrity of the reserve. The encroachment is fuelled by some local communities in Karamoja claiming customary rights to use forest resources despite its designation as a protected area (MWE 2015). Environmental Alert (2011) also identified that the pertinent threats to this IPA are associated with lack of good forest governance, unclear or unjust land tenure issues, lack of awareness of policies such as the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, 2003 and weak law enforcement. Presently, there is a growing change in the livelihoods in the Napak district (Karamoja sub-region) from pastoralist cattle rearing to subsistence cultivation.

Some NGOs such as Integrated Rural Development Initiative (IRDI), and World Food Programme (WFP) started implementing interventions geared towards encouraging the use of energy-efficient stoves in the Karamoja sub-region (Environmental Alert 2011). Additionally, there was the formation and strengthening of collaborative forest management (CFM) systems with adjacent communities. This was intended to enhance patrolling and eviction of agricultural encroachers and clear systematic demarcation of forest boundaries as strategies to reduce illegal activity within the CFR. Funding for this came from GEF/UNEP project "Institutional Capacity Strengthening for Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing in Uganda." Accordingly, Tongi CFM Forum is working to improve the activities being implemented inside and outside of the reserve. Edara Ngakito CFM Group required training to embrace conservation and forest management in general.

Ecosystem services

Mt. Napak is a source of many ecosystem goods and services to the community. The materials collected include wild edible plants (Ojelel et al. 2019), firewood and charcoal, construction materials (poles, thatch grass, fibre, and reeds) and bush meat. The community also carries out subsistence farming of crops such as maize, and sorghum at the foot of Mount Napak. The reserve acts as a catchment area for Okere and Okwanges rivers which are permanent water sources for cattle and communities in Kadike, Lothaar and Michokho (NFA 2008). It is also a catchment area for Lake Kyoga and serves as a windbreak between Teso and Karamoja (NFA 2008). Although underutilized, Mt. Napak CFR offers mountain climbing, camping sites, bird watching and forest walk services. The community also collects gum arabica which is used locally as food, gumming spears and pots, glueing arrows, glueing broken stools, calabashes and joining leather (Egadu et al., 2007) and for sale.

Site assessor(s)

Assessed by:

Samuel Ojelel, Makerere University Herbarium

James Kalema, Makerere University Herbarium

Sophie Richards, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Iain Darbyshire, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Haley Gladitsch, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Date of first assessment: 30th Dec 2024

Reviewed by:

John Giribo, National Forestry Authority

IPA criterion A species

Species Qualifying sub-criterion ≥ 1% of global population ≥ 5% of national population 1 of 5 best sites nationally Entire global population Socio-economically important Abundance at site
Aloe wilsonii Reynolds A(i) True False True False False Frequent
Aloe tweedieae Christian A(i) True False False False True Unknown
Angraecopsis holochila Kraenzl. A(i) True True True False False Unknown

Aloe wilsonii Reynolds

Qualifying sub-criterion:
A(i)
≥ 1% of global population:
True
≥ 5% of national population:
False
1 of 5 best sites nationally:
True
Entire global population:
False
Socio-economically important:
False
Abundance at site:
Frequent

Aloe tweedieae Christian

Qualifying sub-criterion:
A(i)
≥ 1% of global population:
True
≥ 5% of national population:
False
1 of 5 best sites nationally:
False
Entire global population:
False
Socio-economically important:
True
Abundance at site:
Unknown

Angraecopsis holochila Kraenzl.

Qualifying sub-criterion:
A(i)
≥ 1% of global population:
True
≥ 5% of national population:
True
1 of 5 best sites nationally:
True
Entire global population:
False
Socio-economically important:
False
Abundance at site:
Unknown

IPA criterion C qualifying habitats

Habitat Qualifying sub-criterion ≥ 5% of national resource ≥ 10% of national resource 1 of 5 best sites nationally Areal coverage at site
Afromontane dry forest (CR) C(iii) True False True 14.36
Dry Combretum wooded grassland (VU) C(iii) False False False 29.57

Afromontane dry forest (CR)

Qualifying sub-criterion:
C(iii)
≥ 5% of national resource:
True
≥ 10% of national resource:
False
Areal coverage at site:
14.36

Dry Combretum wooded grassland (VU)

Qualifying sub-criterion:
C(iii)
≥ 5% of national resource:
False
≥ 10% of national resource:
False
Areal coverage at site:
29.57

General site habitats

General site habitat Percent coverage Importance
Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Dry Forest No value Minor
Savanna - Dry Savanna No value Major
Savanna - Moist Savanna No value Minor
Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry Lowland Grassland No value Minor
Rocky Areas - Rocky Areas [e.g. inland cliffs, mountain peaks] No value Major
Artificial - Terrestrial - Arable Land No value Minor
Artificial - Terrestrial - Subtropical/Tropical Heavily Degraded Former Forest No value Minor

Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Dry Forest

Percent coverage:
No value
Importance:
Minor

Savanna - Dry Savanna

Percent coverage:
No value
Importance:
Major

Savanna - Moist Savanna

Percent coverage:
No value
Importance:
Minor

Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry Lowland Grassland

Percent coverage:
No value
Importance:
Minor

Rocky Areas - Rocky Areas [e.g. inland cliffs, mountain peaks]

Percent coverage:
No value
Importance:
Major

Artificial - Terrestrial - Arable Land

Percent coverage:
No value
Importance:
Minor

Artificial - Terrestrial - Subtropical/Tropical Heavily Degraded Former Forest

Percent coverage:
No value
Importance:
Minor

Land use types

Land use type Percent coverage Importance
Nature conservation No value Major
Forestry No value Minor
Tourism / Recreation No value Minor
Agriculture (arable) No value Minor

Nature conservation

Percent coverage:
No value
Importance:
Major

Forestry

Percent coverage:
No value
Importance:
Minor

Tourism / Recreation

Percent coverage:
No value
Importance:
Minor

Agriculture (arable)

Percent coverage:
No value
Importance:
Minor

Threats

Threat Severity Timing
Agriculture & aquaculture - Annual & perennial non-timber crops - Shifting agriculture Medium Ongoing - increasing
Agriculture & aquaculture - Annual & perennial non-timber crops - Small-holder farming Medium Ongoing - increasing
Biological resource use - Logging & wood harvesting - Intentional use: large scale (species being assessed is the target) [harvest] Medium Ongoing - increasing
Residential & commercial development - Housing & urban areas Medium Ongoing - increasing
Agriculture & aquaculture - Livestock farming & ranching - Small-holder grazing, ranching or farming Medium Ongoing - increasing
Natural system modifications - Fire & fire suppression - Increase in fire frequency/intensity Medium Ongoing - stable

Agriculture & aquaculture - Annual & perennial non-timber crops - Shifting agriculture

Severity:
Medium
Timing:
Ongoing - increasing

Agriculture & aquaculture - Annual & perennial non-timber crops - Small-holder farming

Severity:
Medium
Timing:
Ongoing - increasing

Biological resource use - Logging & wood harvesting - Intentional use: large scale (species being assessed is the target) [harvest]

Severity:
Medium
Timing:
Ongoing - increasing

Residential & commercial development - Housing & urban areas

Severity:
Medium
Timing:
Ongoing - increasing

Agriculture & aquaculture - Livestock farming & ranching - Small-holder grazing, ranching or farming

Severity:
Medium
Timing:
Ongoing - increasing

Natural system modifications - Fire & fire suppression - Increase in fire frequency/intensity

Severity:
Medium
Timing:
Ongoing - stable

Protected areas

Protected area name Protected area type Relationship with IPA Areal overlap
Napak Central Forest Reserve Forest Reserve (conservation) protected/conservation area overlaps with IPA 147
Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve Wildlife Reserve protected/conservation area overlaps with IPA 130

Napak Central Forest Reserve

Protected area type:
Forest Reserve (conservation)
Relationship with IPA:
protected/conservation area overlaps with IPA
Areal overlap:
147

Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve

Protected area type:
Wildlife Reserve
Relationship with IPA:
protected/conservation area overlaps with IPA
Areal overlap:
130

Management type

Management type Description Year started Year finished
Protected Area management plan in place Needs updating No value No value

Protected Area management plan in place

Needs updating
Year started:
No value
Year finished:
No value

Bibliography

White, A.F., 1983

The vegetation of Africa. A descriptive memoir to accompany the UNESCO/AETFAT/UNSO vegetation map of Africa

Cole, T. & Forrest, T., 2017

Aloes of Uganda. A Field Guide.

MTWA, 2018

Red List of Threatened Species of Uganda 2018

Ojelel, S., Mucunguzi, P., Katuura, E., Kakudidi, E. K., Namaganda, M. & Kalema, J., 2019

Wild edible plants used by communities in and around selected forest reserves of Teso-Karamoja region, Uganda. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, Vol 15, page(s) 1-14 Available online

NFA, 2008

Managing Central Forest Reserves for the people of Uganda: Functions of Central Forest Reserves.

Ojelel, S., 2022

Ethnobotany, nutritional value and floristic diversity of wild edible plants in selected central forest reserves of North Eastern Uganda

PhD Thesis (pub. Makerere University, Kampala)

WCS, 2016

Nationally Threatened Species for Uganda: National Red List for Uganda for the following Taxa: Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Butterflies, Dragonflies and Vascular Plants

Available online

Aleper, D. K. & Lotyang, J. (eds), 2006

State of environment report for Moroto district 2006.

Available online

Egeru, A., Okia, C., & Leeuw, J. D., 2014

Trees and livelihoods in Karamoja, Uganda.

Available online

Environmental Alert, 2011

Final Report for Expanded Consultations for REDD-Plus Preparation Proposal for Uganda.

Available online

Fagg, C., & Allison, G. E., 2004

Acacia Senegal and the gum arabic trade: monograph and annotated bibliography.

Tropical Forestry Papers, Vol 42, page(s) 1-261 Available online

IUGS, 2022

The first 100 IUGS geological heritage sites

International Union of Geological Sciences Available online

Mulumba, J. W., Lwasa, J., & Atieno, F., 2011

Distribution of Acacia senegal (L.) Willd. (Fabaceae) in Uganda and its relationship to climatic factors

African Journal of Ecology, Vol 49(3), page(s) 261-266

MWE, 2002

Uganda Forestry Nature Conservation Master Plan, Ministry of Water and Environment

Available online

MWE, 2015

Status of Uganda’s Forestry

,

Tenure in Mystery: the Status of Land Under Wildlife, Forestry and Mining Concessions in Karamoja Region, Uganda.

Nomadic Peoples, Vol 17, page(s) 33-65.

Recommended citation

Samuel Ojelel, James Kalema, Sophie Richards, Iain Darbyshire, Haley Gladitsch (2025) Tropical Important Plant Areas Explorer: Mount Napak (Uganda). https://tipas.kew.org/site/mount-napak/ (Accessed on 14/05/2025)